Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Kane
TFT has no REGULAR DAMAGE BONUS for Cutting/Impaling weapons as MtM does; except in the special case of the Double-damage Charge-Attack for Pole Weapons.
|
I believe you're saying that GURPS (incl. MtM) is tougher on the unarmored fighter for a reason that can be restated as "GURPS boosts the damage from edged weapons (relative to TFT), and also boosts armor's effectiveness vs those. So you
really need armor in GURPS to soak up damage."
There's truth in that! Take a 5-hit blow, for example. In TFT, that's 5 dam. In GURPS, it could be more if it's edged – even tripled to 15 (!) dam if an impaling stab to the vitals. Ouch.
Armor subtracts hits before the multiplication, so the effect of armor vs that impale is also essentially tripled: armor subtracting 3 hits ends up reducing that stab damage by 9 points.
So, the point is valid. However... TFT offers the unarmored barbarian no way to avoid any of the 5 dam he was hit with. Whereas GURPS lets him avoid
all of that 5-dam blow – or all of that 15-dam stab to the heart – with a Dodge. Or all of a 30-dam blow, or all of a 300-dam blow. Once dam is so high (Giants wielding logs, etc.) that even armor won't make a difference, the TFT unarmored barbarian has no particular way to avoid a lick of that damage, while his GURPS counterpart can try to avoid all of it (and, most importantly, can do so
more successfully than the heavily armored knight can).
In short, and repeating myself from earlier:
- When giving hits in TFT, I'd rather be an unarmored fighter (no offensive penalties!) than an armored one (big penalties!). In GURPS, it typically doesn't matter either way (no offensive penalties for armor, with the exception of some fighting skills).
- When receiving hits in TFT, I'd much rather be an armored fighter (protection!) than an unarmored one (all the vulnerable squishiness of the unarmored, with no benefit in return). Whereas in GURPS, there's a tradeoff aspect: protection for the armored, vs better ability to evade damage for the unarmored.
But. You know all that, and I think Skarg essentially said the same. Just pondering out loud for anyone new to the games.
Even if TFT is awfully harsh on unarmored fighters (on defense, anyway), if you like the overall feel of its combat, then you like the feel; no argument from me about that! It is important that TFT maintain its own unique feel.
It's also a good thing that TFT makes armor something you definitely want to have when receiving blows. If heavy, tiring, expensive armor weren't a net benefit to defense, there'd have been no reason for warriors to use it, and there'd be no reason for the game to bother with it.
I'll only express a wish that the game do
something so that quickness – especially unarmored quickness – offers some aid in defending. (Even the Dodging/Defending does nothing here. That is, it helps the nimble unarmored fighter, sure, but no more than it helps the burdened armored fighter.)
In short, I like the "sweaty, bare-chested and aggressive (i.e. barely armored) Low-Fantasy Barbaric-types" concept as much as you do. I'd just like to see that character become a more viable choice in TFT.