Fantasy Trip Glitches, Contradictions, Ambiguities

[Jim Kane]

In any case, the rule regarding Reaction to Injury "-2 DX with 5 hits in one turn" situation on page 18 is in need of a re-edit for clarity-sake regarding the WHEN and DURATION; or you wouldn't have people interpreting the rule as "ON" the next turn, and "TO" the next turn, when the rule uses the word: "FOR".

Some people treat the penalty as an immediate reaction to the damage at the time it is incurred (as I do); whereas others allow the injured figure to act at the unaffected DX, and the DX penalty is not applied until following turn (as you do); and others are just not sure what to do; hence the OP's question, and our individual interpretations and applications.

I can see people interpreting the rule both ways.

Cleaning-up for clarity in a re-edit is always a welcome thing.

I actually have that T-shirt LOL!

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Some people treat the penalty as an immediate reaction to the damage at the time it is incurred (as I do); whereas others allow the injured figure to act at the unaffected DX, and the DX penalty is not applied until following turn (as you do); and others are just not sure what to do; hence the OP's question, and our individual interpretations and applications.

Just for the record, again, what I and my friends actually do/did was both of those: it applied immediately, and lasted until the end of the next turn.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Just for the record, again, what I and my friends actually do/did was both of those: it applied immediately, and lasted until the end of the next turn.

Let the record so reflect. :-)

Skarg - Under that, could not a lower DX figure that incurs the penalty on TURN 3, BEFORE he himself has a chance to act, would be at -2DX when his action phase finally comes in that same TURN 3, AND, would then continue to incur the DX penalty a SECOND TIME "until the end of the next turn" as you say above - being the whole of TURN 4; in effect, penalizing him TWICE?

Would that also not mean a higher DX figure would only incur the penalty ONCE on his phase in TURN 4; as he would have already acted first, and before he was injured some time during TURN 3 - after he had already acted on TURN 3?

As I say, I think a re-edit for clarity is warranted regardless.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Skarg - Under that, could not a lower DX figure than incurs the penalty on TURN 3, BEFORE he himself has a chance to act, would be at -2DX when his action phase come finally comes in that same TURN 3, AND, would then continue to incur the DX penalty a SECOND TIME "until the end of the next turn" as you say above - being the whole of TURN 4; in effect, penalizing him TWICE?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Would that also not mean a higher DX figure would only incur the penalty ONCE on his phase in TURN 4; as he would have already acted first, and before he was injured some time during TURN 3 - after he had already acted on TURN 3?

Yes.

Realize though that looking at it that way simplifies the situation to thinking about two characters who only take the Attack option and don't use their DX for other things.

For example, even though the higher-DX figure already acted before getting hurt, he too is at -2 DX until the end of his next turn (in our house interpretation, anyway), and it might matter on turn 3, for example if he gets forced to retreat someplace that requires him to make a DX roll not to fall, or some turn-3 event requires him to make a DX roll, or he gets a second arrow shot that turn, or whatever.

Also, a figure suffering an injury penalty before his time to act comes, can choose to change his option if he wants to avoid the DX penalty. He could choose to do things which don't (in the current rules as-written, anyway) involve DX, such as Defend, or Disengage and hope to move first next turn and get away from combat for the next turn, or Disbelieve, or attempt to enter HTH combat.

But that's just the way we settled on and liked. tbeard1999's method of just having it affect the victim's next action also solves the issue... though if someone's concern is about how many actions it affects, it could also be considered unclear or unfair how it applies to second arrow shots (i.e. the high-DX archer who gets hurt for a penalty between his two shots).

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

As I say, I think a re-edit for clarity is warranted regardless.

So say we all! :-)

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Let’s catalog the list of glitches, ...

My initial list:

Boomerangs. I suggest they be nerfed so that they aren’t superior to light crossbows and to avoid swarms of disgusting, filthy, cowardly hobbit flingers.

Boomerangs are flying clubs so in my campaign they do club damage.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Bolos. I suggest an immediate ST save so that filthy, disgusting cowardly hobbits can’t bolo giants.

I feel that most of the special weapons should have some sort of contest to make them playable.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

General comment - review all automatic effects (i.e. that have no saving throw) and confirm that they aren’t subject to abuse. ...

Agreed. I've added saving throw to many thrown spells for example. (Not saying those saving throws are EASY.)

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Replace the “add dice as difficulty increases” mechanic with modifiers.

Disagree. I wrote a fairly long post on this.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Consider some limit on the amount of ST that can be used in missile spells. ...

Agreed.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Revise death and dying so a character does not die at ST 0.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Should wizards really die if ST drops to zero from spellcasting?

It worked this way in the small games but it has never worked that way in the full game. See Recovering From Exhaustion on page 39 of Advanced Wizard.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Make the consequences of failing a job roll potentially fatal to any character no matter how strong he is.

I think that I would rather that the whole risk roll thing just go away. To make it work well, it needs more rules. Simplify and spend those column inches on something else more important?

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Define experience costs in terms of extra attribute points. This keeps races that start with fewer points but considerable innate advantages ... from dominating the game.

I disagree. It seems too fine a point to be worth rules. Hobbits simply need some new disadvantage to balance their buffs. e.g. a fairly low maximum ST or having to pay 2 times more exp to buy ST, or something.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Another possible "glitch":

Requiring Wizards to expend ST each turn to maintain summoned creatures, invisibility, flight, light, etc., made sense in an arena wargame. ...

Should Trip be nerfed so that it's no longer automatic? Maybe give the target a 4/DX or even 5/DX roll to not fall down? Should it be able to affect a figure that didn’t move?

Hi Ty, everyone.
I would leave the current spells alone. TFT's summoned creatures are too powerful, IMO, I do not want to make them cheaper. I agree some new spells that have long durations would be nice tho.

I agree, I've added (tough) saving throws to most thrown spells.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

...
Consider if it would be a good idea to allow figures to change facing at no MA cost after all movement has been done. Consider a figure that loses initiative but begins with an enemy in his front left and front right hexes. He can’t shift because doing so would break engagement. When the enemy figures move, each of them shifts into his side hexes. In combat, he can’t attack either of them. Worse, each of them gets a +2 DX for attacking his side.

In my campaign, people after all movement can do a "Last Minute Twist", and change their facing to any hex. They are at -2 DX for the rest of the turn if they do so.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Snap Shot. Consider an advanced rule allowing figures to fire a readied missile weapon during the movement phase to prevent “panzer bushing”. ...

I allow people to strike or shoot during movement at -6 DX.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

How do you imprison wizards? Perhaps manacles can be made out of some substance - copper or magnetic iron - that will completely jam magic? Maybe spells have minor material components that the wizard can be deprived of?

I've added several things that help nerf wizards. I agree this is a problem.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Should wizards be able to take the quarterstaff talent at normal cost?

No. Note, that in my campaign most spells that buff weapons do damage separate from the weapon's damage. So the Q. Staff does its 1d+2 (armor stops), and then the staff zaps the target for 1 die of damage (armor stops this separately).

Warm regards, Rick

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by bookworm562

The halfling is clearly broken. I'm thinking a +1 is a big deal, but +3? ...

I prefer that the races are more different, not more the same. I think that giving hobbits a significant penalty (e.g. ST costs double to gain for them), but leaving them with a cool bonus is how I would handle it.

Originally Posted by bookworm562

We dropped double damage on the Charge with Pole Weapons. ...

I disagree. I like weapons that are quite different from each other. I would give pole weapons some disadvantages to balance them. That said, I have halberds and pikes act like big spears on charges and like axes (for more damage) when swinging.

Originally Posted by bookworm562

A change in the experience rules that result in less attribute bloating, or at least emphasis. We never had any problem but it was a hot topic of discussion.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by bookworm562

Possible experience point cost for talents and spells.

Disagree. I would handle the problem differently.

Originally Posted by bookworm562

Eliminating the distinction between Hero and Wizard.

Sure. However, if the distinction remains, nerf wizard some. High powered wizards are far more powerful than 'high' powered heroes. (There are awesome spells but no awesome talents. Fencing btw is nice, not awesome by my measure.)

Originally Posted by bookworm562

Increase in adjDX required to improve rate of fire OR reduced damage for two dice missile weapons. I like the idea of a lucky shot killing the low ST wizard, not taking out the human tank.

I've lowered the damage of missile weapons and made them impaling weapons (Xd-Y style damage, e.g. 3d-6), which fixed them nicely.

Originally Posted by bookworm562

Thank you, and any critiques would be nice.

No problem. Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

The more I think about it, the more I like Rick Smith's idea of revising the weapons table to account for penetrating damage, versus crushing damage, without complicating the rules by addressing them under that name, ...

Thanks. It has worked well in my campaign and I'm gradually tweaking weapons to make them vary more in this manner.

Originally Posted by JLV

I also think the idea of Shuriken needs to be looked at much more carefully ... So, in my opinion, they are bit "overpowered" in the game.

I agree. If they were 2d-8 weapons, they would do on average 0.667 damage each. There is a small chance of them doing a 'lot' of damage (a face or neck hit or something), but most would just miss. 2d-8 feels much more like a nuisance weapon. I picked 2d-8 so that max damage would be the same as they are currently, but 2d-7 might also work.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by BrotherBill

So, if you are not engaged by moving into a front hex of a figure unable to harm you (being under a Freeze spell, for example) why are you engaged by a figure which has moved to far to act during the action phase?

Hi BrotherBill, everyone.
This is a very good point. The reason, (I would guess), is to allow you to decide if you are engaged or not, by simply looking at the map. This way you don't have to remember which of these 50 goblins moved half their MA or not.
I fairly often have big battles with lots of people on both sides.

But I feel you have a strong argument.

Warm regards, Rick.