The 2 skulls in TA

[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.

[johndallman]

So, one can buy TA:Skull up to skill -3, although with a fairly large investment, 5 points. Attacking from the rear, that means one can attack the skull at only -1 net. I don't have a problem with this, but it does emphasise the value of helmets.

[Kromm]

The skull is a larger target than the face; it's simply hard to hit from the front. Realistically, it should be easy to strike from behind, especially for those who practice it. Helmets are essential in a fight with weapons, and even the most minimal versions protect the skull where they might leave the rest of the head open. Running around with your head uncovered in a mad melee where somebody is liable to get behind you is suicidal.

[Ulzgoroth]

A relevant note is that, if I understand right, Low Tech pot helms protect only the top of the skull. You need a fuller helm to completely cover the skull from behind.

[Gudiomen]

Ok, I'm sold... +2 situational it is. I'm probably over worried.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A relevant note is that, if I understand right, Low Tech pot helms protect only the top of the skull. You need a fuller helm to completely cover the skull from behind.

Where are you getting this from? The armor location table assigns 20% coverage to the skull and 10% coverage to the face, out of the 30% of the entire head... it seems to support full coverage of the skull.

Looking at the pot-helm entry further along, and it's also 20%. It clearly states that it protects the skull location.