Equal-standing combat, how to fix?

[noclue]

Tags for the win! these folks need to start doing something interesting with maneuvers
also, consider compels to bring in some interesting complications.

[sinker]

Edited to add:
Okay, I give up.  What kind of melee weapon has a weapon 4 rating?

Yeah, I was assuming that the OP meant that they both have a weapons skill of 4 and were using it to both attack and defend (thus equal-standing). If they're using the weapons skill though then they ought to have weapons with weapon values that should be getting through.

[admiralducksauce]

And if they're unarmed rolling ties or otherwise having Weapon stress reduced to zero by equal amounts of armor, what I typically do is let such hits apply temporary maneuvers.

[sinker]

I was going to make that very suggestion earlier and completely forgot about it. Yes, the book does make a suggestion somewhere that generous GMs could take a tied attack and turn it into a fragile aspect for the attacker. I don't know where, but it's in the book somewhere I swear.

[Sanctaphrax]

I gave a car-sized warhammer made by fire giants weapon rating 4. It seemed appropriate.

[Discipol]

No, its Weapons 4, each with a Weapon:2 sword.

They could do maneuvers on each other, but since its the same nr of skillpoints, statistically both would get the same number of maneuvers. One uses for attack, the other for defense.

One outcome would be each dealing weapon damage to the other until one falls down. but here is where inhuman toughness alone = win and is that unfair to be a tiebreaker.

[Haru]

They can do intimidation maneuvers to make the other not act in their full capacity.
A Deceit maneuver for the good old fist full of sand in the eyes is going to help a great deal.
Use Athletics to get on higher ground (a low wall, a chair, the hood of a car).
Maybe your Alertness is higher than the opponents, so you see the "approaching car" before he does, while you are fighting in the middle of the street.
Act like he hit you harder than he actually did with Performance, making him think victory is near, so he might lower his guard enough for you to strike.
Use the Weapons Knowledge trapping from the Weapons skill to declare, that the opponents weapon is known to have a weak spot, and if it is hit there at the right angle, you can easily disarm your enemy.
Maybe one of them has a high might skill? Use one of the aspects above on a weapons roll (just to be on the safe side) to create a "cornered" aspect, then use that to force him into a grapple (weapons interlocked or something) and then bring him down slowly by using the 1 point of stress as a supplemental action rule.

Declarations can be used almost unlimited, so whoever is more creative can use more aspects to his advantage. And you can even do them while in full defence mode, so you wouldn't need those for a defence roll and can just open up when you think you got enough and smash the enemy senseless.

inhuman toughness reduces 1 point of stress, a weapon:2 sword should still inflict 1 point of stress. Not much, but it will lead to consequences soon enough.

[polkaneverdies]

I agree with haru about declarations only being limited by player creativity.

As to your question about is inhuman toughness an unfair tie breaker the answer is of course not. It is a 2 refresh power specifically designed to make someone tougher in a fight. In what way is it unfair that it accomplishes the goal of the power?
Example: I am in a bench press competition with a guy who has the same might skill as me. Unfortunately he also has inhuman strength. Is it unfair to me that he is going to win at something he paid refresh to be better at than me?

[TheMouse]

One outcome would be each dealing weapon damage to the other until one falls down. but here is where inhuman toughness alone = win and is that unfair to be a tiebreaker.

Uh, sorry, man. That's not unfair. Well, I mean it's unfair, but not the way you seem to be saying it.

See, your setup up until now was two dudes that were more or less equally matched. Same skill ratings, same number of stress boxes available, same fate point pool, etc. I'm assuming the point of this exercise was how to make two totally equal characters fighting without fate points more interesting, so I further assume that the characters are more or less clones in terms of stats so that they're truly even matches.

Now, if you take two evenly matched dudes and give one a 2 Refresh defensive power, the one with the power has armour:1 and 2 more stress boxes. So of course that's a tie breaker. He's basically reduced the other guy from weapon:2 to weapon: 1 while giving himself 2 more stress boxes, which is a pretty substantial advantage. Of course Toughness guy is more likely to win now.

[Richard_Chilton]

One outcome would be each dealing weapon damage to the other until one falls down. but here is where inhuman toughness alone = win and is that unfair to be a tiebreaker.

That changes things from two equally balanced combatants to one character built for combat.  Before I could call that toughness a tie breaker there are a couple of things to consider:
1) what did the other person spend that refresh on? I.E.: does he have a useful stunt or power or extra FATE chips?
2) What is the Catch? Because if his opponent knows it and is exploiting it the toughness is irreverent.

When the characters aren't equal.... Well who said combat is supposed to be fair? Seriously, how many times has Dresden fought things that can ignore a lot of damage? He's even battled something that he knew he couldn't really hurt (McFinn) and "won" (sent the beastie a couple of zones away where it stopped killing cops).

If I have a character with Great social skills (but no physical ones) and you have one with Great physical skills (but no social ones) then my character can make yours look foolish in social situation while yours can mop the floor with mine in a fight - because we made different choices in character creation.  Saying "He decided to buy different powers than I did - it's not a fair fight!" makes as little sense as saying "But he's got Great Fists and I don`t even have Fists at Average - it's not a fair fight!".

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

Wait, why shouldn't Inhuman Toughness (almost) guarantee victory?

I mean, a mortal stunt giving +2 to Weapons defense under appropriate circumstances would do much the same thing. I don't see the problem.

[Becq]

Leaving aside the Inhuman Toughness for a moment, I can't see how even two perfectly evenly-matched pure mortals could go more than a couple of exchanges without at least inflicting stress.  Even if they roll the same result every time, the result will be a 0-shift hit, inflicting 2 stress due to the weapon.  And odds are decent that there will be the occasional 1- or 2-shift hit (or much more rarely, up to an 8-shift "critical" hit) resulting in more stress.

So I'm guessing that one of two things are occuring:
1) You're adding the weapon strength to both attack rolls.  If so, you shouldn't be; compare the attack rolls to determine if there's a hit, then if there was, add the difference between the attack rolls and the weapon strength to determine stress.
2) Both combatants were armored, and decently so (ie, greater armor than weapon strength).  In this case, well, yes you could end up with the result you got.  But then again, if two knights in full plate armor start whacking on each other with short swords, it may well take a while for them to wear each other down (by getting lucky hits).

Back to the Inhuman Toughness situation, I have to agree with the responses.  Inhuman Toughness means that you are ... well, tough to a degree that is clearly inhuman.  And that *should* give a significant edge in an otherwise equal fight.  Even so, every hit against the the tough guy is going to inflict at least 1 stress (0 shifts + 2 weapon - 1 armor), so he's going to get worn down at some point due to the stress boxes rolling up.  Though it might take a while, and probably the guy without the Toughness will get worn down much sooner.

[Silverblaze]

Fights between equals should take a while.  I see no reason to fix it...

[TheMouse]

Fights between equals should take a while.  I see no reason to fix it...

It depends on their defensive ability as compared to their offensive.

A fight between two people whose offensive abilities far outstrip their defenses will be really short. The bigger the damage output compared to damage absorption and the bigger accuracy is to defense, the more this will be the case. This is epitomized by two guys with rocket launchers, no armour, high Guns, and no Athletics (with no Stunts to make up for it).

The more they're shifted from this offensive style of build, the longer the fight will take. An Athletics based build with tons of Speed, Toughness, and Recovery, with no weapons and little offensive skill epitomizes this build. This fight will take like two weeks, and the two will be better off settling matters with rock/ paper/ scissors.

[Silverblaze]

It depends on their defensive ability as compared to their offensive.

A fight between two people whose offensive abilities far outstrip their defenses will be really short. The bigger the damage output compared to damage absorption and the bigger accuracy is to defense, the more this will be the case. This is epitomized by two guys with rocket launchers, no armour, high Guns, and no Athletics (with no Stunts to make up for it).

The more they're shifted from this offensive style of build, the longer the fight will take. An Athletics based build with tons of Speed, Toughness, and Recovery, with no weapons and little offensive skill epitomizes this build. This fight will take like two weeks, and the two will be better off settling matters with rock/ paper/ scissors.

I thought of that whilst I posted it.

 I was referring to a "mirror match" or a fight between people with exactly the same skills and weapons etc.