The Fantasy Trip

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JLV

I'm wondering, though, if that isn't too narrow an observation (not by you, but by the folks that said "it's better to take 2 pts of DX..."). ...From everything I could see, there was no special advantage to either choice -- except in so far as one or the other worked better with the player's chosen play style.

It may well have been more of a theoretical issue. And GMs could certainly find ways to emphasize ST. As I noted, magic weapons mostly tended to be bigger weapons in my campaigns.

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

The armor I wore in the SCA was heavy leather. I found chain let alone plate, tooo heavy. I am 5 feet 8, average to light build, and back then I was in good condition but probably never more than average strength.

I wore leather body armor that was light and well fitted enough that I could run, jump, and do a handstand. Even did it in my helm once, on a dare, though the helm was heavy metal and really messed with my balance. So that armor, at least, was not destroying my DX completely.

Point is, I owned a chain shirt but did not fight in it - too heavy, and all the blows striking me were crushing anyway so something solid was better protection. Plate would have protected against those blows but was too heavy even to be considered. Thinking back on the few who wore plate, they were either big, or built like a Tolkien dwarf, or, in one case, just a little taller than average but in superb training.

I can absolutely see the argument in favor of extra DX (and MA!) penalties for a weak fighter in heavy armor. I have added it to my list of things to think seriously about.

My house rules for TFT, with all the options and new gear turned 'on' simply imposes a minimum ST requirement for various armors and shields, just as for all weapons. If you don't meet the listed requirement, you pay an extra DX penalty, as you would for using a weapon for which you don't meet the requirement.

While we're on the topic, I also give a +1 damage per 2 full pts of ST by which you exceed the requirement for a weapon, up to a maximum of double the standard damage, and a 1 decrease in the DX and MA penalty for shields and armor for every 4 points by which your ST exceeds their requirements, up to half the standard penalty. YMMV, etc...

[luguvalium]

JLV is this the melee simulation you were looking for?

https://sites.google.com/site/fuhrma...evealtoprivals

[Skarg]

One set of house rules that I think works well to solve a number of problems without making things un-TFT-like is:

* Have a steep curve cost table for improving attributes (at least as steep as the Codex one, probably steeper at least after the first few extra points).

* Allow increasing memory points (mIQ) without increasing IQ, for half or less of what it costs to increase attributes.

* Allow increasing mana and/or fatigue (fST) without increasing ST, for a similar low cost.

* Add various talents that allow other ways to improve characters.

* Add a difficulty adjustment to EP awards (mine takes into account armor & magic/quality bonuses) so slaughtering shadowights, hobgoblins, and low-level opponents is no longer massively more rewarding for the risk than fighting strong opponents.

The results:

* Reduces the rate at which characters start to get very powerful.

* Removes unwanted high-ST wizards.

* Removes characters unable to learn new tricks without excessive spending in IQ, and characters with a variety of talents also necessarily being quite high-IQ.

* Gives characters more interesting and varied ways to improve, and new sorts of abilities.

* You can add talents for different levels of mastery in various weapons without making it improbable anyone will be able to learn them.

* You can add talents which also reduce the attribute bloat while still letting characters improve.

* Improvement can be in specific things rather than having characters that are just super-good at all things covered by an attribute.

* If you add talents that increase defenses, that could be part of a solution for the lack of defensive ability (though I'm not sure this is the best way to do that, it can make it so you have some defense specialists without being Unarmed Combat masters).

* If you add armor-wearing talents, you can sneakily address the issue that now many people don't believe armor would reduce your DX as much as it does in TFT, without having them have to get ST 18+ to do so. (i.e., I recommend having armor talents whittle down the DX penalties, rather than increase them if you don't have them - solves about three problems at once).

* People might actually get Unarmed Combat beyond level I or II without having that be the main use of all their IQ points.

* No need for the (charming but silly) rules about intentionally forgetting talents or having the Wizard's guild or a dragon erase your mind to make room for new talents.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by luguvalium

JLV is this the melee simulation you were looking for?

https://sites.google.com/site/fuhrma...evealtoprivals

YES! I really thought it was in hard copy, but yep, that's the graphic I remember. Also, someone over on the other thread mentioned another person who did some statistical analysis and came up with a spear-holder with roughly equal ST/DX as being the "ultimate" warrior -- but not by much! I seem to remember reading that one somewhere too.

(Edited to add -- after reading through the Rivals Analysis, I think it was all the same analysis -- just talked about in two different places. My mind, she is a sieve!)

[Steve Jackson]

That "rivals" analysis is especially interesting.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Skarg

One set of house rules that I think works well to solve a number of problems without making things un-TFT-like is:

...

The only real "objection" I have is increasing the number of attributes (and, say what you will, when you add "mIQ" and "fST", you are adding attributes). Which is why I went with a "get rid of the IQ limit on Spells and Talents, and just list them -- and buy them with XP -- separately" -- it actually did everything you listed, and didn't add extra attributes to keep track of. Heck, it even got rid of the rule about "forgetting" stuff.

(By the way, I put "objection" in quotes because it's really more of a personal pet peeve of mine -- I LIKE only having to keep track of three attributes! But I realize I'm probably in the minority here since a lot of people seemed to have added new "attributes" one way or another...)

[larsdangly]

There are lots of imaginable revisions or additions to the game that could change it in basically harmless ways, introducing options that don't fundamentally change game play. I think of the personality rules in the original as being this sort of thing: I'm sure it seemed like a fine idea on paper, and perhaps some groups make much of it, but mostly it is just a colorful aside to the main business that takes place at the table.

But one thing the game won't tolerate is a quantitative change that upends the basic balance of power in combat, i.e., the trade offs between ST, DX, equipment and talents. Any new rule that lets a character short-circuit the arms race among combatants would undercut the qualities of the game as a combat engine, which is both the foundation of the system and perhaps its strongest suit.

So, I think good new rules in this system hold up to a clear-eyed quantitative analysis of what they do to the trade offs between DX, damage, protection, range, etc. They are so well engineered as they are that they are easy to break with an ill judged change.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Charles G.

I do hate the UC talents as written, however, for two reasons. First, they make the unarmed arts of the mystical Far East seem vastly more powerful than they really are. Neither the Chinese, nor the Koreans, nor the Japanese had any special, divine ability or wisdom when it comes to unarmed combat that did not already exist in the West - look at the surviving Fechtbucher if you don't believe me.

I would not want to see the UC talents eliminated. They allow for a TFT version of the AD&D monk which was a popular PC class in the day. I don’t disagree with your historical assessment by the way. I just like the UC talents because they’re fun. You can always eliminate them from your campaign. Or, don’t assume that they only represent Oriental fighting styles.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by JLV

The only real "objection" I have is increasing the number of attributes (and, say what you will, when you add "mIQ" and "fST", you are adding attributes). Which is why I went with a "get rid of the IQ limit on Spells and Talents, and just list them -- and buy them with XP -- separately" -- it actually did everything you listed, and didn't add extra attributes to keep track of. Heck, it even got rid of the rule about "forgetting" stuff.

(By the way, I put "objection" in quotes because it's really more of a personal pet peeve of mine -- I LIKE only having to keep track of three attributes! But I realize I'm probably in the minority here since a lot of people seemed to have added new "attributes" one way or another...)

Yeah, I have a recessive gene as well and I loves my 3 attributes. Additinal attributes are blasphemous abominations of the one true rule set. :)

Of course, if I were to engage in heresy, I’d lobby for a Perception attribute. That would be very useful for fantasy campaigns. You could even base missile attacks on a perception roll rather than DX.

But I’m not a heretic.