Advanced Combat Skills

[Rick_Smith]

Hi everyone,
This is talking about Steve's revised advanced UC talents.

All fist damage is 1d-4? (It does not go up by ST?) This is a big change. However, likely not a bad one given how fast fist damage went up before.

***

Brawling at IQ 7, 1 memory does +2 damage (dirty blow). UC 1 at IQ 9, 1 memory (two total), does +1 damage. So when I buy UC 1, my unarmed damage goes DOWN. (Or is the intention that Brawling and UC 1 bonuses add together?)

I would suggest that the brawling damage is subdual damage. (See Taking Prisoners on page 25 of AM.) It is not described in those rules, but I say that subdual damage heals at x4 rate. (It is bruises and strains rather than deep cuts and punctures.) Note that if anyone does non-subdual damage in a bar fight, then it is a not-friendly act. If you do a dirty blow, you do +1 real damage.

***

At lower levels of UC, the kick attack is done at DX negatives but it does more damage. A nice trade off. At higher levels it has no DX negatives and does extra damage. At higher levels, why would you ever punch? There should always be a DX penalty for kicking I believe.

***

I think these talents are much better balanced and clearer than the first set. Good work.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Skarg

... My main concerns at this point are:

* I am not really liking that the trade-off seems to be IQ and reduced attribute focus to get expertise. The weapon/shield expertise and higher UC levels I sort of think should just not be allowed to start with (unless the character is supposed to be very experienced) and I'd like the way to get them to instead be actually needing exceptional levels of training and/or experience.

It feels unfortunately mechanical and gamey to me to have there be a heavy consideration/trade-off about whether to be stamped an Expert or Master and need to raise IQ, or to just raise ST & DX instead - that's hard for me to understand what it's supposed to represent.
...

Hi all, Skarg,
I agree with you here. I'm going to start a new post talking about the trade offs of talents, (costs, prerequisites, attributes prerequisites), but I agree. It feels that we are being forced to paint with a broad brush when the designer would like to communicate with finer detail.

Warm regards, Rick.

[zot]

The current UC listings limit a UC V fighter to a maximum ST of 12, which I don't think is necessary. What about these requirements for UC (keeping the talent point cost the same)?

IQ 9
UC 1
UC 2: DX 11

IQ 10
UC 3: DX 12
UC 4: DX 13, ST 11

IQ 11
UC 5: DX 14, ST 11

This still restricts UC IV and V to 34 and 36 points but it allows a maximum ST of 15 for UC V. I don't think requiring slightly above average ST for a UC expert or master is unreasonable at all.

If having a different IQ level for each one is better, UC I could be at IQ 7.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by zot

...
If having a different IQ level for each one is better, UC I could be at IQ 7.

Hi Zot,
Kids can start learning Martial arts, so I have UC I at IQ 7. Warm regards, Rick.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Zot,
Kids can start learning Martial arts, so I have UC I at IQ 7. Warm regards, Rick.

So that'd be:

IQ 7
UC I

IQ 8
UC II: DX 11

IQ 9
UC III: DX 12

IQ 10
UC IV: DX 13, ST 11

IQ 11
UC V: DX 14, ST 11

(note from above)
This still restricts UC IV and V to 34 and 36 points but it allows a maximum ST of 15 for UC V. I don't think requiring slightly above average ST for a UC expert or master is unreasonable at all.

[Steve Jackson]

An argument that has been in the back of my head is that you simply do not reach high levels of these skills without acquiring DX. The same could be true of ST.

[Skarg]

Yes, though:

* If there were a version that were just a soft art that involves throwing and avoiding being hit, that might not require much ST.

* Another way of limiting such talents would be to not reduce the DX penalties to use their special moves. The talents could allow you to try fancy moves for cool effects, but maybe there's always a steep DX penalty, so you need high DX to have it be worthwhile.

That's already starting to kick in with your latest version of the Weapon Expert/Master talents - you need to have high DX and not wear too much armor or the Shrewd option will usually miss and maybe only be helpful when you need to get through armor. The 40-point cap is making it so it doesn't become a "well, armor just doesn't matter" effect as it would for 50-point characters.

Such options also help counter the "everyone with high DX always hits" issue, though the effect needs to be worth enough that someone might want to risk missing as opposed to making normal attacks and almost-surely hitting. High armor has that effect, but how it all balances out is fairly new ground.

It's part of why I think UC kicks should always have some DX penalty (that and that otherwise the punch is a "why ever do that?" option).

Ordinary TFT already had the optional Aimed Shots rule which served this purpose somewhat, though some players didn't like the implementation. I used it, and even when my TFT campaign got to quite high levels, it seemed to be an interesting option that mostly wasn't abused. Crossbow head shots by people with missile weapons talent was rather deadly.

[extra example - don't need to read]
And one of the most memorable adventures involved two characters cut off from the party deep in a huge labyrinth. One was the 46-pointer (greatsword & mail, armor 9) and the other a nearly-unarmored guy with a bastardsword and really high DX. They managed to use tactics & skill to kill their way through a very large number of underground fights, and it was the first time we saw someone regularly successfully hack people in the arm and leg. Basically they needed to keep the unarmored guy from getting hit by taking down anyone who engaged him before they could, and they managed to do that.
[extra example]

[guymc]

Originally Posted by Skarg

[HOWITZER]
Speaking of complicating things, I wonder if anyone has any experience with bow & crossbow marksmanship enough to offer an opinion:

Should Missile Weapons be broken down into Bow versus Crossbow? Seems to me that if we're doing that for Weapon Mastery, from my limited but not-non-existent experience, it seems like maybe it should be broken down into Bow, Crossbow, Sling, Spells. Or maybe just a note that GMs who want more detail might want to do that.

I guess it's just a fiddly detail, though. I've seen hundreds and hundreds of TFT characters with Missile Weapons, and I don't remember off-hand more than one or two examples of anyone with it using more than one type of missile, anyway.
[/HOWITZER]

While it is true that a longbow, a sling and a crossbow require entirely different techniques in “real life”, I don’t really think it is necessary to open that can of worms at a TFT level of play.

[Steve Jackson]

I have used both bow and crossbow on the range - real ones, not SCA versions - and there's not much similarity other than the basic need for some hand/eye coordination. They are just combined for ease of play.

Crossbows are marvelous machines. I have the second one that Master Iolo ever built. http://www.crossbows.net/

[Skarg]

Interesting, thanks! I was mainly just curious.

(A character would need to buy the underlying talents anyway (using a large chunk of your typical talent points), and IME almost no one ever does that - if someone wants to "exploit" that, I don't really mind.)

Sweet crossbow site, Steve!