Reactions to the new staff spells

[Shostak]

Basing the occult damage attack on IQ, allowing it to bypass armor, and allowing the attack to be made while performing another action is too much even for me. I'd immediately house-rule this to a DX-based attack, disallow the free action, and impose the no-aimed shots rule suggested by Guy.

[guymc]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

One quibble. I've never liked the rule about staffs exploding or doing damage if touched. But if they're gonna be kept, could we please make it clear that you can't throw a staff at a target and it explode if it hits?

My ruling was always "no, because when you throw it at someone, you WANT it to hit, therefore they aren't touching it against your will." But it would be nice to include that explicitly in the rules.

<<<TOTALLY UNOFFICIAL>>>

This was always my take on that. The exploding staff only happens if another person grasps or tries to take possession of a staff. The wizard can't throw the staff at an inanimate object or even a person to trigger an explosion.

In my own games, if the wizard hands or tosses the staff to someone and says "Hold this for me," no explosion will be triggered. If a wizard ASKS you to hand them their staff while they are present, again, no explosion. If they haven't asked, though, don't hand them the staff. If it isn't what the wizard actively wants at the moment -- boom.

But the staff doesn't read minds. It just works the obvious will of the caster. Therefore, even if you are the wizard's BFF and he's left his staff lying in the hallway, don't pick it up and take it back to him. Step over it, and remind him not to be so careless. The wizard also can't tell you "Run over to the inn, go into my room, and fetch my staff for me." The wizard isn't present to give permission when you pick up the staff. Nor can the wizard trick you. If he gives permission to pick up the staff and hand it to him, he can't mentally revoke that permission to have it explode in your hand. But I wouldn't try to run away with it, either.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

Obviously, they need playtesting. But I'm very concerned about aimed shots. 1d+2 of occult damage will KO an opponent 2/3 of the time, regardless of normal armor and shields. If, as you intuit, the DX roll is 14-, then a wizard will have a ~60% chance of knocking out an opponent each turn. And the wizard will have a 90% chance of making his foe drop his weapon, drop to a kneeling position, etc. At 2 hex range.

That seems a bit powerful to me. An easy fix would be to disallow aimed shots with Wizard staffs.

Hi all,
Ty is dead on correct here. Why would anyone play a hero? If our groups were to use the new TFT rules, every PC I wrote up would be a wizard. The talents I need to buy are only x2 XP cost.

Warm regards, Rick.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi all,
Ty is dead on correct here. Why would anyone play a hero? If our groups were to use the new TFT rules, every PC I wrote up would be a wizard. The talents I need to buy are only x2 XP cost.

Warm regards, Rick.

I'm enjoying the flood of new ideas, but I'm getting concerned that there may be too many new moving parts to adequately playtest.

I'd hate TFT to ship with poorly playtested rules that unbalance the game. I fear that it would be hard to recover from that in the marketplace.

I'd personally leave this stuff (and a lot of the other stuff) out of the first edition and add it incrementally later on. I'd focus on addressing the non-trivial number of clarifications, ambiguities, inconsistencies and game balance issues.

Of course, I may be greatly underestimating the playtesting resources available.

But I kinda think that the difficulty of playtesting changes to a system increases roughly by the square of the number of new major elements.

<shrug> I'm probably worried about nothing. This is Steve's business after all.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

One quibble. I've never liked the rule about staffs exploding or doing damage if touched. But if they're gonna be kept, could we please make it clear that you can't throw a staff at a target and it explode if it hits?

My ruling was always "no, because when you throw it at someone, you WANT it to hit, therefore they aren't touching it against your will." But it would be nice to include that explicitly in the rules.

That's a good point, and that was one of my very first rulings ("intent matters") as a GM back in the day! ;-)

[The Wyzard]

I think it looks beefier than it really is. Okay, said Wizard is more dangerous in close combat than he used to be. His adjDX is still going to be bad, and he's still going to die if you stick him full of arrows.

It seems to me more that it's *over-optimal* rather than overpowered. I don't think it overshadows Hero/Warrior type PCs. I think it overshadows "wizards who don't take the Staff spell."

It's also possible we're underestimating the opportunity cost of getting your IQ up above 13 or so.

[larsdangly]

It never would have occurred to me to provide the wizard's staff with armor penetration, an IQ based attack, or an automatic attack, as there is nothing else in the original game anything like them. So, whatever power level you are going for, I'd prefer that staffs 'do' things in a way more in synch with the rest of the magical powers in the game.

[JLV]

I think, given the already generally higher power of Wizards versus Warriors, giving them this kind of "Staff of Mass Destruction" would probably be significantly unbalancing to the game. Even if it were published, I don't think I'd allow them in my campaigns...

[The Wyzard]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

It never would have occurred to me to provide the wizard's staff with armor penetration, an IQ based attack, or an automatic attack, as there is nothing else in the original game anything like them. So, whatever power level you are going for, I'd prefer that staffs 'do' things in a way more in synch with the rest of the magical powers in the game.

I actually think this is a better argument against the high-powered staves. It doesn't feel right to me, either, but that's apart from whether it's too powerful.

[The Wyzard]

Originally Posted by JLV

I think, given the already generally higher power of Wizards versus Warriors,

Is this generally accepted as true? I admit I don't have a lot of practical at-the-table experience of the game, but just from screwing around in solo modules, I've never thought wizards were overpowered. Maybe I wasn't playing my wizard figures right?

I generally found that I did the heavy lifting with heroes, and that the wizards were there to buff/debuff/tilt the field. 3:1 heroes to wizards has felt right to me in the past.