Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

[Otaku-sempai]

How is it complication? I'm not insisting that characters describe maintaining their gear; I'm just saying that "weapons and armor that require more maintenance are more tiring to travel with" as a way of describing the numbers in the game. I'm not trying to change any rule or any mechanic.

You are using a very loose interpretation of what Encumbrance encompasses. I, in my own opinion, find your definition too broad. Let's leave it at that. Your table, your rules.

What's to stop you from lashing 100 musical instruments to your back? Allow me to quote from the rule book, page 77:

Skilled musicians will usually carry one or more musical instruments with them on their travels.

And yet there's zero encumbrance. That's not the only example, either.

The answer is: if a player actually says "I'm going to lash two dozen staves to my back" the LM can say, "Ok, that's going to be 8 encumbrance." If the player says, "No it won't...according to RAW a staff has zero encumbrance!" the LM replies with: "And just at that moment a Balrog appears, and since he doesn't have any stats you can't roll any dice. You're dead. GTFO of my gaming table."

Except that RAW does not say that a staff has zero encumbrance; that is a determination that you have made arbitrarily. And we are BOTH saying that common sense must be used, but you want to make an exception that I am not open to.

And it's not that musical instruments have no Encumbrance; its that they have no set Encumbrance as it would vary according to the size and bulk of the instrument. Again, we have to apply common sense: you might carry a flute upon your person; a fiddle might be in your backpack; you're probably not carrying a large instrument, such as Dwalin and Balin's viols, around with you unless you have a pack-animal.

[Glorelendil]

How is it complication? I'm not insisting that characters describe maintaining their gear; I'm just saying that "weapons and armor that require more maintenance are more tiring to travel with" as a way of describing the numbers in the game. I'm not trying to change any rule or any mechanic.

You are using a very loose interpretation of what Encumbrance encompasses. I, in my own opinion, find your definition too broad. Let's leave it at that. Your table, your rules.

What's to stop you from lashing 100 musical instruments to your back? Allow me to quote from the rule book, page 77:

Skilled musicians will usually carry one or more musical instruments with them on their travels.

And yet there's zero encumbrance. That's not the only example, either.

The answer is: if a player actually says "I'm going to lash two dozen staves to my back" the LM can say, "Ok, that's going to be 8 encumbrance." If the player says, "No it won't...according to RAW a staff has zero encumbrance!" the LM replies with: "And just at that moment a Balrog appears, and since he doesn't have any stats you can't roll any dice. You're dead. GTFO of my gaming table."

Except that RAW does not say that a staff has zero encumbrance; that is a determination that you have made arbitrarily. And we are BOTH saying that common sense must be used, but you want to make an exception that I am not open to.

Whoah whoah whoah....

First of all RAW doesn't say anything about staff encumbrance because there's no staff in RAW. Second it's not a "determination that I have made arbitrarily" it's an "idea that I have floated for carefully considered reasons".

And it's not that musical instruments have no Encumbrance; its that they have no set Encumbrance as it would vary according to the size and bulk of the instrument. Again, we have to apply common sense: you might carry a flute upon your person; a fiddle might be in your backpack; you're probably not carrying a large instrument, such as Dwalin and Balin's viols, around with you unless you have a pack-animal.

Well, since we're citing RAW...where does it say that it can't be a viol? For that matter, why doesn't traveling gear contribute to base Fatigue? Is it realistic for a short sword to contribute to base Fatigue, but not winter camping gear and a week's worth of food? Is it realistic that if you pass all your Travel rolls those things weigh nothing?

Oh, here's another example: according to RAW a single gold piece "weighs" as much as a short sword (1 T == 1G == 1E). And that a gem that is worth 10T weighs...yup, 10E. That's been explained by others by saying that treasure encumbrance is less about its actual weight than it is about the stress of walking around in the wild with so much treasure on you, attracting bandits and dragons and the like.

It's neither actual mass, nor physical discomfort. How do you explain it?

RAW is rife with distortion of reality for the sake of a good game. Now, my version of the staff may not fit your vision, and thus not be your idea of a "good game", but I'm not buying the argument that it's a flawed design because it's unrealistic.

[Otaku-sempai]

Whoah whoah whoah....

First of all RAW doesn't say anything about staff encumbrance because there's no staff in RAW. Second it's not a "determination that I have made arbitrarily" it's an "idea that I have floated for carefully considered reasons".

Yes, I didn't state that as clearly as I should have. The staff as a weapon doesn't appear in RAW, but you have assigned it an Encumbrance rating of 0 for reasons that I find dubious. We both know quite well that if a Quarterstaff showed up in the hands of a Bree-lander in the forthcoming Adventurer's Companion and presented as a new weapon for a Bree-lander Hero then it would be statted with an Encumbrance, probably a rating of 2 or 3. It sure as heck wouldn't be rated at 0.

Well, since we're citing RAW...where does it say that it can't be a viol? For that matter, why doesn't traveling gear contribute to base Fatigue? Is it realistic for a short sword to contribute to base Fatigue, but not winter camping gear and a week's worth of food? Is it realistic that if you pass all your Travel rolls those things weigh nothing?

I never said that you can't have a ginormous viol, just that you probably aren't carrying it on your back. That is what pack-animals, carts and wagons are for.

Your personal gear does count towards your total Encumbrance rating, so it's not as though it has no effect at all. Your carried gear can effect such things as your Parry score. And it is assumed that if you are traveling by pony or boat that some of the load of your gear is being carried on them; that is why your Fatigue test is affected by it.

Oh, here's another example: according to RAW a single gold piece "weighs" as much as a short sword (1 T == 1G == 1E). And that a gem that is worth 10T weighs...yup, 10E. That's been explained by others by saying that treasure encumbrance is less about its actual weight than it is about the stress of walking around in the wild with so much treasure on you, attracting bandits and dragons and the like.

It's neither actual mass, nor physical discomfort. How do you explain it?

I explain it as a game mechanic that might not be well thought-out. I've never been especially happy with it. But in other instances bulk might count more towards Encumbrance than actual weight. The application of 1G to 1 E is awkward but is a consequence of the general description of 1 point of Treasure as the amount needed to support one Adventurer for one month at a Prosperous standard of living. One gold coin goes a long way in Middle-earth.

RAW is rife with distortion of reality for the sake of a good game. Now, my version of the staff may not fit your vision, and thus not be your idea of a "good game", but I'm not buying the argument that it's a flawed design because it's unrealistic.

All RPGs make compromises with reality. That's inevitable. But there is difference between 'not realistic' and 'too unrealistic' and I think that your system crosses that line. Granted, that is my subjective opinion and you are in no way obligated to agree with me. I do not think that your method achieves a good balance in terms of weapons and gear.

[Otaku-sempai]

This seems right to me and might have some effect on this discussion:

A Hero who attempts to use a new or foreign weapon with which he has no experience should be considered to be unskilled with that weapon with no skill ranks (no Success die, unless it comes from another source). That precludes substituting the Dagger skill when using an unfamiliar weapon; it shouldn't be done. The good news is that it probably should allow for Piercing attacks, so Edge and Injury should still apply. However, you need at least one Success die to be able to score a called shot. War clubs, staves, slings, etc. would all fall under these rules.

Improvised weapons are treated separately under the rules for Brawling and Throwing attacks.

[Glorelendil]

We both know quite well that if a Quarterstaff showed up in the hands of a Bree-lander in the forthcoming Adventurer's Companion and presented as a new weapon for a Bree-lander Hero then it would be statted with an Encumbrance, probably a rating of 2 or 3. It sure as heck wouldn't be rated at 0.

Probably. If it's a new weapon for which you need a specific skill. I think a staff should have an encumbrance of 1 or 2, truthfully. Certainly not more than a spear. Then again I'm picturing a head-height piece of wood, about as thick as good spade handle, not an 8' log shod with iron.

But something has to give. Even with the 4 point allocation for it being a "Simple Weapon", if you add Encumbrance then something else...damage, injury, or edge...has to improve.

I'm just not stuck on worrying about whether something's Encumbrance correlates to how much it weighs in real life. I'm looking at the impact that Encumbrance changes make on the mechanics of the game. "Ok, so if this player chooses to use a weapon that doesn't do a lot of damage, and can't make Wounds, is it a fair trade that he gets Weary less often?" Sounds good to me.

I never said that you can't have a ginormous viol, just that you probably aren't carrying it on your back. That is what pack-animals, carts and wagons are for.

Well, RAW doesn't say that you have to have a pack animal to have a viol, either. Sure, it's tough to picture, but I don't recall the Dwarves showing up with ponies at Bilbo's door.

So how about a lute or a clarinet or Thorin's harp? Those could go on the back. Do they add Encumbrance? Not according to RAW.

Your personal gear does count towards your total Encumbrance rating, so it's not as though it has no effect at all.

Incorrect. Personal gear only affects the Fatigue gain from failed Travel rolls. Page 77:
"Players only take into consideration the Encumbrance rating of their travelling gear when they are using the rules for resolving a Journey (see page 158)."

But the language is a little vague (the word 'only' should be moved to after 'gear') and there's been debate about it. Consensus is that your Encumbrance is only your armor and weapons (and treasure, although a lot of people flat-out ignore that rule).

Your carried gear can effect such things as your Parry score.

Do you mean if you carry a shield? Or are you suggesting that Encumbrance directly affects Parry?

I do not think that your method achieves a good balance in terms of weapons and gear.

What's the balance issue with zero encumbrance staves? Except for the parade of horribles argument about carrying 20 of them, that is. So a character carries around a sub-optimal weapon that doesn't do much damage, but in return his threshold for becoming Weary is two points better. Where's the game imbalance in that?

Note that all of this would be solved by an additional parameter for close combat weapons: Parry. If those two pesky extra points could be spent on 1 point of Parry, then we could give the staff an Encumbrance of 2 and all the numbers would zero out. Or even Parry 2 and higher Edge or lower Injury.

I don't think it's really a game balance objection you have; it's an aesthetic objection. Just like I have an aesthetic objection to staves being as deadly as bladed steel weapons. A quarter staff statted exactly like the Great Sword you designed would have zero impact on game balance, and I would hate it because it's a blunt piece of wood.

[Glorelendil]

This seems right to me and might have some effect on this discussion:

A Hero who attempts to use a new or foreign weapon with which he has no experience should be considered to be unskilled with that weapon with no skill ranks (no Success die, unless it comes from another source). That precludes substituting the Dagger skill when using an unfamiliar weapon; it shouldn't be done. The good news is that it probably should allow for Piercing attacks, so Edge and Injury should still apply. However, you need at least one Success die to be able to score a called shot. War clubs, staves, slings, etc. would all fall under these rules.

Improvised weapons are treated separately under the rules for Brawling and Throwing attacks.

I guess I don't really worry about it because gear is plot-proof: you cannot lose your weapon or have it break, so there's never a need to use a strange weapon. But I suppose the LM might set something up where you have to pick up abandoned weapons. (I.e., you have to use the cursed Guisarme-Voulge to banish the evil spirit, etc.)

[Indur Dawndeath]

Well, I used your calculator to build a hypothetical Great sword:

Great sword
Damage: 9
Edge: 10
Injury: 18
Encumbrance: 4
Group: Swords
Notes: Two-handed weapon. A called shot results in Disarm. Cannot be used by Hobbits or Dwarves.

I wasn't expecting it to balance, but it did. On the other hand, I doubt that any of the Free Peoples would have created a Great sword with the exception of the Númenóreans, unless it was an exploration by an individual sword-smith of just how far he could take his craft.

I would have made it:
Great sword
Damage: 10
Edge: 10
Injury: 16
Encumbrance: 3
Group: Swords
Notes: Two-handed weapon. A called shot results in Disarm. Cannot be used by Hobbits or Dwarves.
But I can see why you chose injury 18 from longsword, but I would argue that the lethal hits from the sword comes from thrusting and a greatsword would be more about powerfull swings

[Glorelendil]

but I would argue that the lethal hits from the sword comes from thrusting and a greatsword would be more about powerfull swings

Well in that sense it would more like an axe and less like a spear, and axes have higher Injury than spears, so...

More importantly, using the Long-Hafted axe as the model (because we have both Axe and Great Axe as examples), "hybrid" weapons have a 2H damage that is the average of the single handed and two handed versions, and encumbrance is the average of both version as well. Applying that to the sword and the long sword we can extrapolate stats for a Great Sword exactly like OS came up with using the point budget.

[Otaku-sempai]

I guess I don't really worry about it because gear is plot-proof: you cannot lose your weapon or have it break, so there's never a need to use a strange weapon. But I suppose the LM might set something up where you have to pick up abandoned weapons. (I.e., you have to use the cursed Guisarme-Voulge to banish the evil spirit, etc.)

That's not entirely true. It is possible to lose a weapon or have a shield break and not be able to replace it for at least a little while (say, for example, not until you reach the nearest friendly town). Special items such as a Woodman's hound or Cultural Rewards have greater or lesser degrees of plot immunity. If you are captured by enemies and stripped of your weapons, you may have to rely on your fists, improvised weapons and/or that spiked mace that you just wrested from a goblin until you can recover your own gear.

And, yes, there is the possibility of needing a strange weapon for a specific purpose, perhaps to solve the puzzle posed by a riddle. Of course, you might not need to actually fight using that weapon.

[Otaku-sempai]

I World have made it:
Great sword
Damage: 10
Edge: 10
Injury: 16
Encumbrance: 3
Group: Swords
Notes: Two-handed weapon. A called shot results in Disarm. Cannot be used by Hobbits or Dwarves.
But I can see why you chose injury 18 from longsword, but I would argue that the lethal hits from the sword comes from thrusting and a greatsword would be more about powerfull swings

As Glorelendil surmises, I obtained my results based on the weapon table for hero characters in the Adventurer's Book. It just happened to work well within his point budget. There is room for variants based on experimentation.