Fate of the Norns

In this post I mentioned that I felt that fangs might scale funny and that I didn't want to comment until I had some numbers.

here is a table of all the numbers, and a chart showing the scaling

things to note:

• I did not include size or reach. I set reach at 1 for BOTH fangs and the weapons. size is kind of external to this
• weapons where based off of QR 6 being DF3/Pierce 2/Reach 1/Parry 1. that means that DF is 3/6, pierce is (1/6)*2, reach is 1/6, and Parry is 1/6
• I did QR 50% of level (no blacksmith) and QR 75% of level (with a good blacksmith).
• the weapon numbers include Martial Prowess. the reason for this is in the other thread, but essentially fangs is a 1 rune in passives, the weapons should get that to to be fair.
• I took out the reach at the QR level. essentially, qr50 is (lvl*.5)-1, qr75 is (lvl*.75)-1
• the graph measure total armor penetration. That is, damage + pierce.

I made columns for non-amped, amplified x1, x2, and x3 (total 4 runes played for an attack)

end result: assuming my math is correct, Fangs is

• a QR 75% weapon, roughly
• has more pierce, but less damage
• is about 10% behind QR75% with no amplifies
• is within a few percent of QR75% across all levels on total armor penetration with one amplify
• completely obliterates QR50% two handers at all levels with even a single amplify, and is greater with no amplifies at all
• is a better defensive weapon than all two handers
• cannot be disarmed

so, that's pretty good for one passive rune. You get a blacksmith for your hands, and you can't be disarmed, no matter how many runes you play. It beats having Martial Prowess rather handily on damage with QR50% and matches QR 75% quickly.

I've not put together numbers for sword and board yet. there are things in sword and board that make big alterations (Deflect, no need for reach) that makes it hard to compare apples to apples.

Heck, yeah - even after 2 or 3 changes and indirect nerfs and a recommodation to not allow K.A. with it, it's still THE dmg-passive when it comes to pure numbers.

But it also does what was intended to do: It allows the pure numbers to scale with better weapons to enable unarmed ppl to keep up with item users.

Personally, I think it's still slightly overdone, unarmed should not produce bigger numbers than armed combat - I mean there is a reason ppl use weapons
But I get that there are unarmed builds that should not be penalized. It just feels that with Fangs, the bonus dmg due to size, and the fact that unarmed Maneuvers/Active Powers get more Design points, unarmed combat gets triple bonuses to keep up, resulting in unarmed Wolves or Dragonflies dishing out more dmg than ppl wielding Two-hand-Axes.

---------------

As for your idea of changing the Pierce-rules for items due to Fangs granting AMP'lifiable Pierce:
Wouldn't it be easier to change Fangs abit. Like ditch the base bonus of +1/+1/+1 or ditch Pierce per level ?

here is a slightly updated sheet

I've added in columns for an alternative pierce algorithm that includes pierce in the amplifies for weapons. Net result? QR50% weapons almost exactly match fangs. that seems more like what would be intended without blacksmiths.

QR75% clearly outstrip both. Just no contest on that front. Then again, you are getting a magic item made by someone, at great expense. That seems rational, at least to me. That, and with the addition of Dvergar engineering's "allow equipped accessory to shapechange with the wearer", one could easily envision an accessory that added to your damage and you merely pay QR3 for the privilege of being able to use it while you are all wolfed out. My guess is that such an item would come very close to bridging that gap.

Bro it's not all in the numbers. I have a few excel spreadsheets from 2013-2014 when I was discussing the curves with Andrew. Over time, the spreadsheets inevitably morphed and included versatility attributes like defensive and non-standard metas. Unarmed is summed up by simple numbers and basic metas. Crafting opens up a world of options and versatility. If Andrew hasn't mentioned it, his design mantra was to keep unarmed simple and brutal. You default to natural attacks if you want to simply wail on someone. If you want finesse, versatility, items that compliment your power build, then crafted items are your best friend.

Check out dvergar engineering, creature reliquary, realm ores, non-standard metas and infuse for titanic reasons to go the item route. If you want to be a brainless bruiser, unarmed is your route... just stack them numbers. Don't look at unarmed through the lenses of realism. Look at it through the sagas where unarmed combat resulted in some pretty epic stuff. With RGS you get two play styles, both on par with one another, and both giving you a distinct flavor in playstyle.

_________________
---------------
Disir = 6

Of course it's not all in the numbers.

However, before you could leverage a book that came out literally 1 month ago, Fangs was clearly outclassing it for a good long time. We had no context. There were very minimal crafting rules to speak of. There was very little guidance that says any of this. Andrew has not mentioned his design philosophy, as I live a couple thousand miles from him, don't attend conventions on that coast, and never got to sit down a play it before I got the book. There is no context. I'm left with pulling 35 years of gaming experience and board questions and 10 years in a career analyzing things to try and tease out intent.

I have checked out dvergar engineering, creature reliquary, realm ores, non-standard metas and infuse. those things, besides being factored into my spreadsheet (note, I compared QR rating), are also irrelevant because we are discussing armor penetration. There is still plenty of difference there, as you don't have to have weapons with a fixed Pierce, while Fangs is very predictable.

The chart's intent is to give some folks who have questions about it (myself, at least a couple other people) an idea of the impact of pierce, what it is at particular points, and if it makes sense to include it with Amplify or not. It resolves a question my group had about it.

Before Denizens, Unarmed was clearly more damaging - largely because of the existence of Fangs and Blood Wolf. The only character that gets Fangs is ALSO the one that gets Blood Wolf. Fangs gives you a very strong scaling two hander. Blood wolf gives you at least QR5 worth of weapon and armor, on top of size +2 and quadruped and a self heal. It so strongly outshone everything because of the lack of existence of an alternative.

At least now it's possible, and it tells the Norn who is looking to make sure all his players have a chance to shine what has to happen at that point. If you have someone who wants to be a damage monster and is not a Wolfen Ulfhednar, you must provide QR 75% weapon opportunities for him. It doesn't solve movement, it doesn't solve armor, but that's outside of the scope.

If you don't want to be bound to that, you can swap mechanics and use Pierce being Amplified off of weapons. Myself, I prefer this mechanic for a number of reasons - it's consistent, it's simpler, it's clearer, it's clearly balanced against Fangs, it makes resource gathering useful and an important advantage, and it makes the Blacksmith and the opportunity to get QR 75% a special thing. A reward for excellent activity, a singular niche that can't be just had for a rune by one guy. It must be invested in, one way or the other.

lets also not forget it's not like the Ulfhednar can't benefit as well - I read Dvergar Engineering well enough to note the "use your accessory while shapeshifted" for QR 2. Poof, I can get lots and lots of versatility.

Certainly, with RGS you get more than two play styles, and by no means am I trying to look at it with realism. I've called FOTN "Anime Vikings" more than once and I hold to that. That is not the point. I don't think it needs to be realistic, just that it should be comparable. The unit of measure, in this case, is a Rune. What can be done with that one rune. If it's not comparable, then there is clearly a better choice in the situation, and thus that needs to be defined.

edit: oops, a word.