TFT Defense

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Honestly, TFT would be a stronger game if it adapted something like the mix of passive defense and protection rules from GURPS for armor and shields. This would make some people uncomfortable because it feels like you are sliding toward remaking GURPS, which no one wants. But there are a couple of technical details to how damage, protection, etc. worked in GURPS that are just better versions of the treatment in TFT, and they are not really any more complicated or slow. If I were in the captain's chair, that's what I would do. Melee is a combat engine; why wouldn't you want all the coolest, highest-verisimilitude pieces in it?

TFT makes almost all deflection issues a matter of an extra die in the pool.

Simply adding a point or two of damage reduction is NOT in any way giving fidelity to the realities.

Judging when to apply a much more severe reduction is the key to giving realism.

the cost in handling time is why I suggest the off-color die. Increasing by a die is already the extant rule (it's in Melee), but that's a clean hit or clean miss.

Which is why I suggest a roll once, count twice, and only if the two counts disagree do you make a second roll.

My suggested mechanism: If you have the parrying talent for the wielded weapon type, your opponent rolls their normal 3d6, plus an off color (for 4d6). If the 4d6 hits: no parry.
If the 4d6 total misses, but the 3d6 hits, the attacker and defender both roll the relevant damage, and the defender reduces the attacker's damage by their weapon damage.
If the 3d6 misses, it's a miss.

The parry talents would be Shield Block, Weapon Block, and Fencing Parry.
Shields used add 1d6+AV as their "Damage" for parrying. The others use the weapon damage.

My suggested mechanism, in action:

Fred AdjDX15, is attacking joe, AdjDX 15. Both have broadsword, and Weapon Block talents.

As long as Joe is aware, and fred's not in the rear of Joe, Fred has to roll 3d6+1d6 to hit Joe. Joe rolls 3,5,6,[2]=14+[2] ... Fred hits, as the 14 is under his Adj DX, but Joe gets to parry. Both roll damage. Fred rolls an 8, Joe a 3, so Joe's armor has to stop 5.

Joe now slides around fred, and whacks him from the side, giving him an AdjDX 17... but note the 3d6 still needs to be 15 or less... and his 4,4,6,[1] is a fail. The 1 on the parry is ignored.

Fred returns the favor, and gets 5,5,5,[2] vs an AdjDX 17... and he hits. So, checking the 4d6, he's at 17, so he hits, and does normal damage, no parry.

If one hates the extra roll of damage dice, simply count each die as 3, then add the adds. If you have the parry talent, you need to then write a parry score... so their broadswords would have a parry of 6.

Expert would allow a second parry per round.
Master a 3rd.

Combined with defending, it uses 4d of color A and 1d of color B... so the 4D first get compared to 20 or AdjDX (lower of), and then 24 or AdjDX (Lower of) for the 5D to see if a parry reduces.

[David L Pulver]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

For game speed reasons, I prefer a passive (i.e., it only requires one player’s input) mechanic if possible.

The parry roll has been done in other systems so we know what we’re dealing with. I find that they slow combat down...often by a lot. Also, you get into some funky situations - can you parry a great sword with a dagger for instance. Such issues can be handed, but require more friction.

It's certainly a valid argument. As you say, it mostly depends on what you want and what the design goal is.

- Any defense rules will slow down a fight somewhat.

- Defense rules that impose a penalty to your adjDX based on the other fellow's talent/adjDX will additionally change/slow the game because you must always ask the GM (or player) about the other fighter's statistics. Still, it is doable.



- Defense rules that provide a "stop hits" option change the feel of the game by making it seem more artificial. A rule that gives fencing parries with rapiers or whatever a 1-2 point deflection is, I guess, workable, but the cost is that two DX 15 fighters hitting all the time but doing 1d-2 damage just doesn't feel like a fencing match. So, to some extent, why bother in the first place? I guess it's a patch, but it does feel like a patch. And I'd still like to be able to do swordfights you see in fantasy fiction, where two folks with actual broadsword caught with no armor can actually go at each other.

- Increasing defense to 4d or 5d under some circumstances (other than a take your turn to defend) really feels wrong to me, due to the huge bump and change from 3d rolls, and need for special new rules for criticals, fumbles, etc.. I hate the advanced unarmed combat talents that do that.

- Objections aside, my own experience has been that a defense rule works best in play, provided it isn't a straight 3d against adjDX.

Ty's objection regarding it slowing down the game is quite reasonable, since the goal is to increase character survival.

The objection regarding parrying a giant's club with a dagger (or whatever) can also be met by calling it a "Defense roll" and not specifying whether it is a parry or a dodge. Yeah, that adds an extra roll to everything and increases the whiff factor, but I favor it in an RPG. (I use [adj DX/2] + 3). If characters buy up their DX enough to make it useful, they will usually be stuck with light weapons like rapiers as t hey'll have low ST. If they've bought up both DX and ST thanks to experience, well, they're Conan - he jumps around and parries and dodges in a whirlwind of steel, but he's a 42+ point character...

Another interesting defense roll option is:

* You may choose a defense roll after the enemy has hit but before damage is rolled, unless it was a critical hit. Roll against adj DX. (or possibly DX-2)
* Success means you were not hit, but your your foe automatically forces you to retreat one hex away from him. If you are standing you can opt to fall prone instead of retreating.
* Moreover, your defense roll is fatiguing just like casting a spell: it costs 1 ST, or costs 2 ST if your attacker's ST is 10 or more greater than your own!

Another option for defense rolls is to allow a defense roll vs. adj DX that blocks an attack, but doing so forfeits your action on your next turn and forces a 1 hex retreat. I only recommend this if combined with a rule that if you roll half or less your adj DX on the attack the defender cannot defend.
The forfeit turn, one hex retreat rule is not something I recommend for TFT in general, as it dramatically slows down combat and is hard to track in multi-fighter melee but if trying to simulate a Princess Bride-style duel it is kind of fun and would be amusing in a TFT game with muskets, dueling pistols, and fencing weapons.






















If you are treating

_Any_ increase in defense will slow down a fight.

* Granting a defensive penalty for high DX (and/or talent) is something I've also played with. I do find that it can often provide too much of a benefit to one side.

* Stopping extra hits

* I pretty much hate the idea of difficult increases to 4d or 5d as a standard (rather than a "no attack") defense as they seem to ruin the entire feel of TFT combat for me. (I really dislike the Unarmed Combat talents t hat grant this sort of thing as well. Someone watched Kung Fu too much...)

[JLV]

You know, in all the excitement, I've kind of lost track of just what the need is for defensive moves.

After all, the DEFEND option has been integral to the game since its inception. Back when we first started discussing this, the argument for a "parry" move of some type was predicated on the TWO WEAPONS talent having a special "parry" option, which sparked the argument that any weapon skill has its parries and blocks, so why would you only receive that kind of advantage by using TWO of them. Which, of course, completely ignored the fact that a person wielding two weapons doesn't have a shield, but can, theoretically, use his second weapon to block some damage. If he uses both weapons to stop an enemy's attack, then he's really just selected the DEFEND option, though in the actual TWO WEAPONS Talent, he is able to stop 4 hits -- not sure how this meshes with the DEFEND option, now that I think about it...

So maybe this is just another "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument after all...

[larsdangly]

Different people probably have different motivations here. My house rule treatment of defenses has two:
1) Provide a mechanism for making you more difficult to kill as your skill (as represented by DX) increases
2) Give you something to do with high adj. DX scores, which are otherwise irrelevant once they rise above 15.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Different people probably have different motivations here. My house rule treatment of defenses has two:
1) Provide a mechanism for making you more difficult to kill as your skill (as represented by DX) increases
2) Give you something to do with high adj. DX scores, which are otherwise irrelevant once they rise above 15.

I believe I addressed this elsewhere with the idea of "comparative" DX rolls. To me this is the simplest solution.

[David L Pulver]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

The problem with all of these systems is that they make the combat turns last longer.

What if we made two simple changes to TFT instead:

1. Resolve combat in initiative order, not DX order. This eliminates a key advantage of high DX - going first. (Or assess damage simultaneously at the end of the turn. I don’t like that as much).

2. Make rolls of 13-16 automatic misses (17 and 18 treated like they are now). This gives a 74% maximum success chance of success. High DX figures can distinguish themselves by trying aimed shots.

The result is that combat becomes a lot less predictable. There’s now a solid

The 13-16 automatic miss is certainly interesting, and could be viable. The initiative order rather than DX order seems like it goes to far, however, making it a crap shoot if heavy armor isn't also worn. Also removes a lot of the feel of a samurai type battle where speed of first strike is a big thing.

On my own, I'd just prefer something so if ST 12, DX 16+ fighter encounters three punks with ST 12, DX 12 fighters and no one has significant armor, the higher DX fighter should still have a chance rather than very little chance.

I'm curious if anyone has tried the game mechanic of "you can attempt a defense roll, but doing so aborts your next turn, forces you back 1 hex, and your foe can advance 1 hex." It produces a weird but interesting dynamic...

[Oneiros]

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

The 13-16 automatic miss is certainly interesting, and could be viable. The initiative order rather than DX order seems like it goes to far, however, making it a crap shoot if heavy armor isn't also worn. Also removes a lot of the feel of a samurai type battle where speed of first strike is a big thing.

To borrow from (*ahem*) another game system, what if adjDX modified Initiative? d6 + (adjDX-10), for example? Resolve movement and actions both in this order.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Oneiros

To borrow from (*ahem*) another game system, what if adjDX modified Initiative? d6 + (adjDX-10), for example? Resolve movement and actions both in this order.

Or, rather than introducing *another* die roll (with more math to adjust), why not simply resolve actions in AdjDX order?

[Oneiros]

Originally Posted by JLV

Or, rather than introducing *another* die roll (with more math to adjust), why not simply resolve actions in AdjDX order?

I wasn't suggesting adding another roll, just having an adjDx mod that would apply to the existing Initiative roll, and then use that value for both Movement order and Action order.

Getting rid of the roll altogether might appeal to some, but I think a fair number of gamers like a bit of a random element to the turn order.

Currently Melee and Wizard have a *completely* random movement order, and a *completely* static action order (within a round; adjDX can obviously change round to round.)

Having adjDX modify the roll allows randomness, with higher DX tending to go first still, but not guaranteed.

Of course, if d6 is used for initiative still, the roll of the die can be ignored if the difference between opponents adjDX is 6 or more. Maybe 2d6 for Initiative would give the mooks an chance?

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Oneiros

I wasn't suggesting adding another roll, just having an adjDx mod that would apply to the existing Initiative roll, and then use that value for both Movement order and Action order.

Getting rid of the roll altogether might appeal to some, but I think a fair number of gamers like a bit of a random element to the turn order.

Currently Melee and Wizard have a *completely* random movement order, and a *completely* static action order (within a round; adjDX can obviously change round to round.)

Having adjDX modify the roll allows randomness, with higher DX tending to go first still, but not guaranteed.

Of course, if d6 is used for initiative still, the roll of the die can be ignored if the difference between opponents adjDX is 6 or more. Maybe 2d6 for Initiative would give the mooks an chance?

Okay, that's actually pretty good. I'm not sure Steve will do anything with it, but your point is valid. (Just, as a personal favor, don't make me do complicated math in a game if you don't have to -- I'm getting too old for that sort of nonsense! It's why I stopped playing the Europa series about 15 years ago... ;-) )