The 2 skulls in TA

[Bruno]

Compare for example the Close combat technique with Two Handed Axe-Mace - a -8 that can be bought down to -4 because the typical 2HAM weapon is a Reach 2 weapon - but you can use it with a variety of Reach 1 weapons from Low Tech.

So instead of attacking in Close combat at 2HAM-4 (as if you hadn't spent 5 points on the technique for a Reach 1 weapon) you attack at -2 (the maximumm you can buy a Reach 1 weapon up to). The other two points you spent are "wasted" right now, but will be fully useful with Reach 2 weapons.

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Bruno

So instead of attacking in Close combat at 2HAM-4 (as if you hadn't spent 5 points on the technique for a Reach 1 weapon) you attack at -2 (the maximumm you can buy a Reach 1 weapon up to). The other two points you spent are "wasted" right now, but will be fully useful with Reach 2 weapons.

That's my gut feeling to.

For instance, if you buy up TA (Skull) to Skill-3 (from Skill-7), and you use it from the back, where the default is Skill-5, you get Skill-2. (In other words, reduced the penalty to half - round up - in both counts)

That's dandy, but it gets slightly complicated if you don't have the maximum level. I'd then have to "translate" one technique to the "other" virtual technique:

You spent 2 points in the technique, to get it from Skill-7 to Skill-6, if applied to the back, that gets you Skill-5 to Skill-4. And you also get one level that doesn't do anything to your odds from the back (not that that's a problem, it's just quirky).

The other way to look at it is the default skull penalty being -7, and being -5 from the back is just a situational bonus of +2 (much like you get from being on a higher level, or when bouncing shots on the ground to target the legs...). In that case, Peter's suggestion comes into action. And being a Martial Arts man, I'm inclined to take his word for it...

The only thing I worry, in this case, is that the skull becomes targetable at Skill-1 from the back! Which is highly attractive munchkin material, although it'd generate some world of warcraft level of attacks from behind.

There's another option, although rather harsh... which is treating the technique as only effective at targetting you're top skull, the same part that's accessible from the front. In this event, the technique would default from -7 in any situation, and it'd only be useful when you targeted that part of the skull, meaning you'd use the same relative skill level from the front or from behind. Reducing the maximum benefit of the technique from behind to Skill-3 (the same as the front).
And if you want to you can buy a different technique to attack the full skull from behind... up to Skill-2.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

The other way to look at it is the default skull penalty being -7, and being -5 from the back is just a situational bonus of +2 (much like you get from being on a higher level, or when bouncing shots on the ground to target the legs...). In that case, Peter's suggestion comes into action. And being a Martial Arts man, I'm inclined to take his word for it...

Remember, my suggestion of +2 is based on the idea that it's just easier. Bruno's method is more accurate and fair. But as you noted, with less than maximum points it's more complicated to figure out.

I'll personally take simple and nasty over complicated in most cases. But I won't claim it's particularly game balanced. On the other hand it's a mere 1 point difference, which in a higher-powered game isn't going to be that much.

[Bruno]

Yeah, I don't generally HAVE to worry about the nasty half-bought cases because I "buy the whole technique" or I don't buy any as just a matter of character design style, and the players in my group inclined to buy techniques seem to be similar. Dungeon Fantasy Power Ups, of course, passively enforces this as the way all the technique-based Power Ups are built, and suggests it as an optional rule for a DF GM as an active enforcement. I'm inclined to go with it for DF games for stylistic reasons.

And to discourage players drowning themselves in a zillion options by buying a point or two in a whole pile of techniques. ;)

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Yeah, I don't generally HAVE to worry about the nasty half-bought cases because I "buy the whole technique" or I don't buy any as just a matter of character design style, and the players in my group inclined to buy techniques seem to be similar.

You're right, I do that too and so do my players. It's kind of intuitive that if you think a technique is worth having, it's worth having to the max, they're cost effective this way. Some of them are only worth it if you do purchuse to maximum, like Counterattack, which otherwise is just a costly way of doing a deceptive attack.

My question was more a theoretical one, since in TA's case, there is a clear benefit to taking intermediate levels. And if you're on a point budget, you might accept taking more than max.

But yeah, it's just one skill level in the end. It just worries me because, circumstances being whatever they are, attacking from the back isn't all that hard to set up, doing this at skill-1 (or even skill+0 if you make it part of a signature move, which doesn't take much since it's already a little convoluted) when the target is already at -2 to defend from the back, and the non-penalty leaves you a lot of room for a deceptive attack, and the damage is absurdly high...

It's not just a question of game balance, it's a question of style. I'm afraid my players - who already have a great fondness for skull bashing - will purposely build all their characters this way in any setting that combat is an important part. And while it is a good tactic, I can't picture it being so ubiquitous. It'd blow my suspension of disbelief.

Edit: it's also a question of style because our games involve a lot of combat, and it's one of the parts that we enjoy quite a bit... I fear this too-good-to-be-true move would become so common that it'd make it less diverse and interesting for everyone.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

But yeah, it's just one skill level in the end. It just worries me because, circumstances being whatever they are, attacking from the back isn't all that hard to set up, doing this at skill-1 (or even skill+0 if you make it part of a signature move, which doesn't take much since it's already a little convoluted) when the target is already at -2 to defend from the back, and the non-penalty leaves you a lot of room for a deceptive attack, and the damage is absurdly high...

If you're that afraid of the consequences of a +1, don't have it. I'm not sure how it's even much of a simplification. The logical thing, I would think, would be TA (skull) going -7/-5, -6/-4, -5/-3, -4/-2, -3/-2.

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

It's not just a question of game balance, it's a question of style. I'm afraid my players - who already have a great fondness for skull bashing - will purposely build all their characters this way in any setting that combat is an important part. And while it is a good tactic, I can't picture it being so ubiquitous. It'd blow my suspension of disbelief.

Edit: it's also a question of style because our games involve a lot of combat, and it's one of the parts that we enjoy quite a bit... I fear this too-good-to-be-true move would become so common that it'd make it less diverse and interesting for everyone.

...maybe you should use more helmets? There's a reason they're the most common form of armor.

[Kromm]

Treat the adjustments for striking the skull and face from the rear as distinct from hit location modifiers, along the lines of "Attacking head from behind: +2 to hit the skull, -2 to hit the face." This doesn't interact with TA, because the hit location modifiers remain fixed: -5 for the face, -7 for the skull. It's a separate positional modifier, comparable to the extra -2/-4 to hit the shield arm/hand (note [6] on p. B552), or the +1 to hit the head from above (p. B402). These flat modifiers apply to everyone, irrespective of their TA. Adding qualifiers like ". . . from behind," ". . . on the shield side," and ". . . from above" to the hit location modifier and redoing the TA for each would be splitting hairs much too finely.