Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2019, 07:31 PM   #21
Steve Plambeck
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice View Post
It hasn't been left out of LE; it's still there on p102 of ITL at the start of the section on Options. It's also in the new editions of Melee and Wizard. The statement is not exactly as you've written but makes it clear you CAN change options subject to restrictions.
That new paragraph on ITL 102 isn't nearly as comprehensive as the original one I quoted above.

In particular, changing options to Defend after moving up to half MA appears to be illegal except for the explicit example in that original paragraph, as does Drop.

And nothing else in the rules anywhere clarifies the system as succinctly as the one statement: "If you moved 0 or 1 hex, you may switch to any option you could have taken when the turn began". That's an important principle that covers all the options without needing examples.

Heck, that paragraph should be retained in Legacy editions because it was just brilliant writing by Steve Jackson, and it's historically significant to TFT's legacy.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." - Monty Python
Steve Plambeck is offline  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:45 PM   #22
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

* Some people have been confused about the mention of initiating HTH from the "rear" (as a way to allow an attempt, and as an exception to the 6 result where the defender hits the attempter). That is, they wonder whether entering from a Side hex counts as "rear" for those purposes, or not. That is, can you initiate HTH on someone who isn't cornered and who has as much MA as you do, if you do so from the side? And, can a HTH initiation defender hit an HTH attempter with a 6 result if the attempt is via a Side hex?

* Some people think thrown weapons get Side and Rear bonuses from more than one hex away (though there is no diagram defining those arcs) because the rule about Missile Weapons not getting them says missile weapons, and thrown weapons have language about being like hand weapons.

* It's also not clear whether a 2-hex jab would get side/rear bonuses, and if so, it's not clear whether a 2-hex jab along the spine between a foe's Side and Rear hexes would get a +2 or a +4.

* GM screen: "Wing: -2 DX if target flying" ... doesn't mention that's in addition to the flying penalty of -4, total -6.

* GM screen: "Fighter using a weapon in each hand and striking with both in the same turn: -4 on both attacks." This contradicts ITL p.111, which says a figure without Two Weapons of a main gauche would be at -6 DX to each weapon attack.

* GM screen: "Target is Blurred" should read -4, not 4.

* GM screen: "Target is a multi-hex figure in flight -1" - That's not what it says anywhere else. Actual rules are on ITL p.116 (Oversized Targets section).

* Flight spell on ITL p. 25 description of penalties (-2 for melee attacks due to unfamiliarity) is very inconsistent with the general Aerial Combat rules, which say even natural fliers make melee attacks at -4.

* GM screen also mentions "Using a Flight spell and attacking with a melee weapon or casting spell: -2" but does not list the standard -4 to make attacks while flying.

Last edited by Skarg; 09-14-2019 at 11:06 PM. Reason: removed thrown spell roll to miss comment because a later line on the screen does say Thrown Spells don't need to do that
Skarg is offline  
Old 09-14-2019, 11:53 PM   #23
Skarg
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

From the TFT Companion / Space Gamer SJ Designer's notes article, Errata section, almost all the errata was applied to Legacy edition except...

* The Advanced Wizard page 27-28 errata (magic item table) saying to add notes B, A, and C to certain enchantments. These changes actually would have a major effect on the feasibility of these enchantments for multi-hex creatures, especially monsters who might be able to use these items if taken from humans, but if they have note B won't be able to use them unless special items were made to be able to be used by multi-hex creatures, since e.g. there would not be much call for 7-hex (let alone 14-hex) Stone Flesh...

* The Draper Kaufman clarifications along the same lines also weren't inserted in Legacy.

Of course this could be a GM campaign setting choice for whether they want dragons to be able to use those enchantments or not, but it would be good to see it get an answer or at least an official "A GM should think about whether these should be Note B (A, C, etc) enchantments or not."

It looks to me like some of them were chosen because they have defensive effects but no ST cost to use (Stone Flesh, Iron Flesh, Blur, Fireproofing), and others are offensive effects that would be good to have extra cost to be able to make one that can affect a large figure (Trip, Slow Movement, Sleep, Freeze, Drop Weapons), while Detect Life and Detect Enemies seem to have been thought wanting a price to get greater range.

Compare to how some defensive enchantments were not listed, but these have ST costs (e.g. Reverse Missiles, Spell Shield).
Skarg is offline  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:00 PM   #24
Steve Jackson
President and EIC
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

Some brief comments so you know I'm reading the thread :)

Henry, I understand that you are asking about death and dying, but I don't know what your question is. Is there an apparent erratum or contradiction?

Yes, Hexagram 3 is almost finished. Follow us on Kickstarter to know when new projects launch there.

The staff-to-snake question may not be an erratum, exactly, but it's a good question and I don't mind seeing it here. My intent was really RAW - the staff breaks if the snake dies. That would disincline me, if I were a high-level wizard, from using the spell. An interesting and complicated change, of course, woud be to say that S2S gets more powerful with each added level of Staff and at some level the staff is not broken. I'm not ready to do that, but if you house-ruled it, I would nod benignly :)
Steve Jackson is offline  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:07 PM   #25
Shadekeep
 
Shadekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Aerlith
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

I've gamed Staff-to-Snake as "the snake dies, the staff breaks". Though a serpent torc can be restrung, so maybe a broken staff in this instance can be repaired, perhaps via the Repair spell? Typically though there are more enchantments on a staff than a torc.

I do like the idea of more powerful staffs yielding more powerful snakes. That could also neatly recreate the biblical scenario of one staff-snake eating another.
__________________
Shadekeep - TFT Tools & Adventures
Shadekeep is online now  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:19 PM   #26
TippetsTX
 
TippetsTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jackson View Post
The staff-to-snake question may not be an erratum, exactly, but it's a good question and I don't mind seeing it here. My intent was really RAW - the staff breaks if the snake dies. That would disincline me, if I were a high-level wizard, from using the spell. An interesting and complicated change, of course, woud be to say that S2S gets more powerful with each added level of Staff and at some level the staff is not broken. I'm not ready to do that, but if you house-ruled it, I would nod benignly :)
Thanks for the clarification Steve. As I said, understanding the designer's actual intent is just as helpful as corrections for me.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos
TippetsTX is online now  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:04 PM   #27
hcobb
 
hcobb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

Death the confusion:
ITL 10 distinguishes between "just barely dead" and "actually died"
Which of these sets the one hour timer for
ITL 33: "This spell will restore any dead creature to life, as long as death took place less than an hour ago."

My understanding is that at noon, ST 12 Bob is bitten by the three-eyed snake and takes 30 damage, reducing him to adjST negative 18 and he is now "just barely dead".

At any time from Noon to 1pm Judy can pour 18 healing potions down Bob's throat and change his status from "just barely dead" to "unconscious" and with a 19th healing potion he'll be able to stand up and walk around (at reduced DX due to injury).

At 1pm Bob's status changes from "just barely dead" to "actually died", but Judy can use a Revival spell or potion to restore him to "unconscious", at the cost of five attribute points.

At 2pm Bob's status changes to "really really dead" and unless he rises as a ghost (or vampire?) he won't be seen again.

Now what happens if Judy cast Revival between noon and 1pm (when ordinary healing potions would revive Bob)? Does it work? Does it cost him five attribute points?

The clarification I suggest is to rename "just barely dead" to "dying" with just "dead" an hour later so that it is clear when you can use what on the person in question.

More complex issues such as casting Aid every 59 minutes to restore a dying figure to unconscious and repeating this over and over for the next month until they heal up can be handled with house rules.
__________________
-HJC
hcobb is offline  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:25 PM   #28
the1weasel
 
the1weasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Louisville, KY
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

I may be mistaken, but on the Scolopendra (ITL, p. 95) entry, it does not specify if the -2 DX is cumulative with additional bites. If it is, I would suggest the same rule applies from Rope spell "If a figure’s DX is reduced to 2 or less by a rope, he falls to the floor, helpless." (ITL, p. 23).
__________________
“...if one knew where to go, he could step through a shimmering portal today and be in Cidri . . .”
The Fantasy Trip Resource Hub
the1weasel is offline  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:25 PM   #29
hcobb
 
hcobb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

IIRC, the one and only ability restricted to heroes (no wizards allowed) is Berserking(ITL 121). Does this need errata to enable the IQ 17 Goblin Pythonesses to go in and out of berserk at will, or is this actually intended to be heroes only?

Also the new ITL disagrees with the new Melee/Wizard on fist damage. Which of the new rules is correct?

Suggestion: Bare handed damage ITL 122

Subtract one point from each result to match to Wizard page 12 (where ST 12 does 1d-3 against an adjacent hex) and Melee page 18 (where ST 12 does at most 1d-2 in HTH). Talents then increase these reduced damage ratings as printed.

Under the current rules you are better off flipping your javelin around and throwing it like a club. Using the pointy end and your Pole Weapons talent subtracts one point of damage.
__________________
-HJC

Last edited by hcobb; 09-20-2019 at 07:30 AM.
hcobb is offline  
Old 09-20-2019, 10:24 AM   #30
kentreuber
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3

I’m not in favor of using pages from Hexagram for errata. I think it’s much better to make a web document for errata that can be updated as needed, rather than a printed article that is frozen forever. Use those pages for more interesting content.
kentreuber is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.