xxlgeeklord wrote:(non-blocking) okay, I see your point there. I still think it should be a modifier though, but maybe a -1 one. Using another weapon does negate the penalty, but in any other case you have -2 Parry. That's pretty bad.
Yeah, -2 Parry is bad. But the idea is that players design their own weapons, and this is a penalty you can easily work around. If you desperately want weapons that don't count as melee weapons then I'd suggest discussing it with the GM and agreeing on an appropriate benefit to balance it, rather than assigning "Unarmed Defender" an actual ability value. In effect, handle it the same way you would power trappings.
For example you might design the brass knuckles like this:
* Crude (+2): Costs $10.
* Concealable (+1): +2 to draw, opponents suffer -2 Notice to spot.
* Light (+1): No longer counts as a significant item for encumbrance.
* Low Damage (-2): Inflicts d4 damage.
Then in addition you say they don't count as a weapon for the sake of Unarmed Defender - but to compensate, they're so easy to conceal that the Concealable ability also applies when you're wearing them, so you can walk around with them readied.
If you do decide to wear brass knuckles on one hand and hold a knife in the other, you lose the benefit as well as the drawback.
xxlgeeklord wrote:(returning stuff) yes, you could call it a melee weapon with reach, but once you're throwing axes with chains, using bladed boomerangs, or using magically returning kunai, it seems to me you shouldn't be rolling Fighting, shouldn't get wild attacks, shouldn't be limited to throwing it 2" at max, etc.
Perhaps a +1 weapon ability then, allowing it to return to your hand as a normal action - it's mechanically the same as drawing another weapon, but you don't literally have to carry multiple weapons. If you want it to return instantly I'd suggest handling it through Mystic Edge (it's the equivalent of having Quick Draw).
xxlgeeklord wrote:(fixed damage) okay, thanks, this will work fine. I had assumed it would cost more to do this as a fixed bonus increases the chance of acing, allows weak characters to use powerful weapons, and potentially allows for automatic successes. A str+d12 weapon is ridiculous and almost certainly unusable, but a str+d4+4 weapon is ridiculously powerful, as it aces 25% of the time.
The "automatic successes" thing isn't such an issue for damage, as it's versus Toughness+Armour rather than a flat TN 4. However you're right, the fixed bonus is a little better:
d4+4 = average 7.33
d6+3 = average 7.2
d8+2 = average 7.14
d10+1 = average 7.11
d12 = average 7.09
It's not enough for me to really worry about (Savage Armoury isn't that precise), but if it bothers you just use my other suggestion - ignore Strength requirments on weapons. In the core rules a longsword is simply better than a shortsword, which is better than a dagger, and this is balanced by the Strength requirement - but in Savage Armoury they should all be equally good, so someone with Strength d8 could choose to be a knife fighter and generally speaking they'd be just as effective as a swordsman.
A third option would be to stick with the lower damage die, but go for a high raise die. I think I'd actually prefer this thematically, as it represents weapons that aren't particularly forceful, but can inflict horrific damage with an accurate blow. This is also what I did for the example katana in SA.
xxlgeeklord wrote:(more armor) I can see how you find the abstract way better, but in my opinion it is inferior. I don't like how even leather armor becomes penalized, making it as good as impossible to have an effective "rogue" character with armor. Also, it means that there are 3 kinds of armor in the world, with no unique and awesome armors for the players to explore and no awesome customization.
Well the armour is balanced against no armour, so you can play a rogue with no armour, or one with leather armour, and they should be equally viable.
Even if I were to put together a set of armour abilities, the penalties wouldn't change; if leather armour didn't give a penalty then everyone would wear it. If you want armour without a penalty, that's what the Armour Proficiency edge is for.
If you really want "wearing armour" to be the standard in your setting, then just reduce the armour penalties by 1. It'll probably mean no more barbarians in loincloths, or wizards wearing only robes, though.
xxlgeeklord wrote:(mounted) here I am forced to disagree. "Mounted Only" means that it cannot be used in dungeons, buildings, caves, big cities, boats, places where you want to be stealthy, and any other place you don't ride your steed. Also, even in mounted combat, a Shaken/Wound to either the steed or the rider forces a Riding roll or the rider is thrown off, at which point the weapon becomes useless. You are also in danger when there is difficult terrain, the steed is panicked, or you are attempting a maneauver with your steed. Any point at which you are not ready for battle your weapon is useless as well, as you are not mounted.
Fair point. I was concerned about people creating separate weapons for mounted combat ("this is my really big sword that I can only wield from horseback"), but that's a good point about the potential for knocking people off their mount. Still, I don't think I would make it a very big modifier - perhaps just -1 for a mounted-only weapon.
EDIT: I've added "Returning" and "Mounted" abilities to the PDF.