Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

I'm thinking of adapting some of my Warhammer figures to use with this system. For the most part, it's pretty easy to figure out. I have been testing out some games and come up with some questions. Hopefully someone can help me understand the rules a bit better. In particular I'm wondering more about the meta strategies than actual rules as written.

First is the difference between armor and damage, or really ST and DX. I made two fighters and fought with them to see what happens. Both were 32 point fighters, but their ST and DX distribution was different. One was basically a slower tankier fighter with armor, while the other was quicker but unarmored. It seemed like a bunch of back and forth of not doing much. The tankier fighter with a DX of 9 couldn't hit the other guy. The higher DX fighter could hit reliably, but couldn't pierce the other guy's armor. It was fairly balanced to see who would win though. It just took a long time with them swinging back and forth. I was wondering if this is kind of how combat works?

Next I was wondering about the use of missile weapons. I've found that an optimal strategy would be to just rush at an enemy wielding a bow with your full MA. They get one shot off, and you can't attack, but then they probably have a weaker melee weapon. Doing this, it's easy to get a jump on ranged attackers. It's hard to kite enemies around on the small Melee map. Is this basically how it goes? I could see with more fighters you could set up some dudes in front to allow your archer to be unengaged maybe.

Those are my takeaway questions right now. Just wanted to know if I am kind of doing this right.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

The full ITL has a fix for dealing with overarmored knights.

Go into HTH combat and take a head shot (-6 DX) in HTH (+4 DX) with a dagger. The double damage that bypasses armor should end the fight quickly.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

That's an incorrect reading of an optional rule.

Daggers only bypass head armor when thrown, if the GM is even using that part of that optional rule, and would at best be at -1 for range, or net +1 (so -5 total) if thrown at point blank range.

i.e. You could not get the +4 HTH adjustment.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

As for the actual questions asked by a new player of TFT, about typical play (rather than a rule our group never used in years of play):
DX 9 hits a bit less than half the time, but a heavy weapon hitting a low-ST unarmored opponent even once may end the fight, and can easily happen on the first turn.

This is typical of TFT and different from some other games in that the specific situation and specific results (such as being hit with a two-handed battleaxe once) determine outcomes, much more than general expectations that a combat may tend to go a certain way just because one type of fighter is fighting another type of fighter.


It may be somewhat typical for that kind of match-up, though as mentioned the hit by the stronger figure may happen sooner rather than later.

Or, someone may break a weapon, or fall into HTH. Even more typically, fights aren't just duels between two people with nothing else going on and no one else involved. Facing, falling down, or an Aid spell can increase effective DX by a lot, for example.


Well, it depends on the details of the situation, but yes, a fighter with melee weapons faced with enemies with missiles generally would want to charge the missile user, or perhaps charge at 1/2 MA and dodge. Or even better, move so that the missile user does not have a clear shot.

Really it depends on the situation, but yes you generally would like to charge enemy missile users or find other ways to avoid having them shoot you.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Welcome! You are in for a great time with this game, and asking the right sorts of questions.

First some over arching principles:
- TFT is built to enable lots of choices (stats, equipment, tactics) that convey advantage in specific circumstances, but to be balanced overall. Your experience that two very different character types end up feeling on a par with each other when they face off toe to toe and start rolling attacks is exactly right, and it is by design. If it didn't work that way, people would quickly figure out the ideal 'build' and that would be the end of diversity in the game. There are some things about this that are not terribly realistic (pole weapons are just better than other things, provided you have space to use them; armor is just better than no armor). But they did the right thing from a gamist point of view.

- The game has a lot of tactical granularity, but is abstract and very 'game-y'. It is not intended to model every cut and thrust, or to support every imaginable tactic with its own rule. In short, it is not GURPS (though the two have a lot in common).

Much of the nuance of the game only emerges when you add some degrees of freedom to the tactical choices. When two simple combatants face off in a flat, empty, well lit space 20 yards apart, there really is only so much that can happen. Melee is not a super realistic dueling game, so these sorts of conflicts often devolve to the same outcome: someone realizes it is better for them to be engaged than not, so they charge. Either something lucky happens for oen side or the other during that first 1-2 turns or not, and if not the combat is resolved over the course of the next 2-3 turns by swapping attack rolls. Repeat enough times with enough different 'build' characters, and you will find what I wrote above: it is a pretty well balanced, abstract game.

But if you add a little complexity, the whole thing blossoms. Multiple combatants per side. Pits and walls. Unusual lighting. Unusual victory conditions (i.e., you don't have to always murder someone in a small room as the object of the game). Once you introduce tactical choices with meaning, the game gets way more interesting. In this case, the intrinsic balance of the combat engine is very helpful, because it assures you can come up with tactical choices that tip the even odds in your favor.

In this sense, the game is a lot like chess: If you play chess with one piece on each side, there are only so may combinations of moves that can happen. Play chess with 5 pieces on a side, and it takes a super computer to think through all of the possible paths the game can take.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Hi Blue,
Welcome to TFT!

There are a couple really good answers above that cover some of what I would say (and better than I would have) about the big picture. But I wanted to touch direct answers to your questions.

Q1: is a long slug out fight typical?
A1: No. Two high damage combatants could have a very fast fight. For example, two spears or halberds charging each other. Usually it is between the extremes.

Q2: always charge archers?
A2: yes but you may want to consider all out running at the archer vs dodging (half MA but safer) on your approach. Also need to consider, does the archer have a buddy waiting for you.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

If you want to get a sense of the average duration of toe-to-toe slug fests, a reasonable approximation is to calculate the simplest version of your expected value ([average damage roll - target armor] x fraction of attack rolls that succeed), and divide target ST by this number. On average, this is how many turns your fight will last. This calculation breaks down when armor points are greater than average damage (in which case it is the distribution of damage rather than its mean that matters), and it doesn't consider the small increase in average damage resulting from 2x and 3x damage results. But it is pretty close.

The answer for typical 32 point melee fighters is somewhere in the range 3-4 points of damage per turn, making slug-fests last 3-4 turns. Of course you will see everything from first-turn kill shots to 10 turn sagas, but 3-4 is typical. Perhaps the slowest fight duration would be two fighters in fine plate with bucklers hacking at each other with broad swords. In this case 'mean' damage done to target per turn is 0 and only something like 30-40 % of attacks land. This will often take 10-15 turns to resolve.

Also, re. flat-out charging missile users. Sometimes this isn't a great move: It is possible to create a starting character who gets 2 bow shots per turn, or who fires a crossbow with a high chance of hitting. If you lack armor, these sorts of foes have a better than even chance of putting you on the ground as you charge them, so you are better off dodging or taking cover if that is an option.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Melee isn't at it's best for one-to-one duels, that's not what it was designed for; it was designed to be an improved means of fighting the sorts of combats that occurred in the RPGs of the time like D&D. These sort of combats typically involved a skirmish with a party of adventurers, often 4-6, against a number of monsters or other enemies. I think that's where Melee is at it's best. It can cope with higher numbers, but I feel it becomes less good once the number of combatants gets high because of the "everyone on side A moves first" initiative mechanic.

In one-to-one duels in basic Melee options are fairly limited once figures are engaged; you can either roll to hit, disengage or attempt HTH, that's it. However, if there are more figures, with varied weapons, armour etc, a lot more possibilities emerge. Facing becomes much more important for a start; with only two figures, you never really get any outflanking. That changes completely with multiple figures.

I'd suggest playing "four v four" to really get a sense of what the game can do.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Agreed. One on one duels between mundane humanoids (i.e., no wizards; no crazy talents or gear) would need an extra couple of GURPS-like rules to be spicy. And combats involving a total of more than 10-15 figures start to feel pretty crowded. Personally, I think the possibilities in game would really open up if there were a couple of short, punchy supplements (e.g., Hexagram articles) that address duels and skirmish+ mass combat.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Thank you for all of the replies. I've been playing around a bit more in the game with multiple combatants. One thing I'm trying to do is translate some of my models into the game.

After reading through the wizard rules, it made me wonder if perhaps there could be more interesting skills for fighting types. Things such as abilities that allow you to modify your dexterity, but give you bonuses. I know there are already some like sweeping blows, but would be interesting to add some more.

One thing I've been wondering is how to represent a fighter that should be hard to hit. Since you only roll against your own score to hit, the opponent's dexterity isn't really taken into account. I would think that a very Nimble elf Swordsman could have an effect on the opponents chance to hit. The only way I see of doing this in game, is by allowing the elf to disengage when his turn comes before the slower fighter. He could keep jumping away, and the opposing fighter would never be able to hit the elf. I don't know what a better solution could be. All of the actual mechanics for making yourself harder to hit mean that you don't actually get to attack.

Another thing I was thinking about is armor piercing. It looks like the only way to actually damage an armored foe is to Simply do more damage. I think it would be easy enough to create a weapon that has armor-piercing properties. The idea is that it wouldn't do a crazy amount of damage to an unarmored foe, and would be most effective at attacking someone with armor. Say it was a weapon that only did one die of damage, but had armor-piercing 2 on it. It could do at most 6 damage to an unarmored so, and 5 damage to an opponent wearing chainmail.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

You can buy the full ITL online which indeed includes fighting talents.

http://www.warehouse23.com/products/SJG30-3455

For example:

Goblin Wizard
ST 6, DX 11, IQ 15
1-h staff(1d-1), brand(1d-2)
Alertness, Goblinish, Humanish, Literacy, Two Weapons.
Pathfinder, Staff, Staff II, Staff III, Staff IV

Basic combat option is a double weapon parry that stops four hits and causes the attacker to roll 4 dice to hit. This is combined with an occult staff strike as the third handed attack.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

In ITL there are a few talents that give a very talented figure some small penalties for opponents to hit you - weapon and shield expertise and mastery, and the martial arts talents.

Some long-time experienced TFT players have developed various house rules for the situation. Typically they tend to involve sacrificing not your entire action, but some of your offensive adjDX, in exchange for reducing the adjDX of attacks against you. Tuning the numbers and details to taste is always a question though.


Yeah, this can be done, though it's usually more complexity than most TFT players want to get into.

If you really want both that sort of detail, and more detailed rules for defending yourself and other details, GURPS has that in spades, but may be more than you want to get into, especially at first.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

There are a number of approaches people have taken in house rules to model high DX fighters who are hard to hit, but you have to be very careful not to introduce a house rule that messes with the basic game balance. It is easy to add something that turns DX into the 'god stat', and then a high DX fighter is the only valid character type.

In RAW, you have several options: Weapon expertise, Fencing, shield expertise, toughness, weapon mastery, fencing mastery, two-weapons and the various unarmed combat talents all provide talent-based means of reducing the effectiveness of melee attacks directed at you.

There are lots of ways to sacrifice your own attack entirely in order to make yourself harder to hit (Defend, and the talents above). There are not as many ways to make yourself harder to hit while also being able to attack others on the same turn. The basic dilemma you will encounter in adding an additional rule is how to penalize someone who deflects or avoids an attack so that their own offensive capabilities are similarly reduced.

I used to play with a house rule that enabled a parry as an action for deflecting a specific attack. You did it in place of your own attack, and if you succeeded you got extra armor points for that attack only. This was combined with another house rule that let you do multiple attacks and/or parries per turn, where each extra action adds another die to your rolls. E.g., if you want to parry and then attack (2 total), roll 4d for each. If you want to do two attacks and one parry (3 total), roll 5d for each. There were other restrictions and specifications, but that was the core of the idea. It worked well because doing more was balanced against increased chances of failure.

Lately, I've been sticking to RAW and not having any regrets. Basically, high DX combatants already benefit in a variety of ways: better place in action order; better chance of success; access to advanced talents, etc. They just don't have a complete 'lock' on fighting ability, as their greater fragility makes high ST fighters an equally valid approach.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

One last thing I can think of. If I'm reading it correctly, DX is fluid. That means that changing conditions in a round can actually increase or decrease your DX. Say for example a fighter wants to declare a sweeping blow on his turn. I believe that normally gives him -4 DX to hit. If he has a starting DX of 12, does that mean he will act on DX8 if that is the case, what if during the course of a turn he decides that he would rather just Attack One fighter without the penalty. Would he have to wait until DX8 to act, because he already declared he was making the sweeping blow?

What about a fighter that has a DX of 8, and declares an attack against an adjacent fighter. Say the targeted fighter gets knocked down before he gets to attack. You get + 4 DX for attacking a knocked down fighter, so would that mean he would effectively act on DX 12 that round if he were to attack the downed fighter?

Also, what do you have to declare at the start of the round? Do you have to specify a specific Target of your attack? Say if you were engaged with two enemies, and one of them got knocked down. Could you change your attack to the knockdown enemy to take your turn faster? Also, could you not declare a sweeping blow, but then decide when your turn comes at DX 12? Would you then have to wait til DX 8?

One last thing. Fighter is attacking with two weapons. Depending on what talents they have, I believe it gives them a DX penalty to attack with the second one. So I believe it is regular DX for the first attack, and - 4 DX for the second attack. Attacking with different DX does that mean the first attack will strike at DX 12 and the second at DX 8? Or are they both rolled at DX 12?

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

See Melee rules page 11: "Attacks come off in order of adjDX counting everything BUT missile and thrown weapon range; a distant target makes you less accurate but no slower."

The only "two weapon" attack in the Melee rules is "THE LEFT-HAND DAGGER" on page 13.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

You are correct that DX is fluid (or, rather, adjDX is fluid), and I'm pretty sure the current edition specifies that your action order is always based on your adjDX at that moment.

Another important principle is that you don't have to commit to an action until the moment you perform it. Of course your range of possible actions may be limited by what you did during the movement turn, or by effects on you of other people's actions that went before you. But you are free to choose from among your permitted actions right up to the moment when you execute them.

A third core rule that is unstated but I think implicitly clear is that you can't effectively force another figure to violate rule 2, above. That is, you don't get to wait to listen to what another figure does at their point in the action order and then go back in time and effectively respond to their 'upcoming' choice. A subtle complication of this principle is the case of Defend and Dodge, where you can elect to do those things in response to an attack that comes your way before your normal action. But if you think about it this special case does not violate this third rule.

Putting these 3 ideas together, I think it is clear that your situational modifiers can shuffle you up and down in the action order, but they can't shuffle you 'up' to before the modifier started to apply. That is, if A, B and C have DX 8, 10 and 11, and if C knocks B to the ground at the DX 11 'count', then A can strike at B just afterwards, rolling against an adjDX score of 12 but not going back in time and acting prior to C. I.e., effectively A will fit into a place in the action order between 11 and 10.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Makes sense. But then do modifiers that affect DX delay my turn? Say I normally act on dx12. I did not move, so the full range of actions is available to me. I elect to do a sweeping blow which gives me -4 DX. Does that mean I make my attack now at dx12, but I am rolling my attack at DX8? Or do I now need to delay my turn and act at DX8?

Similarly, to the question I asked above, if you make two attacks at different DX, do they happen during your same turn?

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

I believe the intent of the current edition rules is that you act at the point in the DX order corresponding to your adjDX for that action, so 8 in the case you describe. My only discomfort in giving this answer is that I feel like I saw a passage somewhere that stated an exception to that rule.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

I believe the above poster mentioned the one exception, which is subtracting your DX for long-range attacks. If you were taking a 4 DX penalty to make a sweeping blow, or an aimee attack, it would make sense that you act a little bit later because you are analyzing the opponent or winding up for the blow. That is how I interpreted anyway.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

ITL pg 126 it states about Sweeping "Roll separately for each target figure,
at the time of the lowest adjDX applicable to any of them."

So your intuition is correct.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Acting in the order of constantly changing adjDX can be tricky to keep track of. I've played with the only DX adjustments affecting the action order being those imposed by wound reaction. The idea behind it is that your basic reaction speed should not change just because, for instance, you are stabbing at someone on the ground or above you, or if you are in an HTH brawl. You do slow down when stunned a bit. Everyone at the table was fine with it, and some even preferred it to RAW since it just made things a little simpler. It does change tactics a bit, but it is a satisfyingly playable alternative.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

That's how we've always played it. Unless you're stunned, the adjDX doesn't make you slower, just less likely to succeed.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

It depends on the GM and whether he's using the optional Delayed Actions rule or not. If he is, then you could do a normal attack at any point between your adjDX and the end of the turn. Otherwise you'd need to ask you GM how he'd handle it exactly.


Yes. (Though confirm with your GM's way of playing.)


No, in almost every case, you don't really have to declare anything about what you're going to do during the Action phase, unless you need the GM or other players to know your intention.

The reason you don't, is because at any point before you actually act, you can change your declared action to any other legal action.

If you look at the examples of play in the rules, you'll notice that pretty much no player ever declares their actions before they do them.

Pre-declaring your intended option is mostly a formality intended to help people think about what they're intending to do, so they don't make that impossible by moving too far. It also communicates to other players their intention, which can be helpful for speeding play and for checking that a figure really didn't move too far to do something.

However there are a couple of edge cases where you might really need to, mainly something like starting Dodging in case someone you can't see (and so, can't change to Dodge as a reaction) attacks you.

But the way we mostly played, pre-declaring and option would mostly be a needless waste of time that isn't done except to help other players know what you're up to (e.g. so they don't move their characters in ways that will mess up your line of fire or something).


Yes. Again, you can change your option to anything that's not impossible. And yes, a Sweeping Blow wouldn't actually be doable till your adjDX -4. And it doesn't mean you need to do the sweeping blow when you get to that point either. If you were going to sweep, and then one of your foes dies or disengages before you can, you do a normal attack on the remaining foe (or any other legal action).


The second attack would take place at DX 8 in the sequence of events.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Yeah we often played similar to this way too, especially after running some very large battles where there were many figures to keep track of. Our rule of thumb was that only things that affect a figure's adjDX as a whole would affect when they act, but not things about which target they were attacking, whether they were taking an aimed shot or not, etc.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

We did that as well, but I'll go out on a limb to say you probably also included the DX adjustments for armor worn.

A very nice, generalized way of putting it, and also our preferred way to handle it.

In my own shorthand on record sheets, a figure had base DX (DX), dressed DX (DDX) and adjusted DX (adjDX). DDX was DX minus anything for armor, encumbrance, and wounds, these being the adjustments you "wore". AdjDX was DDX plus or minus anything else that applied. Actions came in order of DDX, success or accuracy determined by adjDX.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

If you don't adjust order of movement for facing then there is little point in knocking a high DX target down.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

I've been preferring the new (almost) blanket rule that action order tracks adjDX for that action in all cases. Actually, I extend it to include ranged missile fire as well, which is both better in a game-ist sense (streamlining rules) and I think perfectly justifiable in terms of realism (i.e., it takes time for objects to fly through the air, plus you have to aim more carefully at longer range).

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

What happens if you nail the archer while the arrow is in midair?

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Why would you say that?

+4 DX is a huge accuracy boost, and it seems to me that the most important effect of knocking someone down is it prevents them from acting. It also prevents them from getting away, allows you to get them in HTH if you want, etc.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Knock down a high DX figure and it will then stand up again before you hit again, unless you get +4 to your action order from kicking a foe while he's down.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

No it won't.

The foe immediately falls down, loses any action it hasn't taken that turn, and if it tries to get up on the next turn, that happens at the end of the combat turn, not on its adjDX, per ITL p.102.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Note "When his own turn to act comes" at ITL 126.

Wording for option g varies on the GM screen.

Melee page 7 and Wizard page 6 agrees with ITL 102.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

ITL 126 is a special case about rolling away from a larger figure that knocked into you with a Push.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

No it won't, not if you act to hit it again on the next turn. ITL 118, Reactions To Injury, paragraph 2. A figure knocked down by a blow loses up to two chances to make an attack, first in the current turn (if it hadn't attacked anything already) and second in the next turn because all it can do then is crawl 2 hexes, or Stand at the very end of the turn. By then every figure close enough can have attacked it at +4 DX.

(By contrast, being stunned for -2 DX only applies to the next chance to act or attack, which might come in the very same turn as the stunning blow occurred.)

It's always been this way. It's the main reason getting knocked down at all is so lethal.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

But that raises another quandary we may not all be handling the same.

After a figure has taken it's action, it gets stunned by taking 5 hits. It is now as -2 DX until completing it's next chance to attack on the subsequent turn. Presumably we would all charge that figure that -2 DX penalty for any rolls it is forced to make during the interval, such as a saving roll not to trip during the movement phase of the next turn. That -2 DX penalty hasn't expired until the next chance to act has passed.

But if the same figure still has its action coming on the turn it is stunned, and it of course has to now take that action at -2 DX, has the penalty then expired, or does it carry over and last into any part of the next turn, and if so to what extent and why?

I'm not being rhetorical, I honestly can't remember what my old group did in those situations! Well it's been awhile :)

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

What we actually did was apply the -2 from the moment a figure took 5+ damage in a turn, until the end of the next turn, no matter what he did when. Yes, this meant a slower figure might be penalized on two actions, but we didn't mind that, and of course figures can choose to do things that don't involve DX rolls, such as Disengage, Move, Defend, Disbelieve, etc.

(IIRC the wording did actually change. It used to say something like "on the figure's next turn", which some groups other that ours interpreted as not on the same turn, which would mean you could hurt a foe and have them attack you at full DX but then be at -2 the next turn. I wouldn't like that, as I think the ability to impair foes by hurting them first is one of the most important elements of TFT, and I don't much like the idea you can't impair their attack on you unless you completely knock them down.)

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

That actually makes the stun penalty also more consistent with the knock down penalty. If one injury penalty lasts all the way through the next turn's chance to act, it's really fair to interpret it as that they both do. That may even have been the original intention.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Yeah, we always liked playing that way for all those reasons, and because we like there being effects of injury.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Returning to one of the page-1 topics that launched this thread, I have been giving some thought to the question of the 'high DX' fighter avoiding injury without armor, following RAW.

I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that just anyone can engage unarmored with a competent foe and avoid injury while still attacking with some good chance of success. If that were possible, DX would truly be the 'god' stat. So, the more interesting question is whether RAW can be used to construct a high DX and highly skilled swashbuckler sort of character who can leap about in combat with little chance of being hit by normal foes.

Several approaches are possible, but here is one I find plausible:
ST 10 DX 17 IQ 13
Sword, Shield, Running, Acrobatics, Shield Expertise, Fencing, Fencing Mastery [Two weapons for free]
Saber (2d, 3d+2 on a shrewd thrust), Small shield (-2 damage, -4 to hit total)

This fencer can deliver 1 exceptionally dangerous attack per turn with a high chance of success, so he or she is not just a defensive specialist, and gets to do this early in the action order vs. anyone other than a charging pole weapon attack.

And a wide range of defensive approaches are possible:
- Avoid engagement using high Move score (and acrobatics when terrain is in play), particularly vs. pole weapon charges.
- Disengage at adj. DX 17 when that seems prudent
- Defend, making foes roll 6d at adjDX -4. Almost no one has a remotely significant chance of making this attack roll
- Attack only in tactically advantageous situations - like when you get to go first against a single engaged foe who lacks heavy protection (meaning they have little chance of getting to take a shot at you).

This character isn't invincible. A high DX, highly skilled and fast pole weapon user could deliver a coup de grace. As could a high DX archer or wizard. But in melee combat with like-armed humanoids he or she would only face modest chances of being struck on the rare occasion of a missed attack roll, low damage roll, or facing off with an even higher DX foe (fair enough - you don't get to be immune to people who are better than you!).

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

The problem with the 6d defenses is that the chance of an auto-hit is 6% vs the 4.6% of a 3d attack. The chance of a double or triple damage result is unknown, but my extrapolation puts that very low:

https://www.hcobb.com/tft/TFT_Saving...rcentages.html

My favorite defensive move is therefore the ST 6, DX 11, IQ 15 double parry of 1-h staff and brand which stops four hits on a 4/DX roll. The chance of a double or higher hit is about a fifth the chance on a 3/DX roll so the hits stopped aren't likely to be washed out by a lucky hit.

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

Just out of curiosity, why would you elect to use a brand instead of some other weapon? Wielded in melee combat, it presumably does only 1d-2 damage (like a torch).

Re: Some questions about Melee/Wizard
 

The brand requires no talent to use with Two Weapons and imposes DX minus and HTH protection against beasts. It also does fire damage where that is needed.