Dungeon Fantasy/Monster Hunter Powers in Standard Games

[Kromm]

A lot of DF racial Talents are halfway between true inborn Talents and Job Training. They're essentially Job Training with the usual strictures pertaining to maintenance and duty replaced with "I was born into this and have lived with it all my life!" That is, DF being old-school fantasy, its races come with default cultures that define vocations. Were I to port those Talents out of old-school fantasy and into other genres, I might well only allow them as Job Training.

That said, I don't see what's so "overpowered" about Craftiness. I think it's a defensible real-life gift, being a natural deceiver, and the skills covered are all examples of things that GURPS splits up rather too finely for many gamers' liking. The whole lot would be a generic "Deceit" skill in quite a few systems, and even many GURPS fans have difficulty with Camouflage vs. Stealth, Shadowing vs. Stealth, or needing both Acting and Disguise for impersonation.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Kromm

That said, I don't see what's so "overpowered" about Craftiness. I think it's a defensible real-life gift, being a natural deceiver, and the skills covered are all examples of things that GURPS splits up rather too finely for many gamers' liking. The whole lot would be a generic "Deceit" skill in quite a few systems, and even many GURPS fans have difficulty with Camouflage vs. Stealth, Shadowing vs. Stealth, or needing both Acting and Disguise for impersonation.

Agreed! In fact, before DF11 came out, I invented a 10-point talent called "Sneaky" which included all the same skills plus a few more (Sleight of Hand, Filch, Pickpocket, Escape). It was a must-have for rogues, and it even granted a reaction bonus among other underworld types.

Off-Topic: Does anybody agree with me that some advantages are actually overpriced for DF? The most glaring example to me is Injury Tolerance: Homogenous, which appears on some racial templates and as GBF powers in DF5. In a world with guns, this advantage is worth the 40 points, because bullets usually do some kind of piercing damage. In a world with swords, I would feel pretty ****** paying 40 points and still getting my arms chopped off just the same...

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Off-Topic: Does anybody agree with me that some advantages are actually overpriced for DF? The most glaring example to me is Injury Tolerance: Homogenous, which appears on some racial templates and as GBF Its in DF5. In a world with guns, this advantage is worth the 40 points, because bullets usually do some kind of piercing damage. In a world with swords, I would feel pretty ****** paying 40 points and still getting my arms chopped off just the same...

It's not really a tech issue. Impaling and piercing damage have been the primary combat threats since it occurred to someone to start sharpening the sticks. Swords are just over represented compared to spears and arrows in most fantasy than is probably historically accurate.

[ULFGARD]

Originally Posted by ciaran_skye

In DF they're both are limited to racial templates, which is usually seen as an allowable way to break the suggestion to not include combat skills in templates. I'd simply require the same thing in a more general game.

I've done this for my fantasy races. It represents a cultural bias as well as innate gifts that seem appropriate to many of the classic races that players expect to find. However, they're not included in templates, but rather are optional talents that are restricted by race.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by RyanW

It's not really a tech issue. Impaling and piercing damage have been the primary combat threats since it occurred to someone to start sharpening the sticks. Swords are just over represented compared to spears and arrows in most fantasy than is probably historically accurate.

Problem is, GURPS tries to balance out low tech damage types, as opposed to the realistic 'well, impaling really is just better'.

[panton41]

Originally Posted by ULFGARD

I've done this for my fantasy races. It represents a cultural bias as well as innate gifts that seem appropriate to many of the classic races that players expect to find. However, they're not included in templates, but rather are optional talents that are restricted by race.

I'd allow it for a generic fantasy assuming those kinds of assumptions can be made about the race in general. I also like making it a "power-up" only that race can take. Kind of like saying "Not all Elves are great with the bow and outdoors skills, but when they are they have a real racially-provided talent."

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Problem is, GURPS tries to balance out low tech damage types, as opposed to the realistic 'well, impaling really is just better'.

Martial Arts wounding rules and Low Tech armor rules do a bit to drag things back that way, but the legacy of sw cut versus thr imp is a thorny issue.

...On the other hand it bears noting that the reasons for all those spears and arrows have a lot to do with economics and battlefield formation fighting. I believe people who could afford other weapons and weren't going to be standing in a block of other spear-carriers quite often chose something other than a spear.

Adventurers' opposition is not generally an unbiased sample of the fighting people of their setting, and their engagements are very seldom representative of contemporary battlefields.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Adventurers' opposition is not generally an unbiased sample of the fighting people of their setting, and their engagements are very seldom representative of contemporary battlefields.

Dunno...most adventure's engagments remind me of this accurate reenactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbor.

My plans are represented at the 0:38 point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcSMaNlcDPs

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by RyanW

It's not really a tech issue. Impaling and piercing damage have been the primary combat threats since it occurred to someone to start sharpening the sticks. Swords are just over represented compared to spears and arrows in most fantasy than is probably historically accurate.

Right, but since DF is supposed to be stereotypical fantasy, for the sake of game balance I think it makes sense to reprice some things. Just like a UB can add to the price of something the GM thinks is too cheap for the campaign, so I think it makes sense to offer certain advantages more cheaply when they are too expensive to be worth buying in the campaign.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Off-Topic: Does anybody agree with me that some advantages are actually overpriced for DF?

Outdoorsman is really a better value when priced with the Power-Ups revised costing.

Otherwise, I've been okay with the pricing.