05-12-2018, 02:42 PM | #21 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
Quote:
Quote:
Would you define, please. Thanks. JK |
||
05-12-2018, 11:12 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
Quote:
If you charge him, he is at +2 and the rules say he goes first, regardless of your DX. Sux to be you, even against a ST 11 spear that will do *average* total damage of 11 hits, and max damage of 16! That's assuming 1+2 damage, which I think was two-handed, wasn't it? If not, then 1+1 doubled, then, almost as big, and even against a beginning character with DX 13 becoming 15, he is probably going to hit you, possibly knock you down, and maybe kill you outright. I like adding the ability to go according to DX if you decide to attack the point of the weapon to pass it. All of my martial training had me working to pass the point, to get inside his range. No damage to its owner, and a small chance of damaging the spear, but allowing someone to possible close with the spearman without getting hit, assuming he has a higher DX, which often is still not true. We usually play, for the PCs primarily, though if it was warranted for special NPCs, that if at 0 ST or below, one can make a Mortality saving roll of 3 d6 vs. basic ST + current strength. So for example, ST 10 character falls down a ladder and takes 12 hits, leaving him at -2 ST. His mates rush down to see how he fared, he makes a 3 d6 roll vs. 8. If he fails, he is dead, dead, dead beyond recovery. If not, with proper care, he can possibly eventually heal over time. You can see that more than 4 or 5 negative points becomes most probably dead, most of the time, but does reward a stalwart individual a better chance of surviving mortal type wounds. If in the ladder example, it may be that the party is now faced with a difficult choice, getting their friend back to civilization to hopefully survive and abandoning their mission , or leaving him to bleed out and die anyway. Last edited by Kirk; 05-12-2018 at 11:31 PM. Reason: clarification |
|
05-12-2018, 11:20 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
"most probably dead, most of the time"
Why, in the distance, did I hear Miracle Max saying: "He's just MOSTLY dead!" ;-) (Not an attack, Kirk, just an amusing thought that came to my mind when I read that phrase!) |
05-12-2018, 11:34 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
Quote:
|
|
05-13-2018, 01:15 AM | #25 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
Quote:
Let me state the example in long-form so I can keep things accurate: Turn 1: Fighters Roll for Initiative. "Pole" wins Initiative, makes "Non-Pole" move first "Non-Pole" chooses Option I b: Stand still or shift 1 hex and Defend "Pole" chooses Option ll a "Charge Attack": Moves 1/2 MA or less, now engaged with "Non-Pole" but will strike on-the-charge for a potential Double-damage attack. "Pole" must now Roll-to-hit on 4d6 vs DX, and rolls a... Hopefully the extra d6 will cause "Pole" to miss; leaving "Non-Pole" unscathed and both fighters engaged in normal combat; as they roll for Initiative for Turn 2. Interesting this: In the way I misstated the example, there would have to be Option II c: Dodge or Defend - which there is not; as you correctly pointed out - But perhaps there should be? So now that I have the example part to the question now properly formed, l will ask the question again: Does the Defend option not offer a satisfactory tactic to nullify the Charge Bonus and close with the enemy? JK Last edited by Jim Kane; 05-13-2018 at 03:26 AM. Reason: Typo |
|
05-13-2018, 09:35 AM | #26 | |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
Quote:
The recipient of the charge, having decided a sword talent weapon is the way to go, gets a....nothing...in return except possibly a slightly larger normal hit average (maybe 0.5 hits per successful attack) on subsequent poke and slash engagements. If we assume identical stats for the character, the pole weapon user will be able to successfully (acting before his opponent can attack him) disengage half the time and then half of that time re-charge the sword wielder, and the other half either dish out a stationary +2 doubling charge vs. the charge attacking sword player or rolling 4 dice for a repeat of the original situation. The other half of the time he can just trade blows if he desires. In a large majority of the cases, the pole weapon dance will destroy the equivalently talented sword wielder, losing only a slightly regular attack average of about one-half hit per successful attack over time. Without house ruling this, almost everyone in our group will grab the pole weapon talent and a spear over swordplay, because of this reality. I do like our house rule ability to engage the pole weapon itself to knock it aside or possibly break it against the ground to balance things out a bit. There don't seem to be enough game negatives, even non-combative, to not prefer pole weapons, pole weapons, pole weapons. As far as there not being a charge and defend option, or an equivalent with shift and dodge for engaged characters, I'd be OK with both, being then Move 1/2 and Defend and Shift and Dodge. Arguments against would be an engaged character won't necessarily have his eye on someone tossing things at him unless it is the character(s) he is engaged with, and that running up to a pole and suddenly stopping to avoid being skewered could be difficult, as well. |
|
05-13-2018, 11:06 AM | #27 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
KIRK Thanks for your detailed answer; much to consider, so here is where my this leaves me now:
WHAT IF we were to expand Option IIc to include DEFEND?; for the purpose of allowing a figure to engage a pole-weapon user by taking the risk of giving up their attack phase, in order to defensively work their way inside to normal combat, hanging their hopes on the chance that the 4th d6 added to the attackers to-hit roll will make the risk/reward worthwhile for the defender to equalize the perceived imbalance in the Pole Weapon rules, which so many want to otherwise overhaul? Could this little addition of allowing a figure to Defend as they move-in on a Pole-Weapon user, be a potential solution? Could a serviceable "fix" be that simple and unobtrusive? I feel a great desire to play-test this, as my rules-imagination is sparked; but i also have to wonder WHY SJ purposely has Option IIc only providing for Dodging while disengaged? I would like to know the reasoning there - his answer might save me hours of play-testing the option. JK Last edited by Jim Kane; 05-13-2018 at 11:23 AM. |
05-13-2018, 11:57 AM | #28 | |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
Quote:
To me, risking the 50% chance of major damage/death just to then have half a chance of even blows or having to attack a defending character (and for about half the results the pole weapon user gets) is *not* enough of a balance. For me, simply allowing an attacker to attack the point of the pole first, and if successful, void the pole user's attack. It works well and doesn't change fundamentals of the game, and yet still the advantage goes to the pole user, it just reduces the imbalance. One way to think about it is to list the advantages a sword at ST 11 has *over* a spear. Hmmm....I hear crickets, but not much else! Only the slight increase in damage is to be had, 2-1 vs. 1+2 in regular attacks, let's not even discuss 1+2 axes, that list is even shorter, except perhaps for chopping down wooden doors and such. |
|
05-13-2018, 01:14 PM | #29 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
Quote:
Where is TY? I think he has mastered that IQ 14 Spell: SUMMON STEVE JACKSON (C): Allows a wizard to summon the TFT Game Designer, who will perform one service for him,... or maybe not, but will NOT grant a wish... or perhaps he will, it's a hard to say; make a reaction roll. A one-hex creature which has the ability to teleport into any thread on the forum and remains normally for 1d6-3 turns, then vanishes; often leaving his personal sigil scorched into the floor, appearing as to resemble the common :) glyph. Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps - with play-testing - we might find these 2 concepts (adding Defend to Option IIc, and the "De-Fanging" Option) might work together to get us closer to a playable and satisfying solution. The more we talk about things, the more I am convinced that the answers - whatever they turn out to be - will be found in expanding and detailing the PLAY RULES OPTIONS, and not so much in overhauling the DAMAGE RULES on a wholesale level. JK Last edited by Jim Kane; 05-13-2018 at 01:42 PM. |
|||
05-13-2018, 01:31 PM | #30 | |
Join Date: Feb 2018
|
Re: Movement Rule Tweak
Quote:
Just allowing someone to forego their attack on the user and instead knocking the point aside (which requires a DX roll) to then be engaged and past the doubling attack for that turn makes more sense to me. It's easy to implement and mirrors combat a little better, without becoming too GURPS-like. And yes, depending on the situation, for knives, for example, attacking the arm that is extended to attack you is generally a safer move. It's tough to go straight in to the body. Same holds true with a pole weapon, getting inside the point is the first trick, then the pole user has to scramble to either reset the distance, use the pole itself to avoid getting hit, or use a shorter range secondary weapon. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|