adjDX
 

Originally, I have always played like adjusted dexterity was just for armor when it comes to defining initiative for who attacks first. Now, reading more I see that there is a lot with the adjusted DX going for everything from if your target has blur or if you're attacking from the side or rear. It seems weird to me, because none of these things have anything to do with the attacking character's speed.

Thinking about it, would it be correct to say that this is because adjusted DX has more to do with finding an opening to attack, rather than the character speed?

with this mean that you have to declare your targets if you're facing more than one enemy that would give you a different adjusted dexterity?

Re: adjDX
 

When this has been discussed here before, it appeared that different people had different ideas about what they wanted to affect when people act, or not affect it.

The RAW are pretty clear than everything but range is intended to affect when people act. However, some people think that thrown weapons get bonuses for facing (despite side and rear being undefined beyond range 1), which I would say is not the intention, but that adds to the confusion and the possible times some characters might be able to act.

It seems a bit weird to me too. I've usually decided I want only some types of adjustments to affect speed, especially not the ones about the specific target.

The driving reason for me, is that I can run TFT very quickly, and I like to be able to run combat with larger numbers of figures without it bogging down... and if each figure's time to act is different depending on whom they attack, then it _multiplies_ how complex it is to determine who acts next (at least in some situations).


"Correct" is hard to say since I don't think a reason is ever given explicitly, but I suppose so. Whatever the reason a DX adjustment is assessed, or part of the reason, would I think be the reason for the speed reduction. I've used that to reason what should and shouldn't speed up a character's action. Though I've changed my mind on some things from time to time.


You _could_ play like that.

Typically, what I do or see done is, the GM (sometimes with players helping) either figures out who acts next (which may require a player reminding the GM that their character has an opportunity for a DX bonus to get right), and/or the GM starts calling out adjDX numbers, and players can say if they have a figure who's acting at that adjDX (or correcting if they have a figure who can actually act sooner).

The countdown method works well and shifts responsibility to players to notice and capitalize on an opportunity to act as soon as they can, e.g.:

GM: Anyone acting at DX 13?
Player: Actually, I have DX 14 with my weapon, not my base DX, so I can act before 13.

But I like it best when the GM can accurately track who gets to act next, because I also like it when people don't really know each other's DX or other stats accurately, as that feels less gamey to me.

... which brings me back to why I like to limit what actually affects speed... because if there are 10-20+ figures on the map, I can handle DX order pretty well, but if each of them has several different points they can act based on who's doing what kind of attack on whom, then that gets a lot harder for me to track.

Re: adjDX
 

Skarg, do you often have NPC groups with the same adjDX in order to keep things fast? Like a horde of goblins all at adjDX12, or guards all with adjDX10?

Re: adjDX
 

One thing you can see me doing in the videos is sorting the stacks of character cards for all sides by adjDX. Then it's a matter of choosing an option for the topmost card then putting that face down for next turn's stack.

I suppose I could make DX adjustment clips. Like say took five hits last turn, DX-2 for next action then remove the clip and sort back in at normal DX.

Re: adjDX
 

Usually not, no. I prefer that each figure have some variety rather than be identical clones, as I like that flavor (and clones can have various types of subtle effects that feel fake to me). Also I think it's actually just as fast for me to resolve when there is a variety of adjDX instead of several figures at the same adjDX, because there are fewer questions about who acts before whom.

One thing I do that can make things faster is to use a control sheet (or list) that lists the figures in adjDX order. Or if you're using character cards, sort them in adjDX order.

Re: adjDX
 

For determining speed and order of action, I prefer to only count the DX adjustments for what a character is wearing (armor) carrying (encumbrance) or feeling (stunned, dazzled, roped, etc).

All other DX adjustments for facing, range, type of target, etc. only come into play on the roll to hit. I let these external things affect accuracy, but not speed.

Strictly speaking that defies the RAW, but sure makes the game faster and easier to run. It also makes more sense in a number of situations.

Re: adjDX
 

Yes, this was also how we usually played and thought about it.

I've been trying it more RAW lately. Some players seem to like the effects. But I think I still tend to prefer the way you described.

Either way, there are some details to figure out.

Re: adjDX
 

That's the thing about DX/adjDX: It's not "dexterity", or not only that. It's "overall general effectiveness." It's your "roll to do anything" stat. And so everything ... almost everything ... effects it.

Re: adjDX
 

Suprised no one has posted a link to this yet:

https://tft.brainiac.com/pmwiki/pmwi....DXadjustments

This article categorizes Dex modifies into general and targeting, with only the former being taken into consideration for adjDex.

Basically, anything that is physically impeding the character in some way, like armor or a rope spell, is classified as 'general'. Anything else is a conditional modifier that's about the circumstances of a target (distance, cover, facing, etc.) and difficulty in hitting them, but aren't actually affecting the character physically.

I run my games this way, and it speeds up play alot - unless a character is hurt or constrained, adjDex is basically just what's on the character sheet when accounting for armor.

Re: adjDX
 

Good of you to link that. That's basically the principle we have used too, and the table shows the kind of specifics there are to figure out. It was linked in the previous thread on this topic a while ago. Good of you to add it to this thread.