02-25-2018, 10:52 AM | #51 | |
Join Date: Jan 2018
|
Re: TFT Defense
Quote:
It could work and it's simple to apply, but the house rules should specify if a successfull parry blocks any damage. It's hard to say that a T-H Axe can be blocked by a shortword or by a small shield. Size of weapons and shields should matter. And this adds complexity. |
|
02-25-2018, 11:08 AM | #52 |
Join Date: Jan 2018
|
Re: TFT Defense
I was thinking to something really simple to implement and on the path of the existing rules.
If the problem is that Defend is not useful enough, even if the defender gets +1 DX for the next turn (and possibly +2 DX if he uses Defend for two turns), it's possible to improve its usefulness halving any damage delivered on the "Defending" guy in the case the hit is successful despite the 4d/DX. Suddenly Defend becomes more desiderable. Fractions are rounded up, and the inherent parry halving the damage is possible only against ONE enemy in a front hex. Thus if the hero plying "Defend" is attacked by more opponents, all roll 4d/DX, but only ONE hit (coming from a front hex) is halved. It's a little help to the Defend Option that adds no rules or bookeeping. |
02-25-2018, 11:20 AM | #53 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: TFT Defense
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2018, 11:58 AM | #54 | ||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: TFT Defense
Quote:
Quote:
I would also not use the word "parry" but would call it something like "defense", because I think it is a trap to think of defense having to be a literal parry or block. If you watch skilled people fight (or try sparring), you'll notice that avoiding being hit is often about other things - timing, how you move, etc, and there is certainly a common middle ground between attacking with little thought to defense, and defending without attacking. In fact it seems to me that many fights mainly hinge on doing that (avoiding attacks and also attacking) better, and that THAT is the main thing missing in TFT's options. (Ideally (personally I prefer detail to simplicity) I would also want some modifiers for equipment, too. I'd rather shields in particular added to efforts to defend, than strangely reducing damage a bit all the time. e.g. Shields don't stop hits but add their shield rating to defense, and penalty to defense for not having anything good to defend with - maybe a +/- for certain weapons.) |
||
02-25-2018, 02:39 PM | #55 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: TFT Defense
Quote:
The defend option remains, and is just as useful. A parry is always specifically against one and only one attack, and only helps you if your roll succeeds. The defend option helps against more than 1 attack, and is helpful without you having to make a roll. In my house rules, a successful parry does not negate an attack; it provides additional damage reduction against that attack (in addition to whatever armor and shield you are using). A small weapon like a dagger or buckler stops 3 on a successful parry; a medium weapon like a sword or mace or a large shield stops 6, and a large weapon like a two handed sword or pole arm or a tower shield stops 9. Also relevant: you cannot parry with a shield and benefit from its normal 'block' protection on the same turn. As for complexity, that is in the eye of the beholder. In practice, this is not really a source of much complexity because few combatants chose to perform two attack and/or parry actions per turn, because the additional die rolled means they will fail. Basically, these rules are relevant to duels between high-adj.DX combatants. |
|
05-11-2018, 10:33 PM | #56 |
Join Date: Jan 2018
|
Re: TFT Defense
If you want to do this the simplest way (no extra rolls) one player designates how many DX points he will add to the opposing player's attack. He then subtracts this from his own DX on his own attack.
Example 1: Robin Hood DX 19 is fighting Sir Guy DX 15, Robin decides he wants to be safe so he takes 7 DX to use for defense and that is added to Sir Guy's DX roll. Thus Sir Guy will need to roll an 8 or less to hit Robin. Robin will need a 12 or less to hit as he used 7 of his DX defending. Example 2: Robin against 3 henchmen DX 11. Robin decides to use 2 DX points on each of the henchmen lowering their to hit number to 9 or less. Robin still has an AdjDX of 13 as he needs to knock out at least one of them from the fight before the numbers catch up to him. |
05-11-2018, 11:43 PM | #57 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: TFT Defense
Quote:
Does it work? Yes. However, when applied to TFT, we found the following results: 1) It slowed play. 2) It didn't feel like TFT anymore. 3) We were not sure why we liked it for CHAMPIONS, but didn't like it for TFT. 4) We abandoned using it in TFT and very quickly went back to the "as written" TFT rules. Stating the matter as briefly as possible, with the insights I have today versus then, I would say "why" it didn't feel like TFT, and caused us to abandoned this concept is the simple fact that it takes the play out of that fixed and binary, Chess-like, TFT-feel, form, and flow, and into a gradient mode. I keep coming back to this fixed, binary and Chess-like feel to TFT as key. As gradient rules, being scalable, may offer more fine-tuning in reflecting the detail of what's happening with an attack or talent, but at the cost of moving the feel further away from what feels like TFT to me. So, yes, the simple formula Bayarea presents as an option DOES work; it just didn't work for US in TFT - however, your mileage may vary. JK Last edited by Jim Kane; 05-12-2018 at 02:50 AM. |
|
05-12-2018, 01:59 PM | #58 |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: TFT Defense
Yes, the TFT feel. It's important to keep it and be able to have others who haven't experienced it have access.
Back in the early 80s when GURPS was under development someone told me about a new feature that was being considered, a "defense roll" based on DX plus one die. I thought, hmmm...., might work, but as a house rule it might change TFT in ways I can't even predict. Let's see how it all works out in the game under development. GURPS was the result, we bought Man to Man, tried it, didn't like it, never played it much afterwards. So it sounded innocuous, seemed like it would solve the problem of not having one's own skill alter someone else's attack, but in the end began a set of changes that just played much differently than TFT, and which we just did not enjoy. |
05-12-2018, 02:24 PM | #59 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: TFT Defense
Quote:
So often they "fix" the one situation and somehow sacrifice the other. Like changing bad grammar contained within the lyrics to most Stones' songs: "I am unable to acquire and retain a measurable level of Sa-tis-fac-tion,... though I endeavor, I endeavor, I endeavor,... I am wholly unable to procure a modicum of,... Sa-tis-fac-tion" Somehow it "precisely misses" the magical-mark set by inspiration and spirit. JK Last edited by Jim Kane; 05-14-2018 at 02:49 PM. Reason: Typical Typos |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|