Final tweaks on talents

[larsdangly]

It sounds like the next couple of weeks is the last chance to make any corrections/clarifications to the core rules, so I thought this would be a good time to point out any specific places that seem like rough spots. I was re-reading the talents recently and had a couple of thoughts:

1) Monster Followers is patterned after New Followers, but it isn't totally clear whether or not it requires Charisma as a prereq. New Followers clearly does; on the other hand, MF functions like NF, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has the same prereqs as NF, and the Charisma talent itself works in ways that seem directly related to NF but would not function on the targets of MF. So, it strikes me as an ambiguity that should be tidied up.

2) I really like the rules for taking temporary ST damage when you travel in harsh environments without a guide who has the Woodsman talent (as well as the complementary rules on getting lost). But its pretty confusing that the core rules on overland travel describe getting lost but the Woodsman talent does not, whereas the Woodsman talent describes how people take temporary damage during travel but the core rules do not. You have to be pretty observant to figure out how this is all supposed to work together.

p.s., the intended point of this thread is the sort of stuff an editor would pick up, not big changes to the list of talents or how they are supposed to work.

[Anomylous]

I really like the rules for taking temporary ST damage when you travel in harsh environments without a guide who has the Woodsman talent (as well as the complementary rules on getting lost).

Honestly, I think we could stand to see this concept of "durable fatigue" more widely adapted. Seems like a good alternative to straight-up damage, good for modeling effects of different poisons, diseases, etc.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Anomylous

Honestly, I think we could stand to see this concept of "durable fatigue" more widely adapted. Seems like a good alternative to straight-up damage, good for modeling effects of different poisons, diseases, etc.

Hi Anomylous,
The old TFT had 4 types of damage.

-- Normal damage. Heals 1 pt / two days.
-- Fatigue damage from spell casting or exhaustion. Heals 1 pt / 15 minutes.
-- Non-Lethal damage. (In my campaign I call this subdual damage and this heals at 4 pt / two days. Bar fights, flats of blades, short falls do this.)
-- Exposure damage. (Won't heal until you are out of the weather, then heals at the normal damage rate.)

I am happy with these 4 types, but it would be nice if they were all described in one place. One big question is does fatigue ST (fST) damage make it easier that you die.

For example, you have a ST 10 and race up a hill in chainmail (3 points of fST), be in a long exhausting fight (2 more fST lost), then power a Blur ring (1 more fST spent). Does it take 10 hits to kill you, or 4? I've seen TFT played both ways.

But it seem to me exhaustion makes it easier to fall unconscious but not to die, so we play that damage + exhaustion can knock you out, but only damage can kill you.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

Hi Rick,

Correct me if I'm missing something, but it seems clear that as written (e.g. the Death rule section in Advanced Melee), figures die at ST 0 due to any cause.

Also, it seems to be the way the Taking Prisoners rule is written is that such attacks won't reduce ST to 0 (except on a double or triple damage hit), but that the damage itself is not considered any different from other injuries.

I like both the house rules you mention and have enjoyed & preferred playing with similar ones, but I think they are both house rules unless/until the new version changes it.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Hi Rick,

Correct me if I'm missing something, ...

Hi Skarg,
I did say "In my campaign" so I felt it was clear that this was a house rule.

As for the question, "Is non-lethal damage different from lethal damage?" I always assumed they were different. The rules don't spell this out. (And they likely won't in the new TFT. SJ dislikes writing rules that tightly.. it takes up too much space and reads like a law book.)

As for exhaustion not killing you, I did mention that I've seen it played both ways. As well as exhaustion not killing you being more logical, it is also, by far, more often played that way that exhaustion + damage kills you. (And I've seen a lot of TFT campaigns over the years.)

But anyway, that was part of a discussion saying that there are two common ways to play it. But that was outside the 4 types of damage in old TFT.

Warm regards, Rick.

[ak_aramis]

I always used "sum of Damage and Fatigue ≥ ST = KO, Damage ≥ ST = dead"...

[Jim Kane]

As a figure is *immediately* rendered unconscious at ST 1, a figure which goes unconscious can no loner incur fatigue which would theoretically push them to ST 0; and death. Fatigue hits which would push a figure beyond ST 1 are simply ignored, as the state of unconscious has already been reached.

Therefore, logically, it should be impossible to literally "work yourself to death", or, "drop dead from exhaustion" in TFT.

Though real humans on Earth have claimed this exact thing has happened to them multiple times during their own life; I have always found that claim spurious at best. ;-)

JK

[JLV]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

I always used "sum of Damage and Fatigue ≥ ST = KO, Damage ≥ ST = dead"...

That's the way we always did it too. It just seemed logical and what the apparent intent of the RAW was.

Jim makes a valid point too though. The RAW pretty clearly prevent you from fatiguing yourself to death... On the other hand, it's a common trope in fantasy novels, where a Wizard over-exerts himself and hovers on the brink of death for days, weeks, or months. Think Belgarath in the Belgarion, as they escape from the raid on Rak Cthol, or how exhausted Gandalf is after trying to hold the door against the Balrog on the staircase behind the chamber of Mazarbul.

I wonder if there's some way we could tie a contest result to how much fatigue is expended by the participants -- especially if it were a magical contest. (Thinking here of the Gandalf versus the Balrog on the stairs thing; Gandalf casts LOCK on the door, and the Balrog casts KNOCK on the door -- and then they have a contest and the results of that contest dictate how much fatigue each is required to expend on the task, with the winner (presumably Gandalf in the book) either permanently shutting or permanently opening the door.)

[zot]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Skarg,
I did say "In my campaign" so I felt it was clear that this was a house rule.

As for the question, "Is non-lethal damage different from lethal damage?" I always assumed they were different. The rules don't spell this out. (And they likely won't in the new TFT. SJ dislikes writing rules that tightly.. it takes up too much space and reads like a law book.)

As for exhaustion not killing you, I did mention that I've seen it played both ways. As well as exhaustion not killing you being more logical, it is also, by far, more often played that way that exhaustion + damage kills you. (And I've seen a lot of TFT campaigns over the years.)

But anyway, that was part of a discussion saying that there are two common ways to play it. But that was outside the 4 types of damage in old TFT.

Warm regards, Rick.

To my reading, there are only 3 types of damage in old TFT that need to be tracked separately: wounds, fatigue, and exposure (and exposure damage becomes normal wounds once you are out of the wilderness). The damage inflicted using the "Taking Prisoners" rules appears to be normal wounds -- I don't see any indication that the damage recovers differently from normal wounds.

[larsdangly]

In an effort to nudge this thread back on track, I offer another case where I think some tidying up is called for: Alertness.

The Alertness talent has a simple description and function - it sounds like you get a 1 die advantage for pretty much all attempts to notice things. Yet the Detect Traps talent specifies that Alertness does not 'stack' with it - rather, Detect Traps is a kind of focused version of Alertness, specifically for traps. In my mind, this raises the question of whether Alertness stacks with other things, like the Naturalists' roll to notice ambushes or the Acute Hearing roll to detect things that are not seen. So, setting aside the question of how you might recommend these things work together, I think the talent should be re-written so it is concretely clear how it interacts with all other talents of the same general type.