What happens if you have an action that lowers your DX on your turn?

[flankspeed]

I just realized how I was distinguishing the different DX adjustments, with some affecting speed AND accuracy and others affecting only accuracy.

If the DX adjustment came from a source that was on or part of or inherent to your whole person, such as armor or shields, or came from something affecting your whole person for EVERY action you would take that turn, such as magic or wounds, then the adjustment affected speed AND accuracy.

If the DX adjustment came from circumstances external to yourself, such as range or flanking or the difficulty of hitting a specific body part, or if it came from something that would only affect SPECIFIC actions you were taking that turn, such as attacking with two weapons or with a weapon you lack the skill to wield, then the adjustment only affected accuracy.

It is a subtle distinction, but I hope it has some small amount of reasonableness.

Example:

If you were attacking with two weapons during a turn while flanking an enemy and were suddenly forced to make a saving throw to avoid tripping, you would roll against your DX adjusted only for armor, shield (none, in this case), magic, and wounds.

You would not roll your save at -4 DX because you happened to make two weapon attacks that turn, or at +2 DX because you happened to make a flank attack prior to your saving throw.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

Hi RobW - The easy explanation is that the distance from the arrow tip to the target does not affect when you can release the bow-string.

Well, it's nice to know we were playing by the rules, even if I can't remember them exactly!

But I still think a simple rule "adjDX affects order and accuracy" would be OK. To aim at a distant target is harder, and it really does make you both slower and less accurate. Firing at a distant target also "occupies your mind" more, and probably really does make you more prone to other errors (eg Tripping).

[RobW]

Originally Posted by flankspeed

If you were attacking with two weapons during a turn and were suddenly forced to make a saving throw to avoid tripping, you would roll against your DX adjusted only for armor, shield (none, in this case), magic, and wounds.

You would not roll at -4 DX because you happened to make two weapon attacks that turn, or at +2 DX because you happened to make a flank attack prior to your saving throw.

Definitely reasonable, but in this example too, you could say when making a more difficult attack, you will execute it more slowly and you will be more likely to make mistakes of other kinds -- that is, the DX penalty applies to everything.

That said, what you are describing flankspeed is basically how we played.

[Venomous Filigree]

Good question and insightful answers.

Hopefully an official answer will be forthcoming and the Legacy Edition rules are clear.

I've not played for a loooong time, so can't remember how we used to rule it.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by RobW

Well, it's nice to know we were playing by the rules, even if I can't remember them exactly! But I still think a simple rule "adjDX affects order and accuracy" would be OK.

Sure it's okay (even if it isn't RAW) because it's *your* game. What you are doing is even less granular than the RAW, and if that feels right to you and your group, and, you feel the benefits to enjoyment and playability supersede the benefits offered by the RAW, then do it your way - that's the thing.

Originally Posted by RobW

To aim at a distant target is harder, and it really does make you both slower and less accurate. Firing at a distant target also "occupies your mind" more, and probably really does make you more prone to other errors (eg Tripping).

And you *could* be correct with that opinion (especially in your own game); however, another GM might feel that the RAW includes sufficient time to properly aim a distance shot as reflected and accounted for by the given DX modifiers for distance, AND,... might even produce the rules for *aimed shots* - See TFT:AM p.20 - which account for time-extension due to aiming with care, versus, the typical shot taken during a time allowed by a single Melee attack phase (which is the premise your justification is built on).

So the bottom line is, just *do what feels most right for you* and your group.

As it with the law, a good (or evil) litigator can argue, with documentation, either side of a question. ;-)

JK

PS - Imagine for TFT, *Goblin Lawyers*! Gives a whole new horrifying dimension to the title of : Litigation Trickster

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by flankspeed

I just realized how I was distinguishing the different DX adjustments, with some affecting speed AND accuracy and others affecting only accuracy.

If the DX adjustment came from a source that was on or part of or inherent to your whole person, such as armor or shields, or came from something affecting your whole person for EVERY action you would take that turn, such as magic or wounds, then the adjustment affected speed AND accuracy.

If the DX adjustment came from circumstances external to yourself, such as range or flanking or the difficulty of hitting a specific body part, or if it came from something that would only affect SPECIFIC actions you were taking that turn, such as attacking with two weapons or with a weapon you lack the skill to wield, then the adjustment only affected accuracy.

It is a subtle distinction, but I hope it has some small amount of reasonableness.

Great minds think alike. ;-)

That's exactly how we played, too. It makes a lot of sense to me, and matches the logic of the range mod explanation (which I'd forgotten was an explicitly exception, but may be where we got it), and most importantly, it reduces the large number of possible points each character could act at.

E.g.

Bon Juvi
ST 11 Fine Shortsword +1 DX, dagger, small shield
DX 12 (13 sword)(14 thrown)(15 ranged)
IQ 9
Sword, crossbow, shield, thrown weapons, missile weapons

Bon Juvi faces one opponent who is facing him, and another opponent who fell down next to him. He also has line of sight to two other foes, one of which is in plain view and the other has a DX penalty to be hit (e.g. from blur, darkness, or partial cover).

When does Bon Juvi act? Well, let's count the possibilities:

He could attack the downed foe with this sword at DX 17.
He could drop his sword, draw and throw his dagger at DX 14.
He could attack the adjacent standing foe with his sword at DX 13.
He could shield-rush the adjacent standing foe at DX 12.
He could drop his sword, draw and throw his dagger at the obscured target at DX 10.

That's not taking into account making aimed shots or other options that might affect adjDX. And that's only one of the fighters in this combat.

[Jim Kane]

Here's a fun one to chew on while you wait to see what SJ has to say in regard to the OP:

When a figure takes a position on top of a chest or table, and is attacking downwards at an opponent, he receives a +2 DX bonus - See "Height" on TFT:AM p. 24 - BUT should this figure (now that he is +2 DX to hit) also be considered to be *faster* in terms of *when* he attacks during the turn? Or, does his speed remain uneffected?

If yes, or, if no, why?

JK

[RobW]

Chewing on this a little more, I'm not sure the internal/external thing quite works.

I'm assuming, or wondering more like it, doesn't everyone play so that attributes of the target, such as Blur, and the relationship between target and attacker, such as facing (e.g. Side or rear) do affect order as well as accuracy?

Facing in particular is similar to JK's example of height, and seems to me they should be treated the same.

I agree JK, while we wait for the official version I think it's good we discuss through the ins and outs.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by RobW

Chewing on this a little more, I'm not sure the internal/external thing quite works.

I'm assuming, or wondering more like it, doesn't everyone play so that attributes of the target, such as Blur, and the relationship between target and attacker, such as facing (e.g. Side or rear) do affect order as well as accuracy?

Facing in particular is similar to JK's example of height, and seems to me they should be treated the same.

I would not have any of those affect when an attack happens. Like range to target, they all seem to me to mainly be about the difficulty of hitting the target, but I don't see why they would necessarily make the attack happen later (or sooner in the case of a height advantage).

If standing on a chest or table gives bad footing to the attacker, though, I would have that affect when the attacker's action happens.

i.e. My principle is that people act based on their own overall adjDX. If they are getting a bonus or penalty to do something based on the target or how they're trying to attack it, that just makes it harder or easier, but not happen sooner or later.

[David Bofinger]

I don't see a problem with unexpected bonuses. In a big fight the GM is probably counting down, "DX 13 ... DX 12 ... DX 11," and someone says, "I'm 11," and rolls an attack. If an enemy goes down, creating an unexpected +4 DX modifier then when the GM says, "DX 13," someone says, "I'm 15 with the +4 for my target being prone," and makes an attack. The rule is that at any moment the person to act is the one with the best adjDX, taking into account their chosen action and desired target, who hasn't acted yet.

It would be better in principle if archer speed weren't affected by e.g. target size. And probably not by range. But maybe that's more detail than is needed. The simple solution is probably fine.

[howitzer]
I wish, though, that multiple shot archery came with a DX penalty.
[/howitzer]
(Did I use that tag correctly?)