Minimum ST for weapons in 4th Ed

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Just a quick question.

With the ability to buy extra striking ST and extra lifting ST, which is
the minimum ST for calculating weapons based on.

I ask this, because it makes a difference in readying times, and fatigue
purposes for some heavier weapons.

Thanks.

Voidsinger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"Voidsinger" <Voidsinger@no.reference.point> wrote in message
newsan.2005.06.30.10.01.58.924686@no.reference.point...
> Just a quick question.
>
> With the ability to buy extra striking ST and extra lifting ST, which
is
> the minimum ST for calculating weapons based on.
>

By my reading of the rules, it's your base ST score.

--
Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

I'd house rule this to use striking ST instead, if the official word is
base ST. It seems logical that if the ST you buy makes you swing it
harder it will also make you recover it quicker.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

That's what this group is for, most of the time at least. Just
remember rule #1: Gamemaster is the final arbiter. Bend & break the
official rules to make the game better for your group.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:01:58 +1000, Voidsinger
<Voidsinger@no.reference.point> wrote:

>Just a quick question.
>
>With the ability to buy extra striking ST and extra lifting ST, which is
>the minimum ST for calculating weapons based on.

I'd say Base ST (or: "the lower of Striking ST and Lifting ST"),
because I feel that the minimum requirements represent the capacity of
both lifting and swinging the weapon easily, i.e.: having strenght and
mass enough to swing a weapon at its best.

Just my opinion, however.
Korin Duval

--

"Truth requires a great amount of courage;
Fiction requires a great amount of maturity."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:00:24 GMT, korinNOduvalSPAM@yahoo.it (Korin
Duval) wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:01:58 +1000, Voidsinger
><Voidsinger@no.reference.point> wrote:
>
>>Just a quick question.
>>
>>With the ability to buy extra striking ST and extra lifting ST, which is
>>the minimum ST for calculating weapons based on.
>
>I'd say Base ST (or: "the lower of Striking ST and Lifting ST"),
>because I feel that the minimum requirements represent the capacity of
>both lifting and swinging the weapon easily, i.e.: having strenght and
>mass enough to swing a weapon at its best.

I'd Striking Strength because that is enough strength and mass to
swing a weapon at it's best. Low Lifting ST will be represented by
the burden the weapon represents to encumberance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42c3d72f.8186286@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:00:24 GMT, korinNOduvalSPAM@yahoo.it (Korin
> Duval) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:01:58 +1000, Voidsinger
> ><Voidsinger@no.reference.point> wrote:
> >
> >>Just a quick question.
> >>
> >>With the ability to buy extra striking ST and extra lifting ST,
which is
> >>the minimum ST for calculating weapons based on.
> >
> >I'd say Base ST (or: "the lower of Striking ST and Lifting ST"),
> >because I feel that the minimum requirements represent the capacity
of
> >both lifting and swinging the weapon easily, i.e.: having strenght
and
> >mass enough to swing a weapon at its best.
>
> I'd Striking Strength because that is enough strength and mass to
> swing a weapon at it's best. Low Lifting ST will be represented by
> the burden the weapon represents to encumberance.
>

I could be swayed by this argument, as long as it doesn't apply to
missile weapons. I might accept lifting ST for a crossbow, but I'd
insist on base ST for a longbow / shortbow / similar weapon.

--
Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

> Just a quick question.
>
> With the ability to buy extra striking ST and extra lifting ST, which is
> the minimum ST for calculating weapons based on.
>
> I ask this, because it makes a difference in readying times, and fatigue
> purposes for some heavier weapons.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Voidsinger

I'd go with Striking Strength, but woe betide the player who buys Striking
Strength before clearing it with me when I'm GMing (and I would clear it
with the GM if I were playing).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"mathilda" <smart_aleck72@yahoo.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:1120139135.937952.118540@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I'd house rule this to use striking ST instead, if the official word is
> base ST. It seems logical that if the ST you buy makes you swing it
> harder it will also make you recover it quicker.
>

What about firearms with min ST. In that case, going from memories of
handling the Springfield rifle as a lad, the strength was needed to hold it
steady, not move it fast.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:45:35 -0700, mathilda wrote:

> I'd house rule this to use striking ST instead, if the official word is
> base ST. It seems logical that if the ST you buy makes you swing it
> harder it will also make you recover it quicker.

Thanks. Both responses.

Looking at the conversion PDF, they advise to preserve Lifting and damage,
to buy the ST at the lifting level if above 10, then buy up the striking
ST. So I guess in order to preserve weapons capability, you'd need to base
it on striking ST.

Sorry to have bothered you about it, but it's not in the FAQ, and I
thought I'd put out feelers for thoughts on the matter.

Voidsinger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

I would Go with Lifint Stenght as the abuy to hold the weapon is a
funtion of lift.

Striking ST would be howm much damage you do.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

> What about firearms with min ST. In that case, going from memories of
> handling the Springfield rifle as a lad, the strength was needed to hold
it
> steady, not move it fast.

Agreed. I've fired many rifles (and own 11 of them), and it's definitely the
strength to hold it steady, not swing it at someone. So I'd use lifting ST
for firearms.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Robert Bunn <adalger@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:42c3d72f.8186286@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:00:24 GMT, korinNOduvalSPAM@yahoo.it (Korin
>> Duval) wrote:
>> >On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:01:58 +1000, Voidsinger
>> ><Voidsinger@no.reference.point> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Just a quick question.
>> >>
>> >>With the ability to buy extra striking ST and extra lifting ST,
> which is
>> >>the minimum ST for calculating weapons based on.
>> >
>> >I'd say Base ST (or: "the lower of Striking ST and Lifting ST"),
>> >because I feel that the minimum requirements represent the capacity
> of
>> >both lifting and swinging the weapon easily, i.e.: having strenght
> and
>> >mass enough to swing a weapon at its best.
>>
>> I'd Striking Strength because that is enough strength and mass to
>> swing a weapon at it's best. Low Lifting ST will be represented by
>> the burden the weapon represents to encumberance.
>
> I could be swayed by this argument, as long as it doesn't apply to
> missile weapons. I might accept lifting ST for a crossbow, but I'd
> insist on base ST for a longbow / shortbow / similar weapon.

If it's not base ST, I'd go with lifting ST, not striking ST. Who
would be better able to hit someone with a ridiculously heavy weapon:
a Dwarf (lifting ST) or Bruce Lee (striking ST)? I'd go with the
Dwarf.


mcv.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Simple, the Lidting Part, the Centory has a better balance point in
which to raise and swing the weapon, but therie strike ST effects how
much damage they can do with it 8)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

OK, I'm going back to 3rd ed on this. New house rule: Unsupported ST,
6 pts/lvl. Counts for ST rolls, damage, min ST, & ST skills but does
not count for HP/Fatigue (depending on which way you go for these).
The whole Lifting vrs Striking seems silly now. Ohhh, look I can swing
this 20lb hammer with one hand really fast but I only do 1d-1?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 01 Jul 2005 11:37:23 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:


>> I could be swayed by this argument, as long as it doesn't apply to
>> missile weapons. I might accept lifting ST for a crossbow, but I'd
>> insist on base ST for a longbow / shortbow / similar weapon.
>
>If it's not base ST, I'd go with lifting ST, not striking ST. Who
>would be better able to hit someone with a ridiculously heavy weapon:
>a Dwarf (lifting ST) or Bruce Lee (striking ST)? I'd go with the
>Dwarf.

Well, you've convinced me to change my mind.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

> On 01 Jul 2005 11:37:23 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>>I could be swayed by this argument, as long as it doesn't apply to
>>>missile weapons. I might accept lifting ST for a crossbow, but I'd
>>>insist on base ST for a longbow / shortbow / similar weapon.
>>
>>If it's not base ST, I'd go with lifting ST, not striking ST. Who
>>would be better able to hit someone with a ridiculously heavy weapon:
>>a Dwarf (lifting ST) or Bruce Lee (striking ST)? I'd go with the
>>Dwarf.

Which would be better: A centaur's horse part (lifting ST) or a centaur's
human part (striking ST).

Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"mcv" <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:42c52af3$0$66755$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Robert Bunn <adalger@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> > news:42c3d72f.8186286@news.telusplanet.net...
> >> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:00:24 GMT, korinNOduvalSPAM@yahoo.it (Korin
> >> Duval) wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:01:58 +1000, Voidsinger
> >> ><Voidsinger@no.reference.point> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Just a quick question.
> >> >>
> >> >>With the ability to buy extra striking ST and extra lifting ST,
> > which is
> >> >>the minimum ST for calculating weapons based on.
> >> >
> >> >I'd say Base ST (or: "the lower of Striking ST and Lifting ST"),
> >> >because I feel that the minimum requirements represent the
capacity
> > of
> >> >both lifting and swinging the weapon easily, i.e.: having strenght
> > and
> >> >mass enough to swing a weapon at its best.
> >>
> >> I'd Striking Strength because that is enough strength and mass to
> >> swing a weapon at it's best. Low Lifting ST will be represented by
> >> the burden the weapon represents to encumberance.
> >
> > I could be swayed by this argument, as long as it doesn't apply to
> > missile weapons. I might accept lifting ST for a crossbow, but I'd
> > insist on base ST for a longbow / shortbow / similar weapon.
>
> If it's not base ST, I'd go with lifting ST, not striking ST. Who
> would be better able to hit someone with a ridiculously heavy weapon:
> a Dwarf (lifting ST) or Bruce Lee (striking ST)? I'd go with the
> Dwarf.
>

I think neither, to tell the truth. Your example says to me, either use
base ST, or require *both* lifting ST and striking ST to match the
minimum (which would be a rather silly build anyway). IMHO, YMMV, BYOB,
etc.

--
Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

mathilda wrote:
> Ohhh, look I can swing this 20lb hammer with one hand really fast but I only do 1d-1?

Who says they swing it "Fast" should they can swing it one handed, but
that does not means they can swing it effectively 8)

BUT also remember out side of supers your lifting ST and Striking ST
should Not be that different.

just like the limits on buying Enhanced move, Extra HP etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:48:55 -0700, roguebfl@gmail.com wrote:

> mathilda wrote:
>> Ohhh, look I can swing this 20lb hammer with one hand really fast but I only do 1d-1?
>
> Who says they swing it "Fast" should they can swing it one handed, but
> that does not means they can swing it effectively 8)
>
> BUT also remember out side of supers your lifting ST and Striking ST
> should Not be that different.
>
> just like the limits on buying Enhanced move, Extra HP etc.

Yep. This has been really educational. Since the issue really will only
apply to one or two characters, I've come up with a compromise based on
what I've read here and on how I see Lifting and Striking Strength.

I see Lifting ST as beeing the raw force able to be applied. Striking ST
is the ability to effectively apply that force, and the rate of
application. So, since lighter weapons have a higher percentage of their
energy delivered by velocity than heavier weapons will tend to have,
Striking ST is more effective at that end. The justification I've seen for
the higher Striking ST (higher than normal speed, without the bulging
biceps which would slow them down, faster twitching muscles) was I think a
reasonable one, and quite with the concept without getting ridiculous.

However, as was pointed out, Lifting ST becomes important as the weapons
weight increases.

So, based on that my rule is.

For those where Striking ST or Lifting ST is not the same as Base ST in
determining Minimum ST:

If the weapons weight is less than half Striking ST, use Striking ST.

For weapons weighing up to Striking ST, use Base ST.

For weapons over that, use Lifting ST.

Exceptions, muscle-powered missile weapons always use Base ST, except
Crossbows (and other preprepared weapons), which are reloaded based on
Lifting ST.


This should cover the huge hammer arguments and the holding the rifle
steady arguments. I thought the latter was actually a very good argument,
since a heavier weapon takes some of the recoil out of the equation and
tend to be aimed, making the rate of change less applicable. Still, when
you look at swords and such, the rate of being able to apply that force is
very important in control. Fatigue issues do apply, since as a weapon
becomes a greater proportion of the user's Lifting ST, it becomes more
tiring to use, but is set against inefficiently swinging a weapon takes
far more energy.

Thanks again for all the help this has been.

Voidsinger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"Jefferson" <Jeff_Wilson63@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:11cb5s8b68gup69@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Which would be better: A centaur's horse part (lifting ST) or a centaur's
> human part (striking ST).

Bad example, unless you think that a Centaurs kicking damage should be based
on it's upper body strength (which you are trying to call Striking ST -
which is isn't).

By 4e rules Centaurs have Weak Arms (listed under Extra Arms, except they
have the disadvantage version instead of the limitation version).

--
Eric B. Smith http://home.stny.rr.com/gurpsland
http://www.geocities.com/ericbsmith

"A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't
need it." - Bob Hope