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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-18-2018, 11:52 AM   #21
trag
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
Fortunately I wasn't drinking anything when I read this! ;-)
Always happy to provide amusement.


Quote:
I haven't gone through the rules to verify that this is true, but I have a sneaking suspicion it IS.
There's a somewhat obscure rule in there somewhere which says that if you have a strength 10 or more greater than a weapon's minimum requirement, then you can wield the weapon one handed.

The rest is a pretty straight-forward application of the rules as written.

Of course, there is ample room in there for a GM to disallow, starting with the (GURPS or ITL? Can't remember.) "Congratulate the player on his cleverness and then ruthlessly disallow" and ending with deciding that even if you can wield the two-handed sword in one hand, sweeping blows always require two arms actively involved.

Nevertheless, our GM allowed it in the fairly high powered campaign we played back around '90. But we were fighting things like vampire wizards with herds of enslaved trolls that wore special enchanted gem/strength battery variants that sent the vampire one point of energy per troll by accessing their regenerative powers. Basically, the vampire wizards had scores of spell energy available every turn.
trag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2018, 11:15 PM   #22
JLV
 
JLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

I've been thinking about the question of pole weapons and charges.

It is my firm belief that the rule, as currently written (either version) is a bit over-powered.

There are two solutions:

1) Come up with an even more arcane rule that is effectively an exception to a lot of other rules, but powers down Pole Weapons to roughly the level they ought to have, or;

2) Consider again Rick Smith's suggestion on re-writing the weapons table to account for the differences in possible versus probable damage between penetrating and crushing damage.

It seems to me that by choosing number two, even the existing rules would work well to simulate the effects of a pole weapon charge -- damage could be enormous, if the attacker gets lucky on his damage roll (that is, penetrates some vulnerable point of the victim's armor); otherwise, while still deadly, it isn't the current "sure thing" attack that it seems to be if it hits at all. In effect, changing the weapon tables to take into account the difference in damage "expectation" might render a rule change for this type of attack unnecessary, since it might well "power down" the attack sufficiently to make it less dominating in the game.

Of note, a mounted pole weapon charge might need to be "powered back up" somewhat to reflect the much greater physical force behind such an attack -- though hitting something from horseback isn't as easy as all those fantasy novels make it seem to be, and either the "to hit" roll should be modified by a DX penalty for doing so while mounted, or perhaps the DODGE option should be more effective against a mounted opponent...
JLV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2018, 03:16 AM   #23
Chris Rice
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLV View Post
I've been thinking about the question of pole weapons and charges.

It is my firm belief that the rule, as currently written (either version) is a bit over-powered.

There are two solutions:

1) Come up with an even more arcane rule that is effectively an exception to a lot of other rules, but powers down Pole Weapons to roughly the level they ought to have, or;

2) Consider again Rick Smith's suggestion on re-writing the weapons table to account for the differences in possible versus probable damage between penetrating and crushing damage.

It seems to me that by choosing number two, even the existing rules would work well to simulate the effects of a pole weapon charge -- damage could be enormous, if the attacker gets lucky on his damage roll (that is, penetrates some vulnerable point of the victim's armor); otherwise, while still deadly, it isn't the current "sure thing" attack that it seems to be if it hits at all. In effect, changing the weapon tables to take into account the difference in damage "expectation" might render a rule change for this type of attack unnecessary, since it might well "power down" the attack sufficiently to make it less dominating in the game.

Of note, a mounted pole weapon charge might need to be "powered back up" somewhat to reflect the much greater physical force behind such an attack -- though hitting something from horseback isn't as easy as all those fantasy novels make it seem to be, and either the "to hit" roll should be modified by a DX penalty for doing so while mounted, or perhaps the DODGE option should be more effective against a mounted opponent...
Yes, having read the posts on this and other threads I'm convinced there is a simple solution that clearly differentiates the different weapon categories and provides more meaningful player choices.

1. Swords. These are the "base weapon" and do damage as currently with no other features.

2. Axes/Hammers/Maces. These do less damage than a sword at the same ST level. Their feature is that they ignore armour as far as Stun (-2DX) and knockdowns are concerned.

3. Spears/Poleweapons. These also do less damage than the sword at the same ST. Their feature is twofold; they can strike at 2 hexes and they do more damage than the sword in a charge (how much more will need to be determined as it's generally felt that "double" is too much, but certainly must be "more").

4. Missile Weapons. These have their own features and advantages so stay as written.

I think this is simple, largely preserves the game as it is, but adds more meaningful choice. The only thing needing to be revised will be damage figures for some weapons.
Chris Rice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2018, 07:01 AM   #24
BrotherBill
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Rice View Post
Yes, having read the posts on this and other threads I'm convinced there is a simple solution that clearly differentiates the different weapon categories and provides more meaningful player choices.

1. Swords. These are the "base weapon" and do damage as currently with no other features.

2. Axes/Hammers/Maces. These do less damage than a sword at the same ST level. Their feature is that they ignore armour as far as Stun (-2DX) and knockdowns are concerned.

3. Spears/Poleweapons. These also do less damage than the sword at the same ST. Their feature is twofold; they can strike at 2 hexes and they do more damage than the sword in a charge (how much more will need to be determined as it's generally felt that "double" is too much, but certainly must be "more").

4. Missile Weapons. These have their own features and advantages so stay as written.

I think this is simple, largely preserves the game as it is, but adds more meaningful choice. The only thing needing to be revised will be damage figures for some weapons.
Well stated. I like the "add 1d6" on charges instead of doubling to keep the heavier polearms from being overpowered.
BrotherBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 06:43 PM   #25
David Bofinger
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I think the naginata is too powerful.
I think everyone agrees with that.

Most naginata were very much curved over at the end, specialised for slashing at the expense of stabbing. So perhaps the naginata could have only some of the characteristics of a polearm: it might give the first attack in a charge, and allow jabs, but not give bonus damage (because it's got no point).

Also, naginata shouldn't be an exotic weapon, at least not for characters from cultures where it's common as muck. I'd ditch the concept altogether.
David Bofinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 07:46 PM   #26
David Bofinger
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

My suggestion, which is partially GURPS-like:
  • Get rid of the idea of having different names for weapons at different strengths. Instead define categories of weapons like "sword", each of which can be used at any ST.
  • Both one-handed and two-handed weapons are available at all strengths.
  • Two-handed weapons do considerably more damage than one-handed ones. Shields are more powerful.

Categories might include:
  • The baseline weapon is the axe/mace/hammer.
  • The sword does the same damage as the axe, but has the advantage of providing some parrying benefits and the disadvantage of poor penetration against armour. Or maybe less damage and the parrying advantage.
  • Spears do less damage, but in compensation have charge bonuses, throw capabilities and jab capabilities.
  • Halberds are intermediate between spears and axes.
  • Add as many other weapons as you like: naginata, glaive, flail, morning star, main-gauche, javelin, throwing axe, seax, falx ... just make them all a little different.
  • Missile weapons work the same way.
David Bofinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 08:02 AM   #27
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
My suggestion, which is partially GURPS-like:
  • Get rid of the idea of having different names for weapons at different strengths. Instead define categories of weapons like "sword", each of which can be used at any ST.
  • Both one-handed and two-handed weapons are available at all strengths.
  • Two-handed weapons do considerably more damage than one-handed ones. Shields are more powerful.
I think that the weapon names give the game more flavor than generic names, particularly when used as an arena combat game. I would include the Advanced Melee list alternate weapons for flavor, though.

I always allowed figures to use any sword, but at a -1 for each point of ST they lacked. This allowed me to have NPC military units with the same gear, but different STs.

It would be interesting to make hafted weapons different than swords. In Real Life, I suspect that hafted weapons were much cheaper and much heavier. In TFT, that could be replicated by making them much cheaper, heavier and do 1 point less damage than swords with the same ST requirement.

BTW, this highlights the consequences of using Melee, unmodified, as the TFT combat system. Melee is a wargame and in wargames, game balance is critical.

Melee hand weapons have only two attributes - damage and ST required. Oh, and whether they required two hands. Higher ST weapons do more damage, naturally. Melee had no cost system. You took 2 weapons (or a weapon and shield), a dagger and whatever armor you wanted. Clean and simple, with no wasted motion. For an arena combat wargame, that is.

Imposing DX penalties on armor, while justifiable to some degree, was a critical game balance tool. Otherwise, every figure would pick plate armor.

Again, clean and simple, for an arena combat wargame.

It *might* have been a better idea to put a simple cost system in Melee and reduce the armor/shield DX penalties. However, that would've made it way too easy for armored figures to have a decent DX and hit almost always. Which then would've necessitated some kind of defense mechanic. And so it goes.

Quote:
Categories might include:
  • The baseline weapon is the axe/mace/hammer.
  • The sword does the same damage as the axe, but has the advantage of providing some parrying benefits and the disadvantage of poor penetration against armour. Or maybe less damage and the parrying advantage.
  • Spears do less damage, but in compensation have charge bonuses, throw capabilities and jab capabilities.
  • Halberds are intermediate between spears and axes.
  • Add as many other weapons as you like: naginata, glaive, flail, morning star, main-gauche, javelin, throwing axe, seax, falx ... just make them all a little different.
  • Missile weapons work the same way.
I'd add the "bash" rule I proposed elsewhere to your list - when determining DX penalties or falling down from damage, hafted weapons ignore armor. So 5 points of damage from a battle axe would impose a DX -2 even if you were wearing plate armor.

Also, flails could be reduced in damage, but ignore shields.

That said, I don't think these kinds of modifications would improve Melee. Specifically, I'm talking about the ones I quoted in green above (and my own additions). The other modifications are baked in, so they wouldn't complicate the game.

Melee plays superbly as is (other than pole weapon charge attacks being too powerful).

However, they might improve TFT:ITL.

So Melee's combat system may need significant changes to make it a good roleplaying combat system.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 02-07-2018 at 08:42 AM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 07:51 PM   #28
David Bofinger
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I think that the weapon names give the game more flavor than generic names
The problem is that the flavour aspect (Do I have a short sword or a bastard sword?) becomes subordinated to the game mechanical aspect ("I have ST 13, which would do more damage?"). In my experience TFT players don't choose their weapons based on look, they choose the one that does most damage.

The number of weapons is a tradeoff between various things including flavour. We could have as many weapon categories as we liked, each of which has damage depending on ST. If you want to go crazy:
  • Daggers are better in hand-to-hand than melee.
  • A stiletto is a dagger that's better at penetrating armour but has some disadvantage as well.
  • A seax or long knife is equally good in HTH or melee.
  • A short sword might be used in HTH but is better in melee.
  • The generic sword (think up a good name) is used in melee and can parry.
  • Sabre does lots of damage but has lousy armour penetration.
  • Hand axe does more damage than a sword but lacks the defence abilities.
  • Spear: has the nice length and charge bonuses.
  • Halberd: is a hybrid of spear and axe.
  • Naginata is like a sabre polearm.
  • Hammer
  • etc., etc., etc.

You don't need to do all this but if you like flavour you can. Some of them might be optional rules. The important point is to emancipate the flavour from things being just better or worse.

This is maybe too big a change for a new version.
David Bofinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 10:35 AM   #29
ecz
 
ecz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bofinger View Post
The problem is that the flavour aspect (Do I have a short sword or a bastard sword?) becomes subordinated to the game mechanical aspect ("I have ST 13, which would do more damage?"). In my experience TFT players don't choose their weapons based on look, they choose the one that does most damage.

The number of weapons is a tradeoff between various things including flavour. We could have as many weapon categories as we liked, each of which has damage depending on ST. If you want to go crazy:
  • Daggers are better in hand-to-hand than melee.
  • A stiletto is a dagger that's better at penetrating armour but has some disadvantage as well.
  • A seax or long knife is equally good in HTH or melee.
  • A short sword might be used in HTH but is better in melee.
  • The generic sword (think up a good name) is used in melee and can parry.
  • Sabre does lots of damage but has lousy armour penetration.
  • Hand axe does more damage than a sword but lacks the defence abilities.
  • Spear: has the nice length and charge bonuses.
  • Halberd: is a hybrid of spear and axe.
  • Naginata is like a sabre polearm.
  • Hammer
  • etc., etc., etc.

You don't need to do all this but if you like flavour you can. Some of them might be optional rules. The important point is to emancipate the flavour from things being just better or worse.

This is maybe too big a change for a new version.
I agree on all the above, and also about the fact that these changes could subvert the very nature and semplicity of the rules. Better if weapons are'nt so different.

Instead a thing it has not been emphasized, but could have its importance, is the fact that swords and armor are too inexpensive.

I think that a rewrite of the rules should include a rewrite of prices.

A full plate armor costs $500, a great sword $150; a broadsword $ 80.

According the rules an Army/Police recruit or ausiliary earns about $30/week.
This basically means anyone -at the starting level making an honest low skilled job - can buy a great sword, the mother-queen of the melee weapons, in less than 40 days of work, and a full plate in less than 5 months.

I do not know what do you think, but in my imagination great swords and full plates should be much much more expensive and clearly beyond the possibilities of a police recruit or of a school teacher or of a petty thief.

This easy and necessary adjustment in the rules would could give a new dimension to combat: more people should use daggers, shortswords, clubs, maces, axes and inexpensive weapons and also players should. Heavy weapons and armor should be rare, and banned in city. They should be openly used only in war or in wild places. Otherwise characters attract attention or break some law.

Besides a GM could consider to record the use of heavy weapons and armor and require after a certain number of fights a cost to refit, and also impose a small penalty until they are repaired.

Thus, coming back to quoted post, money cost should be another element the players must consider when they decide the weapon, but that is omitted because RAW made this aspect completely negligible.
ecz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2018, 12:08 PM   #30
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Fantasy Trip Pole Weapons and Charges

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecz View Post
I agree on all the above, and also about the fact that these changes could subvert the very nature and semplicity of the rules. Better if weapons are'nt so different.

Instead a thing it has not been emphasized, but could have its importance, is the fact that swords and armor are too inexpensive.

I think that a rewrite of the rules should include a rewrite of prices.

A full plate armor costs $500, a great sword $150; a broadsword $ 80.

According the rules an Army/Police recruit or ausiliary earns about $30/week.
This basically means anyone -at the starting level making an honest low skilled job - can buy a great sword, the mother-queen of the melee weapons, in less than 40 days of work, and a full plate in less than 5 months.

I do not know what do you think, but in my imagination great swords and full plates should be much much more expensive and clearly beyond the possibilities of a police recruit or of a school teacher or of a petty thief.

This easy and necessary adjustment in the rules would could give a new dimension to combat: more people should use daggers, shortswords, clubs, maces, axes and inexpensive weapons and also players should. Heavy weapons and armor should be rare, and banned in city. They should be openly used only in war or in wild places. Otherwise characters attract attention or break some law.

Besides a GM could consider to record the use of heavy weapons and armor and require after a certain number of fights a cost to refit, and also impose a small penalty until they are repaired.

Thus, coming back to quoted post, money cost should be another element the players must consider when they decide the weapon, but that is omitted because RAW made this aspect completely negligible.
Looking at this source http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html and a few others, here are some guidelines (all prices converted to shillings; 20 shillings per pound; 12 pence per shilling):

Mail - 100
Squire's armor - 136-156
Lance Armor - 66-80
Armor of Proof - 282
Cuirass of Proof - 26
Leather - 5 (estimated)
Armor for Prince of Wales "gilt and graven" - 6800
Cheap sword for peasants - 0.5
Normal sword - ~10 (my estimate based on armorer's wage of 6 per week, assuming a week's work, 1s for steel and 50% markup)
War Sword (from other source) - 3.5
Longbow (from other source) - 7
Ax (tool) - 0.5

From 1261-1520 AD, a thatcher made from 4.3 to 11.4 shillings per month (assuming 26 working days/mo). Or, 2-5.25 pence per day. The average was around 8-9 per month or 4 pence per day.

A mercenary man at arms made 1 shilling per day. A mercenary knight, 2 shillings per day. A mercenary knight banneret 4 shillings per day. An average army infantryman made 2/3 shillings per day.

TFT already imposes a harsh DX penalty for heavy armor. Many characters eschew it for that reason, not because of its cost.

Making it more expensive may not affect its use that much.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 02-08-2018 at 12:12 PM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.