Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-30-2022, 09:17 PM   #41
the1weasel
 
the1weasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Louisville, KY
Default Re: Old School Monsters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shostak View Post
Yes, a revamped set of HTH rules would be wonderful, from my point of view; the current rules preventing slower figures from entering HTH except from the rear or with those with their backs to the wall or who are willing just doesn't match with any of my experience. Even a small tweak of modifying the HTH initiation roll by 1 for slower aggressors and maybe letting a modified 6 (a 1/3 chance) give a free hit would improve things.
I’m initially thinking “Official revised rules for HTH will never happen”. But then for at least 3 decades I was thinking “TFT will never come back in print. . . “ so I’ll just shut up now.
__________________
“...if one knew where to go, he could step through a shimmering portal today and be in Cidri . . .”
The Fantasy Trip Resource Hub
the1weasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2023, 06:44 PM   #42
phiwum
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
Default Re: Old School Monsters

Blood hawks have a -3 DX to be hit, because they're totally awesome at dodging. Of course, they're usually on the wing and flying critters are -4 DX to hit.

So, either blood hawks are a STUNNING -7 DX to hit when flying -- which includes when attacking -- or somehow, they lose the -4 DX bonus for flight due to their superior dodging skills and are just -3 DX to hit.

I assume that it's the former, but it sure does make them a LOT more dangerous. Already, they get a free attack on the first round, they have a remarkable 1d+3 damage and a move of 30 hexes/turn. With a -7 DX to hit, the majority of characters will be trying for an automatic hit (a roll of 5 or less) while the hawk is chomping away with DX 13, so a 84% chance to hit. Put differently, one can expect the blood hawk to hit 17 times for every time that its opponent hits[1].

Add to that the fact that they attack in flocks of 2d+1 and they're just really, really scary.

I'm pretty sure the last time I played a blood hawk encounter, I just gave them the DX -3 defensive bonus, without adding it to the usual DX -4 to strike a flying target, but I don't think that's right. On the other hand, the only other interpretation is just plumb unreasonable.

ETA: I thought of one more possibility. There's a very unfortunate typo in the text and the blood hawk attack is a much more reasonable 1d-3 rather than 1d+3. This would explain the preference for attacking the wounded, the unarmored and the young. It would also be a pretty reasonable attack for a bird of prey, a bit weaker than the 1d-2 for dragonets that I hear is the new rule in the Bestiary. An attack of 1d+3 is almost equivalent to a broad sword, which would be one mean bird.

Getting hit 17 times by a 1d-3 attack gives an average of 8.5 hits to an unarmored guy and less than 3 hits to a guy wearing leather. Still dangerous in large numbers, but not unreasonably so.


How do y'all read it?

Thanks.

[1] All of this assumes that the opponent has DX 12 or less and that there are no particular talents or situations that change the odds from adjDX (12 - 7) = adjDX 5 against the hawk's adjDX 13 and that each combatant is attacking.

Last edited by phiwum; 04-25-2023 at 07:23 PM.
phiwum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2023, 06:06 AM   #43
Bill_in_IN
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Indiana
Default Re: Old School Monsters

Quote:
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Blood hawks have a -3 DX to be hit, because they're totally awesome at dodging. Of course, they're usually on the wing and flying critters are -4 DX to hit.

So, either blood hawks are a STUNNING -7 DX to hit when flying -- which includes when attacking -- or somehow, they lose the -4 DX bonus for flight due to their superior dodging skills and are just -3 DX to hit.

I assume that it's the former, but it sure does make them a LOT more dangerous. Already, they get a free attack on the first round, they have a remarkable 1d+3 damage and a move of 30 hexes/turn. With a -7 DX to hit, the majority of characters will be trying for an automatic hit (a roll of 5 or less) while the hawk is chomping away with DX 13, so a 84% chance to hit. Put differently, one can expect the blood hawk to hit 17 times for every time that its opponent hits[1].

Add to that the fact that they attack in flocks of 2d+1 and they're just really, really scary.

I'm pretty sure the last time I played a blood hawk encounter, I just gave them the DX -3 defensive bonus, without adding it to the usual DX -4 to strike a flying target, but I don't think that's right. On the other hand, the only other interpretation is just plumb unreasonable.

ETA: I thought of one more possibility. There's a very unfortunate typo in the text and the blood hawk attack is a much more reasonable 1d-3 rather than 1d+3. This would explain the preference for attacking the wounded, the unarmored and the young. It would also be a pretty reasonable attack for a bird of prey, a bit weaker than the 1d-2 for dragonets that I hear is the new rule in the Bestiary. An attack of 1d+3 is almost equivalent to a broad sword, which would be one mean bird.

Getting hit 17 times by a 1d-3 attack gives an average of 8.5 hits to an unarmored guy and less than 3 hits to a guy wearing leather. Still dangerous in large numbers, but not unreasonably so.


How do y'all read it?

Thanks.

[1] All of this assumes that the opponent has DX 12 or less and that there are no particular talents or situations that change the odds from adjDX (12 - 7) = adjDX 5 against the hawk's adjDX 13 and that each combatant is attacking.

I generally concur with your assessment.

It's hard to ignore the -4 DX adjustment for flying. The -3 DX adjustment is called out as a special ability. So, it's also definitively present. Therefore, most attacks against a Blood Hawk would require an automatic hit.

Depending upon the GM, you could cap it off at -4 DX when flying and still give the Blood Hawk the -3 DX when they are at rest or not flying. Basically stating that the -3 DX is the minimum adjustment on any attacker. I believe that could also be a reasonable interpretation of the -3 DX special ability. I think that would also be reasonable but it does make it more complicated to deploy and track a Blood Hawk during battle.

I concur with your logic with respect to the damage with the exception that 1d-3 seems a bit low for the attack description of it being a combination of claws (talons) and beak. However, keeping that thought anchored to the fact that these are ST 4 creatures, 1d-3 still seems very reasonable. To deliver 1d+3 damage, it would seem that the ST would have to be at least 8 and the size of the bird would need to be a full hex. Perhaps a comparison to other similar sized birds is in order to verify my last assertion.
Bill_in_IN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2023, 07:38 AM   #44
hcobb
 
hcobb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
Default Re: Old School Monsters

Give the bird two 1d-1 attacks if it lands on the target or just one if it keeps flying (and at -4 DX both ways of course).
__________________
-HJC
hcobb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2023, 08:07 AM   #45
Shostak
 
Shostak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
Default Re: Old School Monsters

Hmmm ... ITL p.135 states that all DX adjustments are cumulative, but in some places there are exceptions, e.g. the penalty for attacking a mounted figure does not stack with the penalty for attacking a flying figure (ITL p.132). So, there would be precedent for saying that the it is just -4DX to hit a blood hawk on the wing, but also support for saying that it is -7DX. Clear as mud. It might be worth noting that attacking an invisible figure is a mere -6DX.

There are no errata for Old School Monsters listed that I can find. Maybe this is the first erratum? I think so. Just compare the listed blood hawk damage to other creatures. 1d+3 is on par with Long Lankin, hydra bites, and the HTH damage of a jaguar. 1d MINUS 3 would make far more sense, and, flying around in flocks (murders?) that comprised of, on average, eight birds, they'd still be dangerous to the unarmored.

[EDIT] Addendum: For what it's worth, the Bestiary pre-release lists a similar creature, the piranhakeet, with an additional -2DX penalty to hit them, and dealing 2 points of damage.
__________________
* * * *
Anthony Shostak
myriangia.wordpress.com

Last edited by Shostak; 04-30-2023 at 08:25 AM. Reason: Addendum
Shostak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2023, 09:51 AM   #46
phiwum
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
Default Re: Old School Monsters

ETA: When I started this post, there had been no feedback. After posting, I realize that some responses had come in in the interim.

I'm afraid that I didn't get any real feedback here, but I did have a conversation on the discord server. I have made the following changes to blood hawks, which perhaps should be in the house rules section but also make sense in this thread.

I'll go through my reasoning here. If you just want the punchline, see below.

I think that a -3DX to hit a flying creature is too much, given the already present -4 DX for flight. However, these hawks are supposed to be particularly hard to hit, so I have decided to make the total penalty for a blood hawk on the wing -5 DX. That's still a huge penalty, so that an average person (DX 10) is still looking for an automatic hit (5%). A DX 12 fighter can now hit him 15% of the time.

A blood hawk is a less than one-hex creature. I assume that means it must attack from the same hex as its victim. This raises two questions: Does it suffer a -4 DX penalty for an attack while flying or, like a dragonet, does it waive the penalty? And can blood hawks stack?

As far as stacking goes, there's a case to be made that the blood hawk is larger than a dragonet and should not stack. After all, they are as large as the largest normal hawks, and on earth, that's a two meter wingspan. On the other hand, when attacking, they favor the small, unarmored and wounded, and that rule would have no effect at all if each target can have at most one attacker (in-hex attack). It seems to me that if this is a key feature of blood hawk attacks -- and it's a good one -- then the hawks must be allowed to stack. I favor two to a hex stacking.

(Alternatively, one could rule that although a blood hawk is less than one hex, he attacks from an adjacent hex, so that stacking is not an issue. This would allow up to seven hawks to attack one target, one in each adjacent hex and one from overhead. I didn't go this route because it doesn't really fit with how hawks attack.)

With the stacking settled, let's consider the -4 DX penalty for attacking while in the air. Without the penalty, we're looking at an 84% chance for the hawk to hit, so the ratio between hitting and being hit is a stunning 17:1 for DX 10 characters, dropping to a bit less than 6:1 for DX 12 characters. With the penalty, the blood hawk has a measly adjDX 9, so the two ratios become about 8:1 and 2.5:1, respectively. The ratios are still high for adjDX 9 and furthermore, the waiving of the -4 DX penalty is said to apply for dragonets or smaller. The largest earth hawks are twice the body length of the foot-long dragonet, so I'm going with the -4 DX penalty.

Finally, the 1d+3 damage of a blood hawk may seem too high. That's the same as a long lankin or a single hydra head on a large hydra. However, we've significantly decreased the expected damage per turn by effectively lowering the hawk's adjDX from 13 to 9. As a result, the expected damage per turn from a blood hawk is 2.59 hits against an unarmored man. A man with leather will take on average less than one hit per turn. An unarmored man will take 0.72 hits per turn while defending and waiting for an opening to increase his DX by up to three points. If his DX is 10 to begin with, that still puts him at a disadvantage against the blood hawk however (adjDX 8 vs. the blood hawk's adjDX 9, or 25% to hit vs. 38%).

Note that if two blood hawks are attacking, the probability of being hit by at least one of the two is 60% or 18% if defending. This is very formidable for a typical traveler. I'm still considering adjusting the damage. Options include two 1d-2 attacks or a single 1d attack. I might play with the numbers some more.

Thus, here's my final (for now) interpretation of the blood hawk:
ST 4, DX 13, IQ 4, MA 30
Attack: 1d+3
The blood hawk is adept at dodging so all attacks against the hawk on the wing are at an additional -1DX to hit, for a total penalty of -5DX. The hawk itself is at -4DX penalty for attacking while flying. Hawks prefer wounded, small or unarmored targets and can stack two to a hex. They are found in casts of 2d+1 hawks.

Last edited by phiwum; 04-30-2023 at 11:07 AM.
phiwum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2023, 10:51 AM   #47
Bill_in_IN
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Indiana
Default Re: Old School Monsters

Quote:
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm afraid that I didn't get any real feedback here, but I did have a conversation on the discord server. I have made the following changes to blood hawks, which perhaps should be in the house rules section but also make sense in this thread.

I'll go through my reasoning here. If you just want the punchline, see below.

I think that a -3DX to hit a flying creature is too much, given the already present -4 DX for flight. However, these hawks are supposed to be particularly hard to hit, so I have decided to make the total penalty for a blood hawk on the wing -5 DX. That's still a huge penalty, so that an average person (DX 10) is still looking for an automatic hit (5%). A DX 12 fighter can now hit him 15% of the time.

A blood hawk is a less than one-hex creature. I assume that means it must attack from the same hex as its victim. This raises two questions: Does it suffer a -4 DX penalty for an attack while flying or, like a dragonet, does it waive the penalty? And can blood hawks stack?

As far as stacking goes, there's a case to be made that the blood hawk is larger than a dragonet and should not stack. After all, they are as large as the largest normal hawks, and on earth, that's a two meter wingspan. On the other hand, when attacking, they favor the small, unarmored and wounded, and that rule would have no effect at all if each target can have at most one attacker (in-hex attack). It seems to me that if this is a key feature of blood hawk attacks -- and it's a good one -- then the hawks must be allowed to stack. I favor two to a hex stacking.

(Alternatively, one could rule that although a blood hawk is less than one hex, he attacks from an adjacent hex, so that stacking is not an issue. This would allow up to seven hawks to attack one target, one in each adjacent hex and one from overhead. I didn't go this route because it doesn't really fit with how hawks attack.)

With the stacking settled, let's consider the -4 DX penalty for attacking while in the air. Without the penalty, we're looking at an 84% chance for the hawk to hit, so the ratio between hitting and being hit is a stunning 17:1 for DX 10 characters, dropping to a bit less than 6:1 for DX 12 characters. With the penalty, the blood hawk has a measly adjDX 9, so the two ratios become about 8:1 and 2.5:1, respectively. The ratios are still high for adjDX 9 and furthermore, the waiving of the -4 DX penalty is said to apply for dragonets or smaller. The largest earth hawks are twice the body length of the foot-long dragonet, so I'm going with the -4 DX penalty.

Finally, the 1d+3 damage of a blood hawk may seem too high. That's the same as a long lankin or a single hydra head on a large hydra. However, we've significantly decreased the expected damage per turn by effectively lowering the hawk's adjDX from 13 to 9. As a result, the expected damage per turn from a blood hawk is 2.59 hits against an unarmored man. A man with leather will take on average less than one hit per turn. An unarmored man will take 0.72 hits per turn while defending and waiting for an opening to increase his DX by up to three points. If his DX is 10 to begin with, that still puts him at a disadvantage against the blood hawk however (adjDX 8 vs. the blood hawk's adjDX 9, or 25% to hit vs. 38%).

Note that if two blood hawks are attacking, the probability of being hit by at least one of the two is 60% or 18% if defending. This is very formidable for a typical traveler. I'm still considering adjusting the damage. Options include two 1d-2 attacks or a single 1d attack. I might play with the numbers some more.

Thus, here's my final (for now) interpretation of the blood hawk:
ST 4, DX 13, IQ 4, MA 30
Attack: 1d+3
The blood hawk is adept at dodging so all attacks against the hawk on the wing are at an additional -1DX to hit, for a total penalty of -5DX. The hawk itself is at -4DX penalty for attacking while flying. Hawks prefer wounded, small or unarmored targets and can stack two to a hex. They are found in casts of 2d+1 hawks.
Sound reasoning.

The only open issue to resolve is the damage.

You could simply double the results of a 1d-2 for two attacking together or give it a straight 1d+2 for both. The later has a higher average but the same maximum.

The 1d-2 for a single Blood Hawk attack makes sense per the reasoning that you presented. Since they are described as being particularly fierce, a reasonable compromise would be 1d-1. This would be standard dagger damage as opposed to a sling.
Bill_in_IN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2023, 11:06 AM   #48
phiwum
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
Default Re: Old School Monsters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN View Post
Sound reasoning.

The only open issue to resolve is the damage.

You could simply double the results of a 1d-2 for two attacking together or give it a straight 1d+2 for both. The later has a higher average but the same maximum.

The 1d-2 for a single Blood Hawk attack makes sense per the reasoning that you presented. Since they are described as being particularly fierce, a reasonable compromise would be 1d-1. This would be standard dagger damage as opposed to a sling.
Two 1d-1 attacks at DX 9 do an average of 2 damage, which is less than a single 1d+3 at 2.59. With leather armor, the two attacks do an expected damage of 0, while the single 1d+3 does 0.59 points.

But expected damage isn't a perfect measure. Every 1d+3 attack gets through leather armor and there's a 60% chance of such a hit within two turns. The average damage after such a hit (subtracting for armor) is a healthy (?) 4.5 pts (ignoring 2x and 3x hits, which don't change matters much). With two turns of attacks, the average number of successful attacks is 1.24 for 2x(1d-1) and 0.75 for 1x(1d+3). I'll reconsider the damage, I think.

Last edited by phiwum; 04-30-2023 at 11:21 AM.
phiwum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2023, 11:12 AM   #49
Bill_in_IN
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Indiana
Default Re: Old School Monsters

Quote:
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Two 1d-1 attacks at DX 9 do an average of 2 damage, which is less than a single 1d+3 at 2.59. With leather armor, the two attacks do an expected damage of 0, while the single 1d+3 does 0.59 points.

But expected damage isn't a perfect measure. Every 1d+3 attack gets through leather armor and there's a 60% chance of such a hit within two turns. I'll reconsider the damage, I think.
I was thinking out loud on the combined attack damage. Perhaps, both attacks should be kept separate.
Bill_in_IN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.