Skarg's Experience Point house rule

[Skarg]

Thanks Rick. Yes you could just use IQ-4 or something for wizards, and it'd be about the same. We were really interested in the fighters more than the wizards because it was clear that wizards were another kettle of fish and we'd have little hope of making a simple system with real accuracy for them. Also, we were interested in the system making sense in a vaguely simulationist sort of way, and so while a powerful wizard is certainly a massive threat, a warrior might not really stand to learn that much that would improve their fighting abilities by killing a wizard. From that point of view, the threat value of a wizard might be considered irrelevant for EP purposes unless they do things to you that you can learn from, and summons and illusions already count as fighters.

On speed, it got to be fast for us, and we realized TV was always an estimate so these were guidelines that help a GM learn a consistent way to assign EP value, rather than a task that the GM needed to be meticulously consistent about. In practice it's just ST + adjDX + (armor x 2) plus nudges for anything else that's relevant.

I think it does a good job of being essentially the ITL EP system but with logical corrections, and being simple enough for us. We liked it.

I don't think it's perfect or an entirely accurate measurement of a character's threat value. I could think of ways to make more accurate ratings, but it might be tricky to make it as simple or as similar to the existing system.

I think an equally valid solution would also be to use GM discretion instead... but I think I'd want some sort of a system to have consistent guidelines for what those awards should be.

JK, thanks for the reply - I haven't the time or awakeness to respond in detail tonight but I mean to get to it soon.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... I am enjoying going through this with you. Thanks.

Sure. :-)

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Understood, and we may very well end up right there, and for that very reason; but, we have to BUILD into that rational, proving it step-by-step, as we go, we just can't jump to it as an assumption - as correct as it may seem at first-blush. It's still a theory, and I believe we really should prove it out in development.

Ok, I can do that, though it's old ground for me. I went through that sort of process with the friend I wrote that EP house rule with about 33 years ago, I've discussed it several times with others since then, designed something similar into other game systems since then. I remember the reasoning well, have the notes pile, we played with it through many battles, etc. On the other hand, it's been 33 years and I've mostly been playing GURPS not TFT since then, I have some different ideas now, etc.

I still think what we came up with was a really good system that addresses the main problem we saw with EP rewards, and is simple (though probably a pain for GMs who don't like doing subtraction during play) and based on the ITL EP system.

If I were to design my own ideal system for my own use now, or wanted to emphasize accuracy of the actual combat value of a fighter character, however, I think I would actually do it at least somewhat differently, as I don't care so much now about trying to match the ITL EP system. For example, I'd probably use a computer to do some analysis.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

It's not a final value, just a pre-calculation only - we have to wait for that. It is only the first factor, one of many such factors we may add and consider, as we build. We may add many, many more such factors - depending on the level of complexity we feel is desirable, and in the end, we may very well cut that BIG final factored total in half, or by a third, or fourth, to scale it properly. So, I am NOT saying that those sample fighters with combat talents - once actually armed and armored, etc - are worth those specific totals; what I am asking is: Can we agree that the values of 24, 25, and 31 are correct if we only add the prescribed talent cost to the base, AS A START to developing the method towards finding a final value? And, that this is a reasonable thing - and MAY NOT be the ONLY thing - to account for, in finding that final value?

No, we don't agree. I think even without considering the system I developed, that it is clear that while ST and DX (actually, adjDX) have an actual impact on how formidable an opponent is, that the memory points put into most combat talents has no clear relation to how formidable someone is, and it certainly isn't the same as points in ST and DX (so doing so would introduce an error).

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

... Again, "Too far, Too fast". Before we can properly account for what value a specific combat talent adds in function during play, can we agree that we should FIRST account for the value a combat talent adds by merely existing within a figure in the first place?

I don't think we can account for the value of a combat talent without looking at what it does, and how that relates to other things we're assigning a value to. I mean, we can agree that a character spent X memory points on talents, and you can add those to ST + DX if you like, but I see reasons those values are liable not to be very useful for accurately assessing how effective a fighter is.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Okay, here we may have a different points-of-view. I will take the position that it is enough that the character has the POTENTIAL to use any combat talent he possesses, even if he doesn't actually use that talent in a specific melee; as he COULD use it, or MAY use it - who's to say - but the fact that he perhaps didn't use it in a specific melee, does not - in my mind - make the figure worth less as a kill in factoring the Combat EP Value.

Having various extra weapon talents might possibly be useful (like if your weapon breaks, and a dropped weapon of a different type is lying around - in that case, sure, you took advantage of redundant weapon talents and avoided a -4 DX penalty late in the fight, so sure maybe that's worth +2 in that rare case). However unless you're an Octopus there is usually a limit of using one weapon per turn, and usually a turn required to ready a different weapon, so it almost never gives a linearly additive advantage to have more than one basic weapon talent, so its a mistake to simply add the memory points of all combat talents together as if having several basic weapon talents makes you the same amount more formidable as adding more levels of ST or DX, or getting talents that work at the same time as a weapon talent (which are going to almost always be more effective).

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

So, if I am understanding you POV, you think ACTUAL is the way to go, and I think POTENTIAL is the way to go. Your thoughts on this at this point, please.

Yes. I want EP to represent more what a character learns from what actually happened, and not so much what might have happened. I don't want to award a bunch of EP for killing someone who has various talents he didn't use at all - i.e. talents and situations that the victor did not experience.

I think it might be useful to say what you want your EP amounts to represent. The system I listed had two things in mind: 1) The threat level of the opponent - objectively how hard it is to defeat that opponent as the character is actually encountered in play. 2) How much can the victor be expected to have learned / developed from facing and defeating that opponent as the character is actually encountered in play.

Also, the system I mentioned is a "patch" on the existing system. We were acutely aware of a major malfuction in the published system, and devised a system that addresses that while being a relatively simple modification to the existing system that does not question the baseline that attribute totals approximate the EP value of defeating someone.

Having thought lots more about character improvement from experience in RPGs in last 33 years, I now actually have different ideas about what I'd ideally want, though I still think that system is rather good at what it does (i.e. simply patch the problem with weaker foes giving far more EP than their threat, compared to stronger foes.)

Ideally, what I'd really want (which is very different from the system I posted) is instead, 3) How much a character should learn and develop their own abilities from the fighting they do in play against the opponents they face, whether they beat them or not. (That's a harder problem which I've also worked on, but don't have a ready tested solution for for TFT.)

It sounds like you have may some different ideas about what you'd think the amount of EP given should represent. I'd be very interested to hear what you think you'd (ideally, or practically) like the amount of EP for a fight to represent.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

My reasoning is: Because the adj.DX of a figure is dynamic, not static; and the value of a figure's specific combat talent - if we follow the same values which are listed cost - is fixed, quantifiable, and consistent; and that should aid in making easier and consistent calculations as an overall method. Your thoughts on that, please.

I would say that although the memory cost of combat talents is fixed, quantifiable and consistent, its effect on how dangerous a fighter is clearly not directly proportional to that cost, not equal to the value of the same number of points of increased ST or DX, has no effect at all when not used, has no combat effect other than to avoid a -4 adjDX for basic weapon talents, and that even if we find the perfect value for each talent, the effect of different combos of them on one character isn't additive, especially not if it's more weapon talents than you'll use in a fight. I think that's all easily demonstrable by considering a rating system as a point-buy situation. What would you rather have? Sword and Warrior, or Sword and Ax/Mace? How about Sword and +2 DX, or Sword and Ax/Mace? Clearly having two basic weapon talents rarely if ever increases the danger of fighting an armed foe, but Warrior and +2 DX both have strong concrete effects.

I suggest that combat talents and the memory points put into them themselves are actually worth nothing - what's worth something is the effects they have in terms of things that determine what happens in combat; DX adjustments, inflicting or stopping more damage, etc.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

As an aside, I must point out, that I do not feel it is accurate to say that "base DX has no direct effect on combat", as base DX, by definition is: Skill with tasks; especially involving the hands - with combat generally being a thing one does with the hands.

I think maybe it wasn't clear what I meant. I'm just saying the actual adjDX used is what determines how dangerous someone is in practice.

Fighting someone with -4 DX due to a Clumsiness spell is the same as fighting someone with -4 DX due to using a weapon they lack the talent for (with some error for DX uses that don't involve that weapon).

Maybe a better example is: fighting someone with DX 13 in cloth armor with a Stone Flesh spell on him (armor 5, -1 DX for adj DX 12) is effectively the same situation & difficulty (except for MA and encumbrance level) as fighting someone with DX 18 wearing plate armor without a spell (armor 5, adj DX 12).

[JLV]

Skarg; I'm really liking this system. So even if Rick refuses to say it, I will:

You Rock!

I like the speed of calculation, the relationship that it reflects between cannon-fodder and heroes, and the fact that you retain flexibility by letting the GM hand-wave some of the info in order to generate the proper "feel" to the difficulty of the combat.

Well done, sir.

Do you have any examples of calculating the TV for creatures (including things like Dragons)?

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

...On the other hand, it's been 33 years and I've mostly been playing GURPS not TFT since then, I have some different ideas now, etc.

Yes, and that is exactly the reason why - aside from your elegant prose-style, overt brilliance, charm, good looks, and reputation as an international philanthropist and man-about-town - I was interested in re-examining your old rules-set with you. I too have some different ideas on game-design after all these years, though the changes in my thinking have more to do with analysis, trouble-shooting, logic and reasoning, and arithmetic relationships. So my thinking - besides that we communicate well together in the past and I respect a lot of what you comment on in the forum- we might add both our experience and perspectives together, and achieve a synergistic answer to the EP problem - superior to what either of us could come up with otherwise.

Originally Posted by Skarg

...I don't care so much now about trying to match the ITL EP system...

Well, see that will make for a real "design-team" philosophy-compatibility issue; as I am all about preserving and building-off of the original rule-set as much as possible.

It comes down to a distinct differences in the approach and the goal of Restoration vs. Renovation vs Replacement. I am married to the philosophy of a "Restorative Renovation" approach for TFT first and foremost; and Replacement as an absolute "last-ditch, heroic-measures" solution - once all other schemes have been examined and exhausted.

SKARG, I feel we are both wanting to head to the same general destination on this one, but the end-condition we find ourselves in, when we do get there, is something were we do not appear to be on the same page.

So what are we going to do about that?

Originally Posted by Skarg

I don't think we can account for the value of a combat talent without looking at what it does, and how that relates to other things we're assigning a value to.

Right, TOTAL AGREEMENT; HOWEVER, I am of the opinion that "an empty gun can effectively threaten as well as a loaded gun"; and therefore, I am not understanding why we should not account for BOTH the raw talent AND the it's effect when used - separately factored as a pre-calculation as 2 different stated values, which ONLY sum together when the actual skill is employed in combat - yet the talent is ever-present, and therefore should be valued and accounted for regardless.

I hold this opinion because: 1) if two identical brother are going to have a fight, but the 2nd Brother has all manner of martial and psychological knowledge in his head - even if he can't use most of those talents and knowledge in a specific melee - I feel he should still "get minimum credit" for his enhanced knowledge and background in making him the greater threat of the two; hence my reasoning for awarding the base talent cost to the Combat EP Award calculation. Also, 2) if both brothers, now being Wizards, are fighting with identical staves, and they both possess: Staff, yet the 2nd brother has also studied: 3-Sectional Staff (a peculiar Chinese weapon), and Pole-Weapons, he has more combat knowledge over brother number one, and therefore posses the greater intrinsic threat - by my reasoning.

Where am I off-base here?

Originally Posted by Skarg

I think it might be useful to say what you want your EP amounts to represent...It sounds like you have may some different ideas about what you'd think the amount of EP given should represent. I'd be very interested to hear what you think you'd (ideally, or practically) like the amount of EP for a fight to represent.

I think this is a great idea !

Although we both agree on the end goal, as far as all the things I think the Combat EP Award should include, I cannot give you an absolute answer at this time, as I feel we have only scratch the surface. So, I can only answer based on the work we have done so far, and that would be summarized as:

• IQ Att value by itself has no direct valuation on the Combat EP Award - We Agree - Cannon
• ST + DX are valued at their Attribute Value as per the existing rules - Cannon
• Combat Talents are valued at the same rate as their stated cost, and added as a factor; even if unused actively in a Melee.
• Primary Ready Weapons are given a value - larger weapons being assigned larger values - are stated with a value (i.e. all things being equal, a Hvy. Crossbowman, ready to fire, offers a greater threat than an archer with a horse bow ready to fire), but only added as a factor when used in a Melee.

Ideally, in the end, I would like to see a 45 point ST15 DX15 IQ15 French Pastry Chef, No Longer Be Worth The Exact Same EP Award. if he is killed by a ST-15 DX-15 IQ-15 Samurai Blade Master, even if he is only armed with a rusty apple-coring knife. and more if he uses his Katana; and visa-versa.

That is where I am at this point of development in our discussion. If we could agree on the subject of Combat Talents being valued at their base cost, as a means to gauge the overall value of a fighter and his combat knowledge overall, we could move forward to assigning specific values for weapons actually used in Melee.

Originally Posted by Skarg

What would you rather have? Sword and Warrior, or Sword and Ax/Mace? How about Sword and +2 DX, or Sword and Ax/Mace? Clearly having two basic weapon talents rarely if ever increases the danger of fighting an armed foe, but Warrior and +2 DX both have strong concrete effects.

I would say this question is unfair, and is "begging the question", as it based on a fixed perspective; and we have agreed - I think - that we are looking through two different lenses; one based on ACTUAL and one based on POTENTIAL.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I suggest that combat talents and the memory points put into them themselves are actually worth nothing

I have to stand firm on "An empty gun threatens as much as a loaded gun" at this point in time.

Originally Posted by Skarg

what's worth something is the effects they have in terms of things that determine what happens in combat; DX adjustments, inflicting or stopping more damage, etc.

AGREED 100%, I just feel combat knowledge is worth something too in defining the total fighter and threat.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Maybe a better example is: fighting someone with DX 13 in cloth armor with a Stone Flesh spell on him (armor 5, -1 DX for adj DX 12) is effectively the same situation & difficulty (except for MA and encumbrance level) as fighting someone with DX 18 wearing plate armor without a spell (armor 5, adj DX 12).

Mechanically perhaps, but I think they should present differently, and be factored differently; but we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Are we any closer to agreeing that combat talents - used or unused - represents enhanced combat knowledge and creates more threatening figthers?

JK

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Well, see that will make for a real "design-team" philosophy-compatibility issue; as I am all about preserving and building-off of the original rule-set as much as possible.

It comes down to a distinct differences in the approach and the goal of Restoration vs. Renovation vs Replacement. I am married to the philosophy of a "Restorative Renovation" approach for TFT first and foremost; and Replacement as an absolute "last-ditch, heroic-measures" solution - once all other schemes have been examined and exhausted.

SKARG, I feel we are both wanting to head to the same general destination on this one, but the end-condition we find ourselves in, when we do get there, is something were we do not appear to be on the same page.

So what are we going to do about that?

Just because my ideal now would not be to match the ITL EP system, I'm still interested in systems that do.

It seems to me that the system I posted at the top (which I still quite like and is what I'd choose to use for TFT unless/until I invent something else) is very much a "restoration" effort. It's basically just some adjustments on top of the ITL EP system.

I'm willing to agree to talk about what sort of EP system you want to work on, as long as we can define what what that is, and I can relate to it enough to be interesting to me.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Right, TOTAL AGREEMENT; HOWEVER, I am of the opinion that "an empty gun can effectively threaten as well as a loaded gun"; and therefore, I am not understanding why we should not account for BOTH the raw talent AND the it's effect when used - separately factored as a pre-calculation as 2 different stated values, which ONLY sum together when the actual skill is employed in combat - yet the talent is ever-present, and therefore should be valued and accounted for regardless.

I hold this opinion because: 1) if two identical brother are going to have a fight, but the 2nd Brother has all manner of martial and psychological knowledge in his head - even if he can't use most of those talents and knowledge in a specific melee - I feel he should still "get minimum credit" for his enhanced knowledge and background in making him the greater threat of the two; hence my reasoning for awarding the base talent cost to the Combat EP Award calculation. Also, 2) if both brothers, now being Wizards, are fighting with identical staves, and they both possess: Staff, yet the 2nd brother has also studied: 3-Sectional Staff (a peculiar Chinese weapon), and Pole-Weapons, he has more combat knowledge over brother number one, and therefore posses the greater intrinsic threat - by my reasoning.

Where am I off-base here?

It sounds to me from the above and other examples you've written, that you would like to build an EP system with what I might call a broader "scope" than TFT usually uses.

By "scope", I mean that when I think of various RPG character improvement systems, one could break them down by the precision of the character actions that result in improvements or points towards improvement. You were calling it Actual versus Potential, but I'm thinking it's also perhaps a bit like the scale ranging from systems where EP/improvement is awarded for individual acts (mostly what TFT does, I would say) to systems where awards are for certain challenges/opponents overcome or rewards attained, on up to systems with even broader scope for assessing rewards, such as per session/adventure/quest/milestone, or just per GM gut feeling.

Looking at ITL (page 10) Experience Points rules, we see experience is "do[ing] something "well"" and for actions, each point of damage done in combat, killing foes, using fatigue casting spells under pressure, making 4-die or harder saving rolls against danger or when putting talents "to good use" ... So far, all of those are for specific actions so small/narrow in scope, and what you called Actual. Then there's also time spent in play (which we very rarely used because it seemed OOC and could instead fall under GM discretion) and GM Discretion.

I'm curious whether you'd agree, but it seems to me that what you're talking about with giving more EP for beating someone with more Potential threat, is what I'd call a higher-scope perspective. Meaning that the award isn't assessed based on what you actually did under what actual conditions (as I would say most/all of the TFT awards are aimed at, even if they're so simple they're often not very proportional to danger), such as a few rounds of actual combat, but rather, you'd like a system that awards EP based on the larger-scale conflict, such as the heroes come into the domain of some foes, and anything could happen, including who notices whom first, what they all do between fights, and so on.

If that's what you mean, then I might be more inclined to agree with the idea that a wide range of combat talents might be thought to all be relevant to the difficulty of defeating someone. Because you're talking about the difficulty of defeating an opponent who lives a day away, and the whole adventure of being in the same world as that foe and all the circumstances that lead up to you defeating them or not. With that broader scope, sure in a sense the foe is more dangerous if they have multiple weapon skills, because you might in theory be more likely to meet them in situations where there is a weapon they know how to use nearby.

But I'm afraid I'm still going to complain about just adding up memory points, because when you do face someone, they generally can only use one weapon at a time against you, and the majority of the thousands and thousands of TFT fighters I've seen die in play, only made use of one or two weapons, and it seems to me that the value of redundant weapon talents in play is just almost always far less than +1 attribute, or having a talent that does tend to end up affecting something during play. So even if we agree the Potential added danger of a foe with extra weapon talents is non-zero and relevant to the scope of the EP system even when unused, I don't think the actual value I would assign to having more than one weapon talent would even amount to +1 in most cases.

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

I think this is a great idea !

Although we both agree on the end goal, as far as all the things I think the Combat EP Award should include, I cannot give you an absolute answer at this time, as I feel we have only scratch the surface. So, I can only answer based on the work we have done so far, and that would be summarized as:

• IQ Att value by itself has no direct valuation on the Combat EP Award - We Agree - Cannon
• ST + DX are valued at their Attribute Value as per the existing rules - Cannon
• Combat Talents are valued at the same rate as their stated cost, and added as a factor; even if unused actively in a Melee.
• Primary Ready Weapons are given a value - larger weapons being assigned larger values - are stated with a value (i.e. all things being equal, a Hvy. Crossbowman, ready to fire, offers a greater threat than an archer with a horse bow ready to fire), but only added as a factor when used in a Melee.

Ideally, in the end, I would like to see a 45 point ST15 DX15 IQ15 French Pastry Chef, No Longer Be Worth The Exact Same EP Award. if he is killed by a ST-15 DX-15 IQ-15 Samurai Blade Master, even if he is only armed with a rusty apple-coring knife. and more if he uses his Katana; and visa-versa.

I'd like to ask not just what the formula or desired sort of EP amount you'd want, but literally what I asked, i.e. "what you think you'd (ideally, or practically) like the amount of EP for a fight to represent." By "represent", I mean, what in the way things work in the game universe is it that has the victor gain an amount of useful experience by defeating someone?

(For example, I might say that there is the experience of being in deadly combat, and the experience of fighting someone trying to kill you using various strength, abilities, and equipment, and the more formidable that is, the more you learn what it is like to fight someone at that level and what you can do about it and details of techniques they use and so on. It trains your muscle memory, reflexes/reactions, and how you do what you do when you fight, and the more capable the opponent relative to your own ability, the more you're liable to learn and improve if you survive.)

I'm interested in how you'd answer that, if materially different from what I wrote?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

Skarg; I'm really liking this system. So even if Rick refuses to say it, I will:

You Rock!

I like the speed of calculation, the relationship that it reflects between cannon-fodder and heroes, and the fact that you retain flexibility by letting the GM hand-wave some of the info in order to generate the proper "feel" to the difficulty of the combat.

Well done, sir.

Do you have any examples of calculating the TV for creatures (including things like Dragons)?

Thanks JLV!

I don't have any already-made-up monster examples, but I remember a few things about doing it, so I'll post some examples later when I have more time.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Thanks JLV!

I don't have any already-made-up monster examples, but I remember a few things about doing it, so I'll post some examples later when I have more time.

Thanks! I'm interested in seeing how it holds up when confronted with things like innate powers that some creatures have. For instance; how does a Basilisk's ability to "freeze" someone stack up against the magic spell, given that the Basilisk can use it automatically at no ST cost? ;-)

[Kirk]

This discussion is interesting in that it seems our group is a *little* less "accurate", in general, when it comes to dishing out EP.

We don't like to slow play with too many gonculations so the GM awards EP, usually on the fly, with guesstimates, such as "that's 9 points for the damage" or "5 points for seeing that hidden door" or "everyone did something to kill that dragon so divide up 40 points amongst yourselves" or "critical miss on that spell to freeze the other wizard, -10 points" etc.

If a player wants to make a good case for some EP, they can do so later, sometimes the GM is busy keeping the game moving along. And the problem with the "final" blow that takes someone out always starts arguments if someone spent turns whittling down the giant, and some EP vulture swoops in to take out the last point for the DX EP. So the GM when we play has the final say on EP, in general, that isn't always super accurate calculations strictly by the rules.

[JLV]

Hmm, that's strange...we never passed out XP until everyone was back safe in their staging base (whatever that was). In rare cases, if the camping location was "safe" enough that they didn't have to still be on edge all the time, we might pass them out then, but those were pretty rare cases.

I guess generally we "assumed" that if you were still on alert, you didn't have the leisure to "internalize" the lessons learned during the adventure; so you couldn't get XP until you were someplace where you could think hard and absorb the lessons from your adventures without distraction. So the GM mostly just made notes on what was killed, by whom, and any special circumstances or XP-worthy events, and then we hashed it out in the safe house.

Oddly enough, I don't think it was because D&D did it that way, but because most of us had some military experience and were used to the "hot wash" ("After Action", or "Lessons Learned") meetings that happen after every exercise or combat operation, where you study what happened and how you could do it better next time. For example, after DESERT STORM, there was almost a year's worth of "hot washes" where everyone, Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines tried to capture what went right, what didn't go the way it was planned, and how to make sure we "institutionalized" the lessons learned from the war. It led to a lot of changes in the way we did business the next time around. You don't do that in the middle of the exercise or combat operation, because no one has time to think about it then; you go with what you know and how you trained, and then fix the errors, and praise the successes later.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

Thanks! I'm interested in seeing how it holds up when confronted with things like innate powers that some creatures have. For instance; how does a Basilisk's ability to "freeze" someone stack up against the magic spell, given that the Basilisk can use it automatically at no ST cost? ;-)

The Basilisk is a good example of apples & oranges. The formula is really designed to compare fighters, rather than powers that bypass fighting skills. The question of what TV to assign should first consider whether you want to award combat EP for surviving a kind of attack that isn't about fighting. Some GM's might want to do that, but I think I wouldn't. I'd follow what ITL says, which is to note a Basilisk is a really lame fighter and assign it a TV that ignores the paralysis - they're really easy to kill with fighting, and probably improve your fighting skill about like chopping up the fat, ugly lizard that a Basilisk is. It's TV is 18 as a fighter. However the paralysis attacks are worth 10 EP every time you resist one.

I ran some sample monsters through the formula. The first thing is there is often an adjustment to make for the ST. Half the difference between the ST and the equivalent ST a human would need to do that damage with a weapon, so for example an unarmed full Demon does 4d damage, which is about 2 higher than a Greatsword, so 18, and its ST is 100, so add them and take half, for 59.

Otherwise, the animals are fairly straightforward, though usually they're much tougher to fight if they get you in HTH (one way to weigh that would be to note it reduces a human's TV (but not most beasts) when they fight with bare hands or a dagger).

Wolf 26
Dire Wolf (with 1 armor from fur) 28
Black Bear 31
Grizzly 37

Multi-hex creatures deserve an advantage if they use their size to avoid engagement, move onto foes to knock them over and trample them as described in Advanced Melee. I gave +1 to 2-6 hex creatures for this, +2 to 7-hex or larger creatures.

Lion 34
Tiger 35.5
Elephant 51.5

The giant scorpion is interesting because of its special attacks. The pincer does damage like ST 9, but it causes immobilization, -4 DX, and possibly wasted turns trying to escape. I figured that was worth about ST 9 but with a +4 for the DX effect. The sting only works after holding a victim, and does 1 damage plus 2d, but only if the victim fails 4d vs ST... AND the sting is useless against someone with armor 3 or better, so that too is about like ST 13 but only if not voided by armor or ST. This is a great example of how a monster might warrant two TVs, or just simply a very low TV for someone with armor 3 or better.

Giant Scorpion 33.5, or a LOT less if you have armor 3+.

Though Lesser Demons do 2d unarmed, they can use any weapon, so assuming they do, I gave them weapon-ST 16. I also gave Demons a +5 for their teleport ability, which may actually be worth more depending on how they use it.

Lesser Demon 57
Demon 87

A ST 30 giant doing 3d+3 damage with DX 10 and no armor came to 35.

Dragons are a little tricky to rate. They can do claw, breath and tail attacks (and trampling) all in one turn. Normally with multiple attacks I rate the weapon ST as half the difference between the better damage and the total damage if both hit someone unarmored (since a target's armor will count against both attacks, and one may miss so its value is somewhere between the value of just having the better attack, and doing full damage with both.

However dragon breath is greatly handicapped by the -1 DX per hex range from the head, and of course the rather high ST cost of using it at all, so I used weapon ST for damage half-way between claw damage and breath damage.

I gave dragons +1 for their tail attack, +1 for flying & high flying MA, +1 for the various advantages of their high ST, and their size bonus.

4-hex Dragon 44.5
7-hex Dragon 66.5
14-hex Dragon 90