I'm looking for a World of the Dead game if anyone is interested. I'd really like to try out the kingdom-building rules as well as the scavenging rules, on top of enjoying that great apocalyptic survival horror feeling.

*sigh*  I'm blind... forgot min Strength in SW only applies to hand-held ranged weapons....

Saw that in SWDE so went back to appropriate table in Shaintar & voila!

(Too many game systems getting conditions/rules mixed up in my head!)

Minimum Strength for melee weapons is the primary damage dice of the weapon. for example, a longsword, which deals strength+1d8, requires a strength of 1d8 or more. this is also the reason there isn't a melee weapon that deals strength+1d12. because a character with d12 strength is likely to be neck deep into legendary unless they intentionally neglect other important attributes.

Can you tell me where this is specified in SWDE?  I've seen several instances where the character has weapon damage die capped at the lower strength type, but not where they weren't allowed to use the weapon.  I just haven't been able to locate the specific wording in the book... (probably reading over it and just not registering....)

Nevermind.... I found it under the Gear SWDX p 48 (pdf copy)  Thanks!

But RAW allows characters to use ANY MELEE weapon, they just lose special properties and cap out damage die as their strength die... so a kid with a d4 STR and a longsword does 1d4 + 1d4...

So Shaintar eliminates this option? O.o

I think this should still be used with epic-style play...  Thoughts?
This message was last edited by the player at 09:51, Thu 10 Mar 2016.

No, you're right. That is what is meant by Minimum Strength when melee weapons are involved. ...Unless the melee weapons in Shaintar are saying something funny. I don't have the book, so can't compare it. Illina just left out the bit about having less than optimum Str nerfs the weapon. Also, you can still use ranged weapons at less than minimum Str, you just get penalties so isn't often worth it.

What again is the wording on Minimum Str in Shaintar? Is it being applied funny to melee weapons?

Not under Minimum Strength, now that I go back to read it, I think that is pretty clear:

But I thought I saw reference to 'giant-sized' weapons somewhere which didn't allow usage... I'll have to go back later and look.

I think the biggest thing was I wasn't finding the definition of 'minimum strength' for melee weapons due to looking in the wrong place.  (Which is funny, given that I was thinking it was the weapon's damage die, but wanted confirmation...)

Anyone here familiar with The Savage World of My Little Pony that would like to help with a project of mine? I have a system that is like a cross between SW and D20, and I'm building a Fallout Equestria variant and I figure the SWMLP has some great base material to build from. I'm hoping someone more familiar with balancing SW would be a great help given the similarities.

the GM also has the right at their option, to restrict weapon availability and use based on drastic differences in size with the intent of applying the rule of common sense. so as to prevent an excessively small character from wielding an excessively large weapon or prevent an excessively large creature from wearing an excessively small set of armor. for example, preventing the halfling from wielding the ogre's maul, or preventing the ogre from wearing the halfling's chainmail.

In reply to illina (msg # 98):

I get that part, but if as part of a general [published/public] setting it's a restriction, then the definition of 'giant-sized' and 'halfling-sized' needs to be set as a common point of reference.  As a homebrew/house rule - it still needs to have a point of reference.  Is 'Giant-sized' defined as +4/+5 ranks larger than Human (0), or is it any creature with 4 or 5 ranks difference in sizes?  (so to a Pixie (-2 Size), an Ogre would be considered 'giant' (+3 Size) )

Or is a single difference in size ratings sufficient to prevent the exchange?  What about if the individual in question has 'Small' or 'Brawny'/'Obese'?  Will that individual be treated as the same 'size' as his base species, or a size smaller/larger as appropriate?

That's the sort of thing I want examples of or defined in published settings.  Then as a GM, I'm free to make a house rule if I want to treat it differently or make an exception, but at least there's an 'understood' consistency for the setting.  (Objective reference as opposed to subjective.)

i would personally treat it as a difference of 2 or more sizes.

Hm. I'm not sure I'd go with a difference of 2 across the board, considering how vast each step /is/. I'd start with a difference of 1 making weapons change definition (a human dagger becomes a halfling shortsword, or a human longsword becomes an orc shortsword, for instance), and then beyond that the weapons would be unusable. Different hilt sizes to get a proper grip, things like that.

Then for armor, any size difference at all would make it completely useless. A human is not effectively wearing orc armor ever at all, though it might temporarily work as a terrible disguise. Meanwhile, attempting to even put on halfling armor is turning a dungeon dive into a sitcom (which is a fantastic discussion for another time).

Since Savage Worlds isn't too heavily predicated on killing things and taking their stuff, this doesn't seem to come up terribly often unless you have players in a D&D mindset where they want to strip every kill of everything valuable and equip it all. Just applying the common sense idea should cut back on that behavior and keep them focused more on the fighting evil than the collecting loot they can't use. Though now I'm jumping into assumptions about why this discussion came up. :P

Savage Worlds is in part based on the assumption that common sense will prevail. You can call a dagger a short sword in the hands a hobbit, but it still does d4+STR damage. If held by a pixie, it's a two-handed weapon that does... d4+STR damage. If a player with a halfling PC tries to put on armor looted from an ogre, just give them one of those "Are you kidding me?" looks like say, "Uh, no."

*Grins*  But the application possibilities brought up an interesting image:

Premise : Magic Items are designed to adjust to size based on the race they were designed for.   (So a ring made for humans will adjust in size as much as needed to fit the parameters of a human finger.)

Premise : The enchantment itself works for anyone.

Application :  Party enters a Halfling village while travelling and end up the target of taunts by a braggart known as Guilliam Ironsheathe.  This chubby little fellow looks moderately muscular and wears an iron girdle about his chest and midsection that almost looks like he's in an ill-fitted cuirass.  He challenges one of the party to arm-wrestling then surprises his opponent with his massive (d12) Strength.

Turns out his 'girdle' gives him +2 die types to STR, but the solid iron band is actually a Giant-sized Ring of Enhanced Strength which he managed to squeeze into and it adjusted for his girth as if he were a fat-fingered giant.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:29, Fri 11 Mar 2016.

Wouldn't a pixie trying to wield a human shortsword / hobbit dagger end up with an improvised weapon instead of a two-handed sword? The hilt would be bigger than the little guy's torso, simply unreasonable to wield. Why I wouldn't allow that to work with more than a size difference of 1, and even that's only on the low end. If you have a Size 4 Ogre trying to pick up a Size 3 greatsword, it just won't work, except maybe as a terribly balanced throwing dagger.

Though I would rather be interested to see these types of situations come up in the first place. Sounds weird and awesome. :D

Also, wearing a giant ring as a girdle. I need this in my life. That's brilliant.

*bows*  danke!

The idea just popped into my head so I had to share.. seemed like a fun way to handle magic items in a world that allows them to re-size for the wearer.

i think common sense would be a better idea, but i remember somebody asking for an exact size difference for mechanics, but common sense is plenty. i play at a SW table where the group has a very D&D playstyle where they loot everything not nailed to the ground, and have a character trained in repair for looting the stuff that actually is nailed to the ground. they don't care how many weapons they flood the market with, as long as they get the money to procure themselves better stuff. i made the mistake of letting myself be bullied into playing the healer for a little over a decade. maybe longer.

i'm not the healer in the current campaign at least. 7th Cheap Homebrew Fallout Knockoff since 2010. instead, i went with a Spy who poses as an Actress, who just happens to be trained in the knowledge (Technology) and Repair Skills. and the guy who normally bullies me into playing healer through guilt trips, because he showed up late, he rolled up a healer. but we literally have so many roguish characters it makes things excessive.

while we didn't all duplicate on edges or weapons, we did duplicate quite a lot on skills. with very minor differences.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:10, Fri 11 Mar 2016.

I like to have fun with size differences. The Giant's ring girdle is hilarious.

Fallout seems to be a rather big thing recently. Funny that. :)
Converting video game to paper though is a pain in the girdle, but fun. :D

The trick is to convert things in the spirit they're intended, rather than trying to emulate specific gameplay mechanics. Savage Worlds seems like it'd very easily handle Fallout.

the GM doesn't really seem to have a Grasp of Savage Worlds, he has no real sense of the Tactics in the game, he simply piles on NPCs with higher toughness, better shooting scores, more combat edges, and bigger guns. he also seems to be not rewarding bennies for actually following hindrances either, leading to extremely dangerous fights where GM Ex Machina becomes neccessary.

Is it an inexperienced GM? Those sorts of things are mistakes anyone can make. I certainly made my fair share! Sounds like the GM needs to get a better grasp of the rules and start planning things out a little bit better, is all.

In reply to Samus Aran (msg # 110):

he started in 2010. but tries to play Savage Worlds with a D&D mindset, and due to being a control freak, hasn't bothered to learn how different Savage Worlds is from D&D.

That could be rather troublesome, then. If he's the type of GM who will at least listen to constructive criticism and attempts to improve his skill, then he probably needs to be told by his players that it's not working. You have to approach things with a different mindset, and plan things a little better (that doesn't mean a death of spontaneity), to make it work.

he is all about attrition of resources, and doesn't feel like he did his job unless he wastes ammunition and forces healing roles.

I'm just learning SW (I've had it since it first came out, but the couple of games we played were lacking and the published material at the time while not bad reads, didn't fit what I wanted in a game), so in addition to getting into a couple of games here, I watched the YouTube "Let's Play/Live Play" samples.  Granted, the majority were entertaining, they didn't leave me with the impression that SW would work well for the type of game I wanted to see for a long-term campaign.

After seeing the Savaged Pathfinder hack and finding the Shaintar setting, I'm seeing options I hadn't fully considered before (well, that and somebody gave racial variants I liked without me having to try to edit those presented in the core book and create back histories for the race in question... :)  )

I'm more into telling individual stories and fleshing the setting out as I go than I am with creating a full-fledged campaign world.  Usually my worlds change to fit the story I have in mind for this season and the players I have.  Which is also how I made characters: vague concept, a couple of specific impressions, then flesh it out through play and world interaction.

This isn't a style that's well-geared to SW, and I think contributes to "every character's the same" impression because mechanically that tends to be the case, especially for starting novices.  Given that I don’t usually like keeping a d4 in any attribute, most of my characters have identical stat blocks.

But, having played various d20 games before they were d20, (the entire d20 system is extra "fluff" around the core system Bard Games used for Talislanta and The Atlantis Trilogy  (although The Arcanum added a lot of the same "fluff") - the lead designers also created the re-release of Talislanta when WoTC first published an RPG, so they owned the framework license). The stat itself wasn't important, the modifier was and on average the majority of chaeacters had the same modifier spread.  Those modifiers enhanced related skill checks.

That realization makes SW not seem so 'restrictive'/'restricted', but didn't help much with the new character conceptualization issue.  That's why I liked class-/archetype- based games as they triggered the 'what if' part of my character creation process.  Once I've seen multiple examples (in the genre/setting) of how to mechanically pull of the concepts, then I get better at knowing what I need to have as a minimun to achieve what I envision for the character.

So I'm not sure which thread to drop this question into, so I'll just set it here for the moment.

I've been asked if two of my players can play werewolves, and Savage Worlds is hitting the style of high action I'm going for this time. It seemed highly unreasonable to have werewolf PCs using the usual rules, but then I cracked open my copy of Accursed that I picked up back when I had a Castlevania itch. How ridiculous would it be to use the Vargr-type werewolf PCs from Accursed in a different setting? What would I have to do to make sure other PCs didn't get totally overshadowed if they were playing more traditional fantasy races like...I dunno, humans?

I don't want to pull the whole Witchbreed concept, just that one element.