Quote:
Originally Posted by guymc
The point is, an unarmed combat expert does not expect his abilities to make him invulnerable. He expects them to serve him in places and at times where wearing armor and carrying big weapons is inappropriate. His skills are honed for combat without armor or big weapons, and he'll use other skills and tactics when more appropriate.
|
This is the key issue right here. Are we designing a UC system for D&D monks that fight naked and bare handed besides the knight in full plate, shield and morning star, in the dungeon or on the battle field? Or do we design a UC system where the martial artist can rough up a few muggers in the alley even though one of them had a knife and even knew how to use it?
Anyone that has worn medieval heavy armor knows how badly it affects both speed, techniques, timing and footwork. Some armors more than others and the system simulates this fairly well with DX and MA penalties. Better than a lot of other systems out there i might add. So no one wants to walk around in it and no one will want to bring it to a night out with the boys. Same goes for heavy weapons. Very effective on the battlefield, but for many reasons a sword or big knife might be the right weapon for a night out.
In a pitched battle or during a riot you wear armor, not because it improves your fighting ability but because it keeps you alive. Stabs frombehind, a thrown stone, your buddy falling on you so you trip and fall and hit your head, etc. And on a battle field it is even worse since everything is sharp and dangerous. And if you are facing a dog I would rather be dressed in full plate, because then I could both hit with a mailed glove and be more or less protected against it's bite.
Most of the lessons from UC training would still be in effect even in a dogfight. I would hit with better focus when I strike, I would strike at better places even on a dog, I would have better balance, I would still be able to time a parry, I wouldn't be as shocked and better mentally prepared, I could use elbows and maybe even some locks and definitely kick without falling on my ass. Especially if I had actually practiced in my plate as well as without and I had practiced with monsters in mind as well as lone knife fighter. But at the same time there would be a bunch of things I couldn't do at all or at least not well enough to even try and my perception would be way down, but that is as bad for a sword swinger as it is for a UC fighter or almost as bad.
So I think all of the penalties that should be there from armor is there all ready.
I never was especially fond of prereqs. on adjDX. I am more of a let the player chose if it is worth it and give penalties. And if it is a specific bonus and not related to a skill use or attack I would rather see a conditional approach. You can fence and attack as normal but if you want a bonus 1 die on defending, then you need adjDx13. That I can accept since you don't roll for defense so a low adjDX wouldn't interfere and it should. (The best would be a small table depending on your DX like +1 def with adjDX 8, +2 with adjDX 10, +3 with adjDX 12 and +1 die with adjDX13. But this would be waaaay to complicated.)
For UC that could be you get a little extra damage no matter your adjDX, but to do fancy take downs you need adjDX of 13, for fancy jump kick adjDX 15 and fancy double flying spinkick with a flip adjDX 18. But the same thing could be achieved with a negative DX bonus like kick or Shrewd is written today. Something that makes it more or less worthless to try if you don't have a great enough adjDX.
And the argument that some things just can't be done in heavy armor or any armor for that matter doesn't really hold water in TFT. If my char have DX 10 and wants to climb a tree or he has a DX 13 and chainmail on and wants to climb that same tree. The chance is the same if it is a DX test. One could argue that the chainmail would be slower since his MA is lower, but otherwise DX is DX. And we don't very much care if that DX is the base DX, adjDX from wounds, spells, encumberance or armor. I am not sure we want to make a more detailed distinction.
Basic prereqs like DX 12 to learn a talent I am a little against. Most likely the pick pocket master would laugh you out of his "school" telling you that you would never make a good pick pocket if your DX was 8. But if you paid and promised not to sully his name by mentioning it when you made a fool of yourself, I am sure you could improve a lot and go from abysmal to just bad at it.
So in short, there is no need for prereqs other than IQ, for talents that are used with a die roll. If the talent gives you a new distinct ability that you usually don't roll to succeed with (it is automatic), then a prereq might be in order. But if a talent gives three things, you usually roll for two, but not the third. Then it is ok to put a prereq on just the third application and leave it up to the player to decide if it is worth it or not.
Running is a typical talent you could argue that it can only ever be used with no armor or Cloth, or you could argue that you really need an adjDX of at least 12 to sprint properly or what ever. But instead it is open to all and compatible even with Plate. One could even say that it is better in plate because you get a better %-boost out of it when you MA is low.
And we need to discuss, or you and Steve need to decide, if UC should be strictly for street fighting, bar room brawls, cage fights and dojo matches. Or if it should be something for the battle field and dungeon crawls. Or a combination where the gear is the deciding factor. Or a combination where power level is the deciding factor. If not we will continue to compare apples to oranges.:-)