TFT Defense

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

If there was ever a game that required comprehensive play testing for any combat rule change, TFT is it. I don't have a philosophical attachment to any particular approach to these kinds of gritty mechanics, but I can say that the board-game origins of the core system mean you can pretty much wreck the whole thing with one ill advised change.

Which is why, since the core system works well as is, it almost certainly won't be changed. Anything along these lines is best left to optional rules, which can only break the system if optionally added in (like the "aimed blows" in Advanced Melee) and can as easily be removed.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Which is why, since the core system works well as is, it almost certainly won't be changed. Anything along these lines is best left to optional rules, which can only break the system if optionally added in (like the "aimed blows" in Advanced Melee) and can as easily be removed.

I agree. If I were re-publishing TFT, I'd publish Melee/Wizard first. I'd only make tweaks that are necessary to address balance issues in the context of arena-type games. For me, that would be mostly limited to addressing charge attacks and nerfing some pole weapon damage. And honestly, that's about it. Melee and Wizard were successful and popular wargames that were extensively tested. I doubt that there are a lot of tweaks that are needed for arena style games.

Then, I'd start a TFT playtest regime to refine In the Labyrinth. While many of us have made and tested various modifications, they're mostly incompatible with each other.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I agree. If I were re-publishing TFT, I'd publish Melee/Wizard first. I'd only make tweaks that are necessary to address balance issues in the context of arena-type games. For me, that would be mostly limited to addressing charge attacks and nerfing some pole weapon damage. And honestly, that's about it. Melee and Wizard were successful and popular wargames that were extensively tested. I doubt that there are a lot of tweaks that are needed for arena style games.

Then, I'd start a TFT playtest regime to refine In the Labyrinth. While many of us have made and tested various modifications, they're mostly incompatible with each other.

I think that last sentence nails the problem of debating rules changes in these forums. Most of us, who made changes of any kind, developed a system of changes that interlocked and affected things in a variety of ways, but all of which pushed the game where we wanted it to be. As a result, it's almost impossible to pull a single change that we've made over the decades and make it work the way we want in isolation. Thus, I would think that further playtesting would be absolutely necessary for the roleplaying part of the game -- because that's where most of the changes that people have expressed a "need" for really come in.

As you point out, the only really contentious combat rule that everyone agrees on is the pole weapon charge rules, and, to a lesser extent, the damage ratings of the various weapons. Everything else, even the parry question, are really already modeled by the system -- in fact, I believe to this day that the issue of the "parry" never would have come up if the TWO WEAPONS Talent had been phrased differently... ;-)

[larsdangly]

Agreed. And, even though I have spent a lot of time fiddling with house rules over the decades, I'm a bit tired of it all, and am currently spending most of my gaming energy on getting my TFT setting materials both organized and in 'canonical' form (consistent with the published rules). I'd rather play for real by the book than play head games with my house rules.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Agreed. And, even though I have spent a lot of time fiddling with house rules over the decades, I'm a bit tired of it all, and am currently spending most of my gaming energy on getting my TFT setting materials both organized and in 'canonical' form (consistent with the published rules). I'd rather play for real by the book than play head games with my house rules.

Honestly, I'm in pretty much the same boat. It seems sort of like a waste of time to argue about things that are in flux right now; at least until we see what changes, if any, Steve makes. You're certainly doing the smart thing at this point.

[David Bofinger]

I think if you want to introduce a free parry into TFT, make it require buying the ability to do so: something ordinary people don't have but more skilled opponents will buy. Then most hits achieved by the party, including all those against mooks, won't need an extra roll. The only times you'll need an extra roll will be when the party have tagged a boss, or when the bad guys have tagged a skilled player character. Both are events of moment and significance, so people won't mind making the extra roll in those circumstances. And when you hit the bad guy and the GM unexpectedly rolls and says, "parried", there's a "Uh-oh this guy is tougher than I realised" feeling which I think can only be a good thing.

If the parry right is a bit pricey and the parry requires a difficult DX roll then the player will have to ask, "Is my DX high enough yet to make this worth it?" No need for minimum DX requirements, which I find ugly.

You could implement it as a talent, or as a special ability that costs attribute points. There are arguments both ways.

There's an issue with parries getting too reliable at high DX. Various ways to deal with that: not sure what the best would be.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

There's an issue with parries getting too reliable at high DX. Various ways to deal with that: not sure what the best would be.

That's one of the major reasons I oppose a parry roll. Time is the other. As I recall, 1st edition GURPS had this problem - it was way too easy to get a parry roll of 12-, which is a 74% chance of success. Of course, it was pretty easy to get an equally high attack roll. But the result was that combats went on (and on). Ironically, this was probably reasonable given the 1 second turns. But I personally thought it was miserable to play.

Anything that relies on a 3d6 roll is going to run into the fact that a 13 or less will succeed the great majority of the time (84%) and a 7 or less will fail the great majority of the time (16% chance of success). Only 6 points separate these two numbers.

[ecz]

just thoughts to approach the problem in a simple and elegant way using the same TFT style and concepts.

a new Parry with Shield skill IQ 8 level, cost 1,

a new Parry with Sword skill IQ 9 level, cost 2

these talents give a free extra action per turn to parry with the shield and/or the sword. Two free parries are allowed per turn if an hero have both talents and uses sword+shield.

the Hero can decide to parry after the hit lands (before any damage is rolled) and it's successful:

if the hero rolls 9 or less and the opponents has higher Adj DX
if the hero rolls 10 or less and the opponent has same Adj DX
if the hero rolls 11 or less and the opponent has lower Adj DX.

if the Hero decides to DEFEND then parries are improved:
10,11,12 respectively (i.e. + 1 on the above numbers).

Rolling a 17 the weapon drops, rolling 18 the weapon breaks.

Parry is possible only if the attack comes from a frontal hex. In case of an attack scoring a Critical Hit, the parry is successful only if they roll 3 or 4.

We could also imagine a Parry skill with Ax/Mace , IQ 8, cost 1. but it's slightly less effective, 8,9,10.

the Parry skill could be reserved only to heroes and important NPCs. Common cannon fodder does not need any parry skill. So most combats aren't slowed much for the extra dice rolls that are mostly for PCs and are necessary only when one opponent hits

As said, just food for discussion. Never tried, never playtested. Just ideas floating after reading a few posts here.

Edit: the first problem coming in mind is that the extra 1 or 2 IQ points needed, destroy dozens of years of study and theory about the "perfect" Character creation in TFT ...

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

That's one of the major reasons I oppose a parry roll. [...] Anything that relies on a 3d6 roll is going to run into the fact that a 13 or less will succeed the great majority of the time (84%) and a 7 or less will fail the great majority of the time (16% chance of success). Only 6 points separate these two numbers.

Right, so we don't use 3/DX. Make it hard enough only the more capable characters will buy it. Once the PCs have 75% reliable defence they can fight twice as many mooks at a time and really feel they're heroes. The hard part is to make sure the defence never goes to 95%.

Time is the other.

That's why mooks shouldn't have it, because mooks get hit all the time. Only bosses and PCs have it because in most campaigns they don't get hit a lot and when they do it's an interesting event that nobody minds resolving in a little more detail.

[larsdangly]

My house rule for parries effectively boils down to the following:

1 standard attack, no parry: 3d/DX
1 parry, no attack: 3d/DX
1 standard attack and one parry: each rolled as 4d/DX
2 attacks: each rolled as 4d/DX
2 attacks and 1 parry: each rolled as 4d/DX

etc., plus some limits on how many attacks and/or parries can be performed on the same turn with any one weapon, fist, kick, etc.