Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

An in-story way around this might be a local noble who offers a bounty on bandits - but he doesn't just want heads, because those could come from anywhere. He wants to see a set of hacked lower-class clothing, shoddy armor, and a cheap weapon; for THAT he will pay a bounty. Then the clothes are discarded or go to the poor, and all but the worst weaponry goes into his armory for militia use in emergencies.

I believed I read somewhere (Barbara Tuckman's "A Distant Mirror"?) that some nobles would hunt outlaws for sport, like boar hunting. He'd bring his retainers, but would use his peasants as beaters to flush the bandits. Players could take any of those roles.

But jeez, talk about murder-hobos...

Cheers!

[JLV]

Once you get into the details, history is almost ALWAYS more incredible than mere fiction is! ;-)

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Here's a question for the hive mind: The rules stipulate that a javelin can't be used to 'jab', but then the combat example in Advanced Melee includes an instance where one of the characters does just that. What do you do?

Hi Larsdangly, everyone.
In the TFT errata Steve said the example with the javelin jabbing was an error.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Steve Jackson]

To quote myself, since I have that file handy:

"Page 27. There seems to be a paragraph missing. It basically explained the fact that Melio was jabbing with the javelin, which is too short to jab with. Melio is a sneaky character. He had previously told the GM that he would make jab-attacks with the javelin whenever possible, in hopes that he could appear to be engaging in real combat without the other characters realizing that he was in no danger! Had he rolled a hit, it would have had no effect. "

And, to finish the story: The combat got dire, and Melio moved in, fought for real, and got hurt. Then, adding insult to injury, he was penalized experience points by the GM because he had broken character.

[Dirk Desiato]

I like there to be "risk/reward" in games so how about this for pole weapons?; Keep the double damage for charging with pole weapons but if the attack missed then the pole weapon is "unready" and the "Step and Ready" option must be used before the pole weapon can be used again. Think of the attacker overreaching and their opponent getting inside the pointy part. There could be the option of charging as if it was a non-pole weapon to avoid having it being unready if it misses.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Dirk Desiato

I like there to be "risk/reward" in games so how about this for pole weapons?; Keep the double damage for charging with pole weapons but if the attack missed then the pole weapon is "unready" and the "Step and Ready" option must be used before the pole weapon can be used again. Think of the attacker overreaching and their opponent getting inside the pointy part. There could be the option of charging as if it was a non-pole weapon to avoid having it being unready if it misses.

For what it's worth, this matches my "spear vs sword/shield" experience quite well. If I can use jabby points and retreats to keep the other guy at reach (with extra-prejudicial leg strikes and feints), I'm eventually going to win.

If they can run up past the point (or God forbid, grab the shaft and trap it under an elbow), I'm going to have to go to grappling.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Dirk Desiato

I like there to be "risk/reward" in games so how about this for pole weapons?; Keep the double damage for charging with pole weapons but if the attack missed then the pole weapon is "unready" and the "Step and Ready" option must be used before the pole weapon can be used again. Think of the attacker overreaching and their opponent getting inside the pointy part. There could be the option of charging as if it was a non-pole weapon to avoid having it being unready if it misses.

I like it.

I too tend to prefer rules which are structured as Risk/Reward; where the CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE IS ALSO DEFINED and clearly stated in game-terms beyond simply: "you missed"; when and where appropriate.

When a brawler goes for that big hooking hay-maker to the head, and misses, then - as a Consequence of Failure - he cannot help but leave that whole rack-of-ribs open and exposed to his opponent. I believe the correct onamonapia sequence for the "Consequence-of-Failure" in this example situation might be: "Swoooosh... followed by... Cccrrrraacckk!!!" as the counter-attack is delivered.

I think Dirk, you have pointed things in a simple and serviceable direction with which to balance the concerns of those who feel the 2x damage modifier for Pole/Charge is too strong; and your idea offers a strategic PLAY option as a "fix" - rather than a NUMBERS "re-calibrating" as a "fix".

Again, I like it.

Do you have any thoughts about the concept of having to "Set" with Pole Weapons, in advance of an oncoming charge?

JK

[Dirk Desiato]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Do you have any thoughts about the concept of having to "Set" with Pole Weapons, in advance of an oncoming charge?

JK

The only thing I would have is that it does not work if the pole weapon using figure moves more than one hex. Keep the DX bonus for standing still. Pole weapons have proven great on defense. Good! That figure is defending that spot well, but a figure staying put (or only moving one hex) is most likely not adding to damaging its sides opponents so is not "in the fight", and it also makes a good target for someone with a crossbow...

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Dirk Desiato

The only thing I would have is that it does not work if the pole weapon using figure moves more than one hex. Keep the DX bonus for standing still. Pole weapons have proven great on defense. Good! That figure is defending that spot well, but a figure staying put (or only moving one hex) is most likely not adding to damaging its sides opponents so is not "in the fight", and it also makes a good target for someone with a crossbow...

Dirk - Is this the existing rule you are speaking of modifying?

"A figure who stands still (or simply changes facing) and uses a pole weapon against a charge attacker, gets a +2DX." - TFT:AM p12.

JK

[Dirk Desiato]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Dirk - Is this the existing rule you are speaking of modifying?

"A figure who stands still (or simply changes facing) and uses a pole weapon against a charge attacker, gets a +2DX." - TFT:AM p12.

JK

Yes, but I want to keep that part. As it stands a pole weapon does double damage when someone has charged against it. It says nothing about the pole weapon user moving except for that part. All I want to change is that you can still set and move one hex and get the double damage, just not the DX bonus. You only get that if you don’t move.