Unarmed Combat

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

And if you're "thrown" before your action, can you stand up as your action and act normally next turn? Or must you wait until next turn to stand (thereby losing 2 attacks). I always played it as the former, but the rules are somewhat unclear to me.

Steve answered this but as I replied above, I think he gave the wrong answer, because it contradicts the rules and it means that knocking people down only buys you time at best and wastes your turn if you fail.

i.e
A knocks B down with his amazing skills!
B stands up.
A knocks B down with his amazing skills!
B stands up.
A fails to knock B down.
B hits A.

(It gets you nothing even if you succeed, unless you're buying time for something else to happen that will help you. Kind of like the Defend option.)

[zot]

Originally Posted by Kirk

It really has nothing to do with increasing IQ. If I build a character and the GM wants to restrict growth of any attribute, that is something different altogether.

Higher IQs, IMO, are necessary for higher MA skills. If the character needs to be designed to already have that IQ at age 18 and fill up to it as he ages, it still holds true.

TFT IQ 14 is nowhere near a real world IQ of 140. Real-world IQ 140 is genius level; 97.5% of IQ scores are 130 or less. You don't have to be a genius to learn to be a doctor, to master martial arts, or to learn any of the TFT IQ 14 talents.

TFT just isn't that good at simulating life. IQ in TFT is an amalgamation of intelligence and education.

[zot]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

The low damage is pretty hard to overcome (though kicks might help a little). Even a ST 16 (!) martial artist will do 1d+3 damage vs the 3d+1 damage a greatsword using fighter will do. 6.5 average points vs 11.5 average points.

This ST 16 UC fighter ought to have Two Weapons and be able to make two 1d+3 attacks against the other fighter's two-handed greatsword. Since 1d+3 is roughly equivalent to 2d, I think it's actually a decent comparison. Maybe not so much against armor though. Two Weapons works with the cestus so I don't think it's a stretch to let it work with unarmed attacks.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I agree that the lower UC talents could be more accessible even that Steve's mentioned talking point. I think IQ 6 and low DX should be able to learn UC I (or some unarmed combat talent) - everyone can learn some martial arts and be more dangerous with their unarmed attacks, and low-DX people will still be lame martial artists just because they have low DX - no need to not let them have any martial arts ability at all.

In considering balance with UC skills, I think you should also take into account that UC people do best in HTH, where the tables are turned, and weapon-users can't use their weapons (except maybe a dagger). Adding the ability of UC to affect HTH initiation chances (I'd make it start with being harder (than it currently is) for someone without UC to initiate HTH), and also having HTH make it harder for people to use knives on you in HTH.

Well, I find HTH in TFT to be tedious, so I wouldn't do anything to encourage more of it. You have to have it, I suppose, but it just drags on most of the time.

Yes, that's true but it seems to me should be true. UC shouldn't overpower weapons & armor, but offer different abilities.

I totally agree. None of my suggestions overpower conventional fighters. They just narrow the gap a bit.

What do you think a 35-point character with UC V should be like?

Under Steve's revised UC system, it can only be ST8 DX15(14) IQ12. He'll do 1d-1 (2.5 average) damage and will stop 1 hit. A 35 point fighter by comparison can be ST11 DX16(14) IQ8. He can wear cloth and carry a tower shield, stopping 4 points of damage. He'll hit the martial artist 53% of the time and will do 2-1 damage (6 average). This makes him invulnerable on 5 out of 6 hits.

I know who my money would be on. This *might* change depending on the nerve strike clarification. But even best-case for the martial artist - 3 points of damage BEFORE armor causes a dropped weapon - the nerve strike will happen on 50% of attacks. And the fighter can nullify the nerve strike by just punching the martial artist. He actually does the same damage bare-handed as the martial artist (though he hits about half as often). And his armor protects him 5 out of 6 times from the martial artist's blows.

If EP is only going to be spendable on attributes again, should it even be possible for someone with +3 attributes of experience to have the pinnacle-level of UC talents?

I'm not so sure that UC V is actually all that impressive.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Steve answered this but as I replied above, I think he gave the wrong answer, because it contradicts the rules and it means that knocking people down only buys you time at best and wastes your turn if you fail.

i.e
A knocks B down with his amazing skills!
B stands up.
A knocks B down with his amazing skills!
B stands up.
A fails to knock B down.
B hits A.

(It gets you nothing even if you succeed, unless you're buying time for something else to happen that will help you. Kind of like the Defend option.)

Huh, I was having deja vu but couldn't find the post. Thanks for linking it. I agree with Steve's reasoning (somewhat) for what it's worth. However, I think that throwing someone on a hard surface ought to do *some* falling damage - maybe 1d-3.

The reason I agree with Steve is that I think it's too punitive to have lower DX figures lose TWO attacks when knocked down. High DX figures already have plenty of advantages.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

If he did not move at all that turn, he is eligible to switch to the Stand Up option and stand. Otherwise he is down for a turn.

I re-read the AM sequence of play and found that option I. states that a figure can stand still or move one hex and select the stand up option. Did you mean to say "did not move more than one hex"? Or is this a special rule for throwing?

And of course, there's this - "A figure which takes 8 or more hits in one turn IMMEDIATELY falls down. If it has not already attacked, it may not attack that turn. It may do nothing NEXT turn except stand up (or stay down). If it is in HTH combat it may do NOTHING next turn."

As an aside, if a figure moves (say) 1/2 his move he can strike with a ready weapon. But if he's knocked down before his attack, he has to wait until next turn to stand (thereby losing two attacks).

I think that this creates a regrettable incentive to *not* engage. It also advantages high DX figures (which we really don't need).

I suggest that figures be allowed to stand up as their action if they moved 1/2 or less of their MA. That's how my group always played it; I forgot that it was a house rule.

[Skarg]

You're mis-reading what it says in Advanced Melee. Regardless of whether you have used your action yet on a particular turn, the effect of falling down is you lose your NEXT action, whether that is on this turn, or the next turn. Then when you can act, you're likely to want to stand up (but not necessarily, if by then you're in HTH, or whatever).

So the higher-DX person also loses an action, and then probably wants to stand up after that. It's just that his action will be next turn.

Again, if you don't do it that way, then all attacks that just have some chance to knock someone down (UC II judo throw, shield rush, the Trip spell, whatever...) are almost always pointless to attempt in single combat, as it will tend to gain you nothing at best, and may completely waste your turn.

i.e.
Wizard casts Trip! You fall to the ground and drop your weapon! Oh my!
I get up and ready my weapon.
Wizard casts Trip! You fall to the ground and drop your weapon! Oh my!
I get up and ready my weapon.
Wizard casts Trip! You fall to the ground and drop your weapon! Oh my!
I get up and ready my weapon.
Wizard casts Trip! You fall to the ground and drop your weapon! Oh my!
I get up and ready my weapon.
Wizard casts Trip! You fall to the ground and drop your weapon! Oh my!
(Wizard also collapses because he was ST 11 and he used 10 fatigue casting Trip on you, gaining him absolutely nothing.)

Also, if you just let someone get up right after falling, then there's a weird situation where if a slower person knocks over a faster person who's already acted in a turn, the slower person can be unengaged and run away next turn. But if a faster person knocked over a slower person, and the slower person can just get up as his unused action, then the faster person can't get disengaged by knocking over his opponent (which is not only unbalanced in a backwards way, but also doesn't make any sense - you should be able to run from someone who just fell down, but can't if they're allowed to stand up before the next movement phase).

I.e. if A and B are rehearsing this, the sequence from Advanced Melee would be like this:
***new turn***
A trips B
B loses action
***new turn***
A acts
B stands
***new turn***
A acts
B trips A
***new turn***
A loses action
B acts
***new turn***
A stands
B acts
***new turn***

As you can see, using your action to (successfully) knock someone down gets you two actions before they can be standing and attack you again while standing, no matter whether you went first or second. If it only "gets" you one action, well, it was already your turn to act when you chose to try to knock them down, so it actually gets you zero advantage (unless you're buying time for some external event you hope will help you more than him).

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

You're mis-reading what it says in Advanced Melee. Regardless of whether you have used your action yet on a particular turn, the effect of falling down is you lose your NEXT action, whether that is on this turn, or the next turn. Then when you can act, you're likely to want to stand up (but not necessarily, if by then you're in HTH, or whatever).

It's a reaction to injury, not a reaction to falling down. 5 hits and you're at -2 DX, 8 hits and you fall down and are stunned.

I think the stun-effect is supposed to be from the damage, not from falling down.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

...
But there is room for UC improvement.

What if at UC II or III there begins a cumulative penalty to hit the martial artist, and possibly a slight damage reduction? Most of the arts teach both redirection of blows and (e.g., aikido) just not being there when the blow comes.

I think at UC 5, all your hexes should be front. UC 5 is based as much on Bruce Lee as on any observation of RW fighters.

Hi Steve, everyone.
I think that at UC ii, it should gain my Judo Talent ability. (When someone tries to jump you in HTH, you get a 1 die roll to see if they succeed. 1,2 yes, 3,4 yes with dagger, 5 no, 6 no & free hit. I'll call this the "HTH 1 die Defence Roll.")

The HTH 1d Def. Roll, is random and dull. Nothing you can do to change it.

My Judo talent give you the ability to add or subtract one to this roll, when you are try to enter HTH, or someone tries to jump you in HTH.

It is very nice to have SOME way to modify this random effect.

***
I agree that armed figures should be better than UC users.

Warm regards, Rick.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Wizard casts Trip! You fall to the ground and drop your weapon! Oh my!
I get up and ready my weapon.
Wizard casts Trip! You fall to the ground and drop your weapon! Oh my!
I get up and ready my weapon.
Wizard casts Trip! You fall to the ground and drop your weapon! Oh my!
I get up and ready my weapon.

...

Also, if you just let someone get up right after falling, then there's a weird situation where if a slower person knocks over a faster person who's already acted in a turn, the slower person can be unengaged and run away next turn. But if a faster person knocked over a slower person, and the slower person can just get up as his unused action, then the faster person can't get disengaged by knocking over his opponent (which is not only unbalanced in a backwards way, but also doesn't make any sense - you should be able to run from someone who just fell down, but can't if they're allowed to stand up before the next movement phase).

I.e. if A and B are rehearsing this, the sequence from Advanced Melee would be like this:
***new turn***
A trips B
B loses action
***new turn***
A acts
B stands
***new turn***

These are good points but I think they point out a flaw in the RAW. I don't think reactions to injury covers tripping.