Re: No Love For Armour?
 

How about this?

ST 11 DX 13(10)(11 w. spear) IQ 8 MA 6
Well-balanced spear (1d+1) +1 DX, Chainmail (3)
Human(Native), Pole Weapons, Brawling

This figure can still hit the double-expert on an 11 or less if they charge in, and will very likely do enough damage to get them down to ST 3 for lasting -3 DX on one charge attack.

And the Disengage trick won't work so well, because unlike a javelin, a spear can 2-hex jab.


But the overall points of the exercise I do agree with, or at least, the points I would make about this, which are:

* Armor in TFT tends not to be a great idea for starting characters, or any character whose adjDX it will drop below about 10. (The above character may do even better in this matchup if they don't wear the chainmail.)
* The new Expert talents effectively add multiple attributes' worth to combat ability, and stack. (And drop even further the adjDX point where armor for foes is a bad idea.)
* The new Expert talents throw off the traditional balance of fighter match-ups for 32-point Melee characters.
* Taking the new Expert talents as a starting character forces that character to be a low-ST fighter, which all feels rather "off" to me.
* These few low-ST Expert options can save about 2500 XP off a warrior's development path costs, without really being disadvantaged.

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

Yes, the new Expert Talents sound like a good idea but look like they unbalance the game in a way I don't like. I also don't like them being available to starting characters. I may just not use them at all, haven't decided yet.

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

The cost is a detail; I figure when I'm debating someone who equips characters with 'branded' catapults and very-fine hair pins or whatever that I'm on good footing by picking whatever I want off the standard equipment lists.

You are right that the DX reduction for weapon mastery talents will put a adjDX character back on his heels; if I ran the numbers I'd probably convince myself that there is another, better way to crack the proposed character. But the main point is that it is easy to come up with alternatives that are competitive - the thing would come down to who gets luckier; i.e., will I get a decent attack roll before you get a decent damage roll?

Here's another rather obvious character type who will give poorly armored and weird 'builds' fits:

ST 10, DX 13, IQ 9
Horse Bow
Missile Weapons III talent (i.e., adj. DX is 16, providing two 1d attacks per turn, both of which are likely to hit).

Heavily armored characters start to look most attractive once you get a couple of extra stat points from experience. E.g., the following sort of character is pretty hard to hurt and pretty hard to shut down completely as an offensive threat:

ST 12, DX 16 (12), IQ 10
Sword, Shield, Shield Expertise, Toughness
Broadsword, Fine Plate, small shield

This person has 9 points of protection (!), an adjusted DX that enables a decent chance to hit even against expert combatants, deals meaningful damage (obviously higher if you equip with a fine sword), and is essentially bullet proof against anything other than a hit from a very heavy weapon, or an exceptionally lucky to-hit or damage roll. He or she would roll with a lot of punches and have a a puncher's chance against whatever bizarre collection of gear and talents you might want to throw their way.

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

Your sword example is even better with one more point of IQ for sword expertise.

The best starting swordsman is ST 9 and unarmored, because Fencing is just that good. Then you advance by adding DX, raising ST to the extreme level of human average just for saber fighting.

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

This stuff is all situational.

In an orderly 1 on 1 duel, with no HTH combat and an outcome equal to the statistical norm it is close to a wash as to which 'build' is best. That is design intent, so we shouldn't be too surprised. Perhaps there is a 10-20 % advantage to minimum ST, weapon mastery characters in that situation, at least assuming the 32 point character.

Now ask yourself which of these characters is most likely to walk away from a volley of 20 arrows from a gang of goblins. Or who would do best attacked by a pack of wolves. Or who will survive a nasty bar brawl with people leaping into HTH with daggers from every hex side. Or who will still be standing after a dozen skirmishes in a day of dungeon crawling.

Horses for courses.

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

The armor loophole at ITL 161 cancels out three points of Armor DX reduction for only $8k, but this is true if and only if your campaign empire is stuffed border to border with GMICy Mollies producing these rings for list price. (At a loss, all costs considered.)

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

The party I'm GM'ing for this winter just reached a level of experience where their wizard has set his sights on a long-term campaign goal of setting himself up as an enchanter, with his own lab, apprentices, etc. I'm delighted, as the extra sophistication that will come into the campaign (getting and defending a site; getting the lab built; finding, hiring and managing apprentices; etc.) will more than make up for whatever munchkinism results from the first +2 item he manages to enchant.

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

Who is producing potions for your enchanter at below their costs?

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

No one. That isn't how I ride. My Cidri contains all the possibilities of magic items and potions and so forth found in the core book, but not the economic model of the 'market' in magic. You can offer someone money for such things and they may or may not take it, but there is no 'shopping list'. That is basically why he is growing an enchanter from a seed.

Re: No Love For Armour?
 

So he first learns Chemist then Alchemist then GMIC?