01-16-2020, 08:48 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
If there is one general issue with TFT that bugs me a bit, it would be the vulnerability of big, scary things to being killed by a small number of normal attacks. I.e., it just isn't that hard to kill a giant, bear, etc.
I think the way this should have been addressed would have been to give physically large, intimidating beings armor points in proportion to their ST, sort of like an implicit 'Toughness' talent. I suggest a moderate way to introduce such a thing as a house rule would be to set a minimum natural armor value for any being equal to (ST/10, rounded down, minus 1). So, you would get 1 point at ST 20, 2 points at 30, etc. Creatures that have already been assigned natural armor (dragons, bears, etc.) get this ST-based boost in toughness in addition. Yes, that would mean a 7 hex dragon becomes almost impossible to seriously hurt with a normal hand weapon atttack. Deal with it! What do people make of this idea? |
01-16-2020, 09:59 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
I'd be wary about having a standard toughness for stronger monsters. One of the big benefits of TFT is that it's very easy to vary a Monsters threat level with just a few changes. A ST 30 Giant with no armour and DX 8 isn't a huge threat to a group of 32 point characters. The same Giant with DX 10 and 3 points of armour may well kill the whole group.
Having said that, I'd normally give creatures with high ST at least 1 or 2 points of armour otherwise they're too easy to kill, especially with missile weapons. |
01-16-2020, 11:00 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
I'm unsure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing; your first paragraph sounds like you wouldn't want to do this but then your second paragraph says you generally do do it. Do you mean you give something like a giant normal (worn) armor? But of course that reduces adjDX, making them less dangerous rather than more.
|
01-16-2020, 11:24 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
I'd suggest just giving a special monster a natural Toughness I or II on top of whatever natural armor it might have. Just stopping one or two hits can mean a lot.
Also, be aware that multi-hex creatures can push around small ones, and if that ability is exploited it can make fighting them very difficult. Making them too resistant to damage could overbalance things. |
01-16-2020, 03:16 PM | #6 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
I agree with the observation, and I think there are two main problems:
1) The stats for large monsters are low. These were established in Wizard, where the balance is intended to allow a wizard to summon bears, giants and dragons from thin air, but that would get very out of hand if they were able to lay waste to many fighters. Also Steve has mentioned in response to comments about the weakness of dragons not wanting them to be too deadly just to lessen supposed sad players whose characters get killed by dragons. But if you graph the stats of the beasts, you can see how the stats of large monsters are weak compared to strong humans and even just strong one-hex monsters. Damage is low, ST is low, sometimes DX is low, often MA is low. So I think there is an artificial nerfing built into the stats intended to be balanced for arena balance and (in ITL) PC survival. 2) The effects of injury rules are too generic. The damage needed to knock down a very high-ST monster stops at a certain point, meaning only armor will slow that down. Also there are no special rules for different body shapes. A human falling down is messed up because they need to stand up to fight well. A serpent, dragon, or even bear or wolf might not be as incapacitated for as long, it seems to me - it's not like they're liable to roll over on their backs. So I'd start with (keeping the stats the same for summoned monsters but) increasing the stats to be more proportionally appropriate. Big bears should be 2-hex even if they stand in one hex, and should have higher MA than humanoids, meaning they can knock you over and/or get you in HTH more easily. A 4-hex dragon should do at least as much damage as a 2-hex bear with its claw. And yes, adding armor is probably a good idea. Squishy furless humans can add up to 2 armor with toughness... so it might vary by individual beast, but proportionally that's a more than 10% of ST able to be in toughness... so a tough ST 30 bear might have 3-4 points of toughness on top of 2 fur... would be rather harder to stop. |
01-16-2020, 07:28 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
I don't you can make a "system" out of creating monsters. They just are what you say they are. So if you want tougher monsters, just do it.
Because if there an auto armor per ST, you will have people then asking "Why does Monster X have armor when they clearly do not? |
01-16-2020, 07:58 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
Quote:
P.S. I hope the folks working on the TFT Bestiary consider something like Skarg's suggestion to create properly scaled foes.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos Last edited by TippetsTX; 01-16-2020 at 09:00 PM. |
|
01-17-2020, 09:59 AM | #9 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
I think of monster-y armor and toughness as coming in two flavors that add (just like worn armor and Toughness talent add): A grizzly bear has thick, furry skin that would be hard to significantly penetrate with a cutting weapon, but also even if this didn't blunt an attack there is some threshold in physical harm that has to be overcome to get its attention. A powerful person (say, equivalent to ST 14 or 15) could not, in reality, do any harm at all to a grizzly bear by punching it.
And if you find some weird news story about a guy who stuck his thumb in a bear's eye I'll point out that is essentially equivalent to the rare triple damage roll, not the typical result I'm discussing. |
01-17-2020, 10:05 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Implicit 'toughness' for gooey monsters
Easily solved by making armor piercing effects only ignore armor, not toughness.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|