07-10-2018, 10:46 AM | #31 |
President and EIC
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Re: Suggested Revision of UC Talents
If he did not move at all that turn, he is eligible to switch to the Stand Up option and stand. Otherwise he is down for a turn.
|
07-10-2018, 11:01 AM | #32 | |||||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Talent Point Cost Assessment
Quote:
Is that what's wanted? I would think it would make more sense to have it be more effective to use physical weapons and equipment than to not. Blackbelts rightly fear people with weapons, even knives. Weapons do damage for the reason they're sharp metal and they're also bigger and longer than hands and you don't get hurt when they get hit. If you balance them to be equal with UC talents, then you'll get what you aim for: a game where it's just as effective to use your hands as weapons (or moreso, as you can't detect when someone's armed & ready if their weapons are their hands, you can't disarm them, they don't need to buy or carry any gear, they don't make clanking sounds, etc). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The drop-weapon effect is quite severe and seems wrong (every time you hit someone hard enough, you "hit a nerve" and they drop their weapon? I haven't even seen that in extreme kung fu films.) Though again, if the design goal is to get everyone doing kung fu, it also leads in that direction (and I have seen that in kung fu films). Of course, this is another place where memory points and attribute caps make a big difference. Memory point limits mean large talent investment leaves little room for other things unless you have high IQ, and attribute caps (or a steep EP curve) means taking high IQ means less ST + DX. |
|||||
07-10-2018, 11:05 AM | #33 |
President and EIC
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Re: Unarmed Combat
I think I like the Kick suggestion.
I am not concerned that a trained swordsman would be overall superior to a UC fighter. Otherwise the armies of the Middle Ages would not have carried swords. But there is room for UC improvement. What if at UC II or III there begins a cumulative penalty to hit the martial artist, and possibly a slight damage reduction? Most of the arts teach both redirection of blows and (e.g., aikido) just not being there when the blow comes. I think at UC 5, all your hexes should be front. UC 5 is based as much on Bruce Lee as on any observation of RW fighters. |
07-10-2018, 11:14 AM | #34 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Unarmed Combat
Quote:
So I think a gradual increase is better than a whole die shift. I would want an equivalent path to defense increases for armed people, representing having your sword or shield there, or other ways skilled armed/armored people can avoid getting hurt. |
|
07-10-2018, 11:32 AM | #35 | ||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Suggested Revision of UC Talents
Quote:
Quote:
Consider: Abilities that knock people down become fairly desperate time-buying attempts if this is so, because they are uncertain of success and sometimes cost something (Trip spell), but standing up always succeeds. For example, if the situation is A faces B, and A acts first, if A chooses to try to knock B down and succeeds, and B can then stand up as his action, the next action between them is A facing B again (he's achieved nothing for knocking B down, unless time is on his side because his pal C is now able to help out). The old Metagaming (Bill Gustafson) answer to this was that falling down costs you your next action phase (whenever that is) and your next movement phase. [HOWITZER] I'd also point out that it leaves room for a "stumble" effect which someone could immediately recover from. There could even be a "Tumbling" talent (or effect of Acrobatics talent) which allows you to roll adjDX (minus injury penalties, naturally) to convert a Fall into a Stumble... [/HOWITZER] |
||
07-10-2018, 11:45 AM | #36 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Unarmed Combat
Quote:
|
|
07-10-2018, 12:25 PM | #37 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Talent Point Cost Assessment
Quote:
My analysis is simply that even with Steve's lowered costs, beginning martial artists with UC I-III are utterly outclassed by beginning armed fighters. Primarily this is because their damage causing ability is no better than someone armed with a 2h club or dagger AND they have to expend 3 attribute points on IQ that the fighter doesn't have to. The requirement for very high DX also forces the player to push DX to a level that is arguably sub-optimal. UC IV doesn't change this fact; you need to compare a 34+ point martial artist with a 34+ point fighter and the fighter is every bit as dominant if not moreso (better DX allowing more armor). Armored enemies are tough on martial artists because their bare handed damage tops out at 1-1, or if they're lucky maybe 1d6. At UC V, the balance may shift some, but you'd need to compare a 35+ point martial artist with a 35+ point fighter. The nerve strike seriously overpowers the martial artist (unless the required 3 points of damage has to happen after armor protection is subtracted AND the opponent is heavily armored). |
|
07-10-2018, 12:43 PM | #38 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Unarmed Combat
A quick observation on the real cost of UC V: it's not just 3 points, as you have to have UC I-IV to get it. How does this affect judgments on its valuation?
|
07-10-2018, 12:46 PM | #39 | |||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Talent Point Cost Assessment
Quote:
In considering balance with UC skills, I think you should also take into account that UC people do best in HTH, where the tables are turned, and weapon-users can't use their weapons (except maybe a dagger). Adding the ability of UC to affect HTH initiation chances (I'd make it start with being harder (than it currently is) for someone without UC to initiate HTH), and also having HTH make it harder for people to use knives on you in HTH. Quote:
Quote:
If EP is only going to be spendable on attributes again, should it even be possible for someone with +3 attributes of experience to have the pinnacle-level of UC talents? Yes. |
|||
07-10-2018, 12:54 PM | #40 | |||
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Unarmed Combat
Quote:
Eliminating the DX and IQ prerequisites is an easy tweak that would let martial artists allocate more points to ST. This would make them a little more competitive, but still markedly inferior. The low damage is pretty hard to overcome (though kicks might help a little). Even a ST 16 (!) martial artist will do 1d+3 damage vs the 3d+1 damage a greatsword using fighter will do. 6.5 average points vs 11.5 average points. Quote:
I also think that using damage absorption instead of (or in addition to) imposing a DX penalty on attackers is a perfectly valid way to simulate defenses. While it may not exactly feel right, it produces the right result - a target takes less damage and is a very simple mechanic. Quote:
We really do need a clarification on the UC V nerve-strike ability. Is it 3 points of damage BEFORE armor and shields or AFTER subtracting armor and shields? Addendum - I just spoke with the player who always ran martial artists in my TFT campaigns (he's CTO of my firm). He said that what we ultimately did on nerve strike was require that the martial artist do at least 3 points of damage BEFORE armor/shields and that at least 1 point penetrate armor/shields. He said that letting martial artists nerve strike if they did 3 points of damage before armor was too powerful, while requiring 3 points of damage after armor was too weak. For what that's worth. Last edited by tbeard1999; 07-10-2018 at 02:18 PM. |
|||
|
|