An Even MORE BLASPHEMOUS Polyhedral Dice Concepts for TFT

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

I have to tell you straight, I always cringe as a response when I see a prescribed damage assigned to a weapon where no associated generator is BEHIND that weapon (i.e figure exerting ST) - that's just me. I need time work over your damage estimates, as they are specific, and not just purely conceptual. Will get back to you on this after I have had time evaluated it.

Of course GURPS has that mechanic - base damage is a function of ST and weapons act as modifiers. For instance, this is ST and average base swing damage:

8      1.5
9      2.5
10     3.5
11     4.5
12     5.5
13     6
14     7
15     8
16     9

The various GURPS 1 handed broadswords require ST 10 and add +1 to swing damage. So a GURPS ST 12 character with a broadsword will average 6.5 points. A ST 10 character will average 4.5 points. Not very different from TFT (7 and 5 respectively), if you choose the ST appropriate weapon. (Yes, I know GURPS treats damage types differently, but that's another discussion).

The 2 handed bastard sword does +2 damage and requires ST 10. A ST13 figure would do 8 points of damage on average - the same as TFT. The Greatsword requires ST 12 and does +3 damage. A ST16 figure would average 12 points of damage (vs. 11.5 in TFT).

You could very easily adapt this system to TFT. However, you'd wind up with very generic weapons, since TFT lacks nuances like Reach and different damage types:

• 1 handed small sword/dagger, +0 dmg, ST 6+"
• 1 handed sword, +1 dmg, ST10+"
• bastard sword, +1 dmg one-handed; +2 dmg two handed, ST10+ (or ST 13+ if you wanted to replicate TFT)"
• 2 handed big ass sword, +3 dmg, ST12+ (or ST 16+ if you want to replicate TFT"

***

BUT... in TFT damage does increase with ST, if you change weapons, at least through ST 16. Here's an outline of ST and average damage in TFT, assuming you choose the appropriate weapon for your ST:

One handed hand weapons

8 or less - 2.5
9 - 3.5
10 - 5 (4.5 with hammer)
11 - 6
12 - 7
13 -8

2 handed hand weapons:

13 - 8.5*
14 - 9.5
15 - 10.5
16 - 11.5

*The bastard sword does only 1/2 point more damage on average when used 2 handed, which is not enough to justify using it two handed. Maybe this is intentional? Maybe bastard swords were not particularly good 2 handed weapons? An easy tweak would be to have it do 2+1, but make it useable 2 handed at ST 12 or even ST 11.

I prefer TFT's approach, which allows for some descriptive variation in weapons and does increase damage with ST (at least through ST 16). Also, I think that many hand weapons DO require a certain amount of physical strength to handle effectively, particularly in an extended melee.

As noted, I modified the rules a bit and allow figures to use weapons that they lack the ST for. Damage is -1 if the figure is 1 point of ST short or -2 if the figure is 2 points short. At -3 ST, damage is -3 and DX is reduced by 2. (I reviewed my notes and realized my previous posts were inaccurate).

Similarly, figures get a +1 damage bonus if they have 1-2 points more ST than required. They get a +2 damage bonus if they have 3+ more points of ST than required.

But at the end of the day, a ST 16 guy will benefit more from using a 1 handed bastard sword (2d+3 in my system) than a cutlass (2d in my system). And a ST 10 guy will be better off using a cutlass (2d-2) than a 1h bastard sword (2d-2; DX -2).

Both of these are desirable in my opinion.

Incidentally, you can use the chart on page 21 AM and create a GURPS-like system. Take the unarmed combat damage from the chart, then add the listed damage for each weapon type:

Dagger 1d-1
Rapier 1d
Cutlass 1d+1
Shortsword 1d+1
Broadsword 1d+2
1h Bastard Sword 1d+3
2h Bastard Sword 2d-1
2h Sword 2d
Battleaxe 2d
Greatsword 2d+1

Convert adjustments of +3 into +1 die and adjustments of +7 into +2 dice.
Convert adjustments of -3 into -1 die and adjustments of -7 into -2 dice.

So, a ST 16 figure does 1d bare handed. With a Greatsword, he does 3d+1. With a Broadsword, he does 2d+2.

A ST 10 figure does 1d-3 bare handed. With a Cutlass (1d+1), he does 2d-2. With a dagger, he does 2d-4 which converts to 1d-1. If you let him use a Greatsword - I wouldn't - he'd do 3d-2.

You'd need to decide if you will require minimum ST for weapons (I would).

True 1d6 = 3.5, 2d6=7, 3d6=10.5...I am only familiar with: "Arithmetic Mean", "Median", and "Mode" as types of Statistical Averages. What is the definition you are ascribing to the term "real world average"?As above; I need your definition of "real-world-average" to answer accurately.

Average = mean.

I have no idea if there's a term of art to describe "actual average". However, an example might suffice. A weapon that does 1d-3 damage will mathematically average 0.5 points of damage. You add up all possible modified rolls and divide by 6. The sum of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, and 3 is 3. Divide by 6 and you get 0.5 - the mean.

But in the Real World, you can't do -2 points of damage or -1 point of damage. These are treated as zero damage. So the possible damage rolls are actually 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, and 3. As a result, a 1d-3 weapon would average 1 point of damage, not 0.5.

With bell curves, there's another odd result. With a normal die roll, the average roll is also the most probable roll. So, a 2d6, Broadsword, will average 7 points of damage and 7 is the most likely damage it will inflict. This holds true so long as the negative modifiers don't exceed the number of dice being rolled. So a 2d-2 cutlass will average 5 points of damage and 5 will be the most likely damage it will inflict.

With a 2d-5 weapon (for instance), the most likely damage rolled will be 2.
And mathematically, the average damage rolled will be 2. BUT, the actual average damage will be 2.277 points of damage. The reason is that the mathematical average includes the possibility of rolling -3, -2 and -1 damage. In reality, those are converted to zero. This raises the average. Here are the mathematical averages and actual averages for other rolls:

2d-3  4   4.02
2d-4  3   3.19
2d-5  2   2.28
2d-6  1   1.55
2d-7  0   0.96

THIS is why I don't like negative modifiers that exceed the number of dice rolled - the probabilities get harder to calculate. And, the actual damage reduction per step starts getting significantly less than 1. IOW, applying a -3 modification to a 2d-3 weapon will reduce actual average damage by 2.47 points (4.02 minus 1.55), not by 3 points.

***

The effect of stating that all weapons do a minimum of 1 point of damage (before reductions for armor, shields, etc.) can be assessed with this approacj as well. Repeating my previous post somewhat and assuming this rule is in effect:

A 2d-2 weapon will mathematically average 5 points of damage; the actual average is 5.03. The difference is that 1 time in 36, you'll roll a 2. The -2 modifier would normally reduce that to 0 points of damage. But my rule would increase it to 1 point of damage. Hence, a very slight increase in the real world average. This is an insignificant difference, so the rule doesn't cause any trouble.

Here are the actual average damage before implementing the rule and after implementing it:

2d-2   5.00   5.03
2d-3   4.02   4.11
2d-4   3.19   3.28 
2d-5   2.28   2.55
2d-6   1.55   1.97
2d-7   0.96   1.55

Conclusion - adapting a rule that weapons will always do 1 point of damage (before armor, shields, etc.) will have minimal impact on 2 die weapons until you get to 2d-6 or so. Even then, the effect is to increase average damage by only about 0.5 damage points.\

However, a weapon doing 2d-6 may well be a boring weapon - 42% of the time, it will only do 1 point of damage.

With 1 die weapons, here are the numbers:

1d-1   2.50   2.67
1d-2   1.67   2.00
1d-3   1.00   1.50
1d-4   0.50   1.17

Conclusion - adapting a rule that weapons will always do 1 point of damage (before armor, shields, etc.) will significantly increase average damage with negative modifiers starting at -3. I don't consider this a big deal, so I'd adapt the rule.

This will increase the average damage of a one ST magic fist and fireball. But for 2+ ST magic fist and fireball, it's almost irrelevant, because the negative modifier be applied to the entire roll - A 3 point magic fist rolls 3d and subtracts 6. It does NOT three dice and subtract 2 from each die.

PS - Do you know why in TFT Shuriken are called "Sha-Ken"? I have a theory on that one! LOL!
.

No idea. We called them "throwing stars" until the early 1980s...

BOTTOM LINE - Letting all weapons do a minimum of 1 point of damage will not materially change the average amount of damage done, so add this rule if doing zero points of damage irritates you.