Complexity

Makers of Award-winning Role Playing Games › Forums › Witch Hunter 2nd edition › Witch Hunter: Rules & Rulings › Complexity

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 29, 2014 at 3:08 am #151364
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I’m curious about the mechanical logic behind weapon complexity. What purpose does it serve? To push players towards specific weapons? To soak up a few extra ranks in the characters’ melee skill?

    Sorry, my players have been grumbling a bit. And frankly, it seems like an extra layer of complexity that doesn’t serve much purpose. What would the game lose if you dropped complexity altogether? It’s not as though you need it for minions. And, as one of my players put it, no matter how good you get at a weapon, you always have to deal with complexity.

    Tom

    June 29, 2014 at 3:47 am #263600
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I’m curious about the mechanical logic behind weapon complexity. What purpose does it serve? To push players towards specific weapons? To soak up a few extra ranks in the characters’ melee skill?

    Sorry, my players have been grumbling a bit. And frankly, it seems like an extra layer of complexity that doesn’t serve much purpose. What would the game lose if you dropped complexity altogether? It’s not as though you need it for minions. And, as one of my players put it, no matter how good you get at a weapon, you always have to deal with complexity.

    Tom

    It is a game for an era with lighter weapons, things that will be 0 or 1. If you are playing at home, take it out and see how it your players react.

    June 29, 2014 at 11:06 am #263602
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    It is a game for an era with lighter weapons, things that will be 0 or 1. If you are playing at home, take it out and see how it your players react.

    So it’s primary function is to drive weapon choice then? I don’t like to just stripe things from the game without knowing their underlying purpose or function. It’s obvious that complexity-at least in part-is to put a drawback into larger, heavier weapons. I don’t have a problem with that as such. Since we play over a VTT, the math is taken care of in the background.

    I may bring in Attack Affinity as a Basic Talent, though, and link it to Attack Focus. Seems a bit of an investment to have to spend 200 SP just to knock down the complexity of your weapon. I’d just wrap it into Attack Focus, but that seems almost too powerful.

    Another option might be to ditch the rule about needing a talent to specialize in a weapon, and essentially switch the descriptions of Attack Focus and Attack Acuity.

    Hmmm…

    Tom

    June 29, 2014 at 4:22 pm #263606
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    My playtest showed, without complexity, the game was the big ass sword game.

    June 29, 2014 at 6:39 pm #263610
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    My playtest showed, without complexity, the game was the big ass sword game.

    That’s my concern, and why I’m hesitant to get rid of complexity as a whole. That’s why I wanted to get a bit more info as to the logic behind the mechanic. Right now, I’m far more inclined to make it easier for players to reduce complexity in limited ways. However, I need to make sure I don’t break something if I do that.

    Right now, here’s my thinking for my home game:
    Dump the rule about needing Attack Focus to specialize in a weapon. This makes things a bit more internally consistent (to my mind anyway-fighting styles and soccer ours traditions remain as is). I think this will help give the game a bit more of a cinematic feel.

    Attack focus essentially becomes Attack Acuity. Whether it stays a basic talent or gets moved up to a greater talent, I’m not sure. It gets dropped as a prerequisite (or replaced).

    This is all half formed ideas. Too much going on around here during the weekend to really puzzle it out.

    June 30, 2014 at 2:11 am #263620
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Every rule was revisited, and Complexity was on the chopping block, but we just flattened it. 0, 1, or 2 (instead of going all the way to 4 like it once did) after playing without it.

    June 30, 2014 at 4:17 pm #263632
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Every rule was revisited, and Complexity was on the chopping block, but we just flattened it. 0, 1, or 2 (instead of going all the way to 4 like it once did) after playing without it.

    I noticed that, and its one of the reasons I feel my solution may be right for my game.

    The player with the biggest issue, I should point out, has Attack Focus in bow and really wonders how a simple long bow is more complicated than a crossbow, a musket or a pistol even though bows are only marginally better than a pistol statistically. Even I’m left scratching my head at that one (bows in 1st Ed had a complexity of 3, so I see how the new figure was arrived at, but not why it was so high to begin with).

    I suppose I could always rejigger the complexities of the ranged weapons on top of this.

    But ultimately, I’m thinking my tweak up thread will have the least ripple effect.

    Tom

    June 30, 2014 at 4:23 pm #263633
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Crossbows are very easy to use and were the weapon of choice for untrained militia. Longbows were a much more difficult weapon to master and required a lot of training, which made those who were skilled very sought after.

    Same for muskets, they were pretty standard faire and easy to use in the time period.

    John

    June 30, 2014 at 8:35 pm #263641
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    It takes years to properly train a Longbowman.

    June 30, 2014 at 8:54 pm #263643
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The trouble then is that all PCs who use longbows are effectively untrained. There’s no way to reduce that complexity, even via talent.

    I’ve also read that longbows have substantially longer range than crossbows, but that wasn’t from a source I can recall, so take it with a grain of salt.

    June 30, 2014 at 9:35 pm #263647
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The trouble then is that all PCs who use longbows are effectively untrained. There’s no way to reduce that complexity, even via talent.

    I’ve also read that longbows have substantially longer range than crossbows, but that wasn’t from a source I can recall, so take it with a grain of salt.

    No, we are assuming that the PCs that elect to use a Bow are trained by benefit of having the relevant skill.

    June 30, 2014 at 10:20 pm #263649
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I don’t mean for this thread to devolve into an argument over longbows. Though I guess my assumptions of a rather primitive weapon runs contrary to the game concept of Complexity. (A bow and arrow is fairly easy to use. A pistol is easier, until you have to reloaded it, or it gets wet, or…)

    HeridFel, the Attack Acuity Greater Talent from Blessed and Damned (1st edition) lowers the complexity of a weapon by 1. It’s prerequisites are Attack Specialist (and Attack Focus) in the weapon and a Melee skill rank of 3. I expect this will eventually be converted to 2nd ed. Even so, that’s roughly 200 SP investment to reduce a weapon’s complexity by 1 point.

    Longbow range is already taken into account in the game rules, though you need to read the weapon description to find it.

    Since the ceiling for weapon complexity is a 2, I have no problem with only being able to reduce it by 1 point. Also, since the only other method of doing so is a Heroic Fighting Style Talent, I’m probably good at keeping it as a Greater Talent (though Hot Knife Through Butter does a lot more than this one Talent). But I definitely think the game needs a method for reducing Complexity, so I’ll be adding an Attack Acuity conversion (in some form) to my home game pretty soon.

    As far as the rest of my tweaking, its more about adding some additional intuitiveness and swashbuckling umph to the system without breaking half a dozen things in the process. \":)\"

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • The forum ‘Witch Hunter: Rules & Rulings’ is closed to new topics and replies.