Peculiar Weapons

[Steve Jackson]

I am reviewing that section right now, and I'm mostly sorry that I wrote it for Advanced Melee. It seems to cry out to be edited with a (non-peculiar) axe. Some of the items, like the lasso, carry their own balance with them. But more of them are just cheats. Give your weapon this special name and you can use it at a low strength (naginata) or throw a whole bunch at once (sha-ken). Little or no play value is added, just abuse potential, and the original clean balance of weapons is muddied.

This can't be fixed just by increasing the cost of the talent, because the truly abusive character probably has only the one abusive talent anyhow. If it cost so much that he can't read, write, or count, that doesn't matter - he can still throw a handful of sha-ken at an enemy's eyes once per turn.

Should I just go heavy on the Delete key in this section, do you think?

[wolf90]

My vote is yes.

I think having a few bizarre weapons is nice, and certainly can add flavor to the game, but anything with notable abuse potential should be either revamped to bring it back into balance with other weapons, or nuked.

D.

[GlennDoren]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

I am reviewing that section right now, and I'm mostly sorry that I wrote it for Advanced Melee. It seems to cry out to be edited with a (non-peculiar) axe. Some of the items, like the lasso, carry their own balance with them. But more of them are just cheats. Give your weapon this special name and you can use it at a low strength (naginata) or throw a whole bunch at once (sha-ken).

I remember abusing use of the naginata and sha-ken back when I was 14 :D

And yes, chop away. No need to have weapons that break balance like that. If there's really a need to have some of those weapons, find a way to simulate them in a balanced/useable way.

[Shostak]

Those weapons never fit any of my games. No tears will be shed here if they are unpeculiarly axed.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

I am reviewing that section right now, and I'm mostly sorry that I wrote it for Advanced Melee. It seems to cry out to be edited with a (non-peculiar) axe. Some of the items, like the lasso, carry their own balance with them. But more of them are just cheats. Give your weapon this special name and you can use it at a low strength (naginata) or throw a whole bunch at once (sha-ken). Little or no play value is added, just abuse potential, and the original clean balance of weapons is muddied.

This can't be fixed just by increasing the cost of the talent, because the truly abusive character probably has only the one abusive talent anyhow. If it cost so much that he can't read, write, or count, that doesn't matter - he can still throw a handful of sha-ken at an enemy's eyes once per turn.

Should I just go heavy on the Delete key in this section, do you think?

I vote yes. You might make the original rules available online as a “see how we did it” resource for those who want them. I found them to be mostly a hassle and strongly discouraged my players from using them. Well, “coerced them” might not be too strong a word.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi Steve, everyone.
I rewrote the whole section, adding saving throw and completely changing some weapons. (Boomerang now is a flying club that does club damage for example.)

I would shed no tears if it was deleted. On the other hand, having cool and unusual weapons is nice, and with care some rules could be written that would work. Perhaps they could be moved into a supplement on W23 that give a bunch of new weapons?

Whichever you do is fine with me.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

I think they can all work ok... if you "nerf" them by including the reasons they wouldn't really be so effective. I already sent you notes with some ideas for that in email. For weapons that you think shouldn't be effective enough to include, you could leave them out and you or others like me can post their house rules about how to handle them. I think most of them are interesting in concept and fun to use occasionally, but just need to not be more powerful than they should be.

Naginata just being better and wanting another talent that only works for it, is silly. I'd axe that one.

The entanglement ones want a decent chance to fail to incapacitate the target regardless of attacker's DX, especially against someone quite strong and/or competent - i.e. they want a saving roll, and they probably shouldn't be ready-able instantly, should have carrying limits (no 6 war boomerangs, 6 nets, 6 bolas, 144 sha ken...), and so on. I think it's possible to make them interesting but not just better than standard weapons, not ignoring how good the target is, etc.

[larsdangly]

Good question.

On one hand, having diverse weapons (and other equipment, like shields and armor) that are functionally different from each other adds a lot to a tactical game like TFT. People like toys, but they are also smart enough to see through the ruse of putting different labels on 50 things that are effectively the same. So, while you might need to come up with a new way to make a short sword different from a mace, the game will definitely benefit if you keep a large weapon list and give people reasons to prefer one over another.

If this is done in a dumb way it breaks games: If a mace is simply better than a short sword in all circumstances (for example), or is the same but easier to qualify for, then the short sword is irrelevant and every player will quickly figure out how to game the system to their advantage. The same could be said for making a point of DX intrinsically better than a point of ST in all circumstances: whatever arguments people might marshal for or against it, a core quality of the game is that ST and DX are different from each other and help you in different ways, yet they are basically equally valuable in the end. The same applies for diversity in gear.

Another important thing is that the talent system already is part of the 'trade space' of combat capabilities. There are several ways in which you can trade a talent slot for a DX bonus, damage bonus, armor, etc. And talents are required to use various classes of weapons. So, why not combine these ideas and have there be weapons that possess interesting special qualities, but are accessible only if you invest talent points?

What is goofy is to have those weapons be something like a naginata or quarterstaff, which are common and indistinguishable from other similar weapons.

You will find your way to whatever solution seems best to you. But if I were in your shoes I would try to come up with a system that is structurally simple but more generalizable, like, what if there were three categories of weapon talents - simple, intermediate and complex, costing 1, 2 and 3 points each respectively, and each talent basically buys you expertise with one specific weapon rather than a wide category. I'd put more attention into fine tuning the things that make one weapon different from another. The game would be better if maces were not just short swords with different labels on them.

You did a really good job of this in GURPS. I know you don't want to turn TFT into GURPS, and I hope that doesn't happen. GURPS is a great game, but it already exists and is good for other things. But if you borrowed one or two clever mechanics insights about weapons, shields, damage, etc. it might really 'pair' well with TFT.

[JLV]

I'd say yes, get rid of them. Either that or nerf the heck out of them. It's kind of cool to have things like Sha-ken available to the players, but they should be more like nuisance weapons (unless poisoned) than truly effective ones -- kind of like a blow-gun dart -- maybe max one HIT, and not even that if your character is wearing any kind of armor...but if you get a critical hit, bad things can happen!

I would say that maybe moving the rules over to a section on "way back when..." or even "non-canon and highly optional rules that may unbalance the game" would be helpful (which would also be a nice place for everyone who wants to suggest rules that address some minor (but to them, annoying) "gap" in the rules can post their ideas).

[larsdangly]

If you do sort through this stuff based on what is excessive and what is not, please base it on some sort of quantitative principle instead of just 'feel'. Some of the things people think are unbalanced are clearly pretty wild, but others are in keeping with the game's core trade offs. Basically, the rule of thumb for common talents is that you can trade 1 talent point slot for a +1 situational DX bonus or a 2 talent point slot for a point of damage or armor. Which works out to be about the same value when you think of this as an 'expected value' problem. These numbers are all loose, but provide a reasonable framework for interpreting missile weapons, thrown weapons, 'warrior', etc.

When a peculiar weapon follows this pattern I don't think it is unbalancing and needs to be 'nerfed'. It is just another case where you can trade off talent commitments for some sort of situational benefit. The Naginata might be a good example of this: It is kind of silly to have a peculiar weapon talent for a totally ordinary pole weapon. But it isn't exactly unfair, when you compare it with other uses of talent points to support combat abilities