Defense (sorry post is long)

[Kieddicus]

Originally Posted by phiwum

How to interpret this rule thematically? A better to-hit roll means that I beat the other guy to the punch, costing him a shot? Evidently not, or this would only affect my opponent and not the guy behind me. I guess I just don't see why a really good roll against the guy in front of me makes it more likely the guy behind me will miss.

For interpreting the rule I go with a lower roll is an over all better combat performance during the turn. Rather than just a to-hit roll.
I have debated making it so only people in your front arch have to beat your roll, but if I did that I'd probably remove the DX bonus for being behind someone.

Originally Posted by phiwum

Second, we now have DX doing even more in the game, since a high to-hit roll results in a good defense. If your DX is high enough, ST won't matter so much, so long as you can keep swinging and generate defense that way.

Yes, this is my biggest concern with my method! Luckily my Father actually made a system were higher ST reduces the penalties for wearing armor awhile back, so that might help balance things out.
(I'll go ahead and post the ST/Armor table in a new board when I find it.)

Originally Posted by phiwum

Suppose I have a (disengaged) archer who makes an incredible shot. As a result, any opponents firing their missile weapons will have a hard time hitting them. I guess I don't see why.

Oh sorry if I wasn't clear on this! This rule only applies to melee on melee combat. Casting spells and making ranged attacks don't make you harder to hit, and they are unaffected by a melee combatants to-hit roll.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I'm testing a much simpler mechanic... I give characters the option of sacrificing points from their DX score and apply that as a penalty against their opponent's next attack.

Do you have to choose which opponent gits the DX penalty or does it affect everyone that attacks you that turn?

Originally Posted by tcr25

For sure, but n=ST/2 seemed a bit too harsh ...

You could also just have it be a flat number and not based on ST. Since fatigue is pretty much just damage higher ST still lets you fight longer.

Alternatively you could periodically have people make ST checks to avoid fatigue.

[Kieddicus]

Originally Posted by Shostak

This means that if two figures are fighting, only one can hit that turn, since to do so, the margin of success must be greater than the opponent's. Aside from possibly creating a great many more forced retreats, this does not agree with the following:


According to the example, both would hit if g1's roll succeeded by 5.

Great catch, thanks! I'd probably go with the example as to allow two people to hit each other at the same time.

Originally Posted by Shostak

All that aside, the fact that a slower opponent's attack roll can influence a faster figure's is a little odd, suggesting that everything happens at once instead of according to the very fluid adjDX order. And, because reactions to injury can include adjustments to DX, trying to keep track of their effects on who actually hits could become very confusing.

I see DX more as general skill rather than speed.

I don't think it would cause to many issues. Since DX penalties from injury only occur if you get hit it doesn't change anything during that round, thus all penalties apply to the next round of combat. As opposed to the current system where some DX penalties apply to the current turn and some apply to the next turn.

[larsdangly]

I don't currently use a house rule of this sort in my weekly TFT game, but in past years I had one that worked as follows:
- any combatant can perform an active parry in place of a melee attack; success on the DX roll for that parry provides armor protection vs. the targeted attack (only) equal to 3 points per die of base damage for the parrying weapon.
- any combatant can also perform 2 or more attacks or active parries with a single 'attack' action, but must roll 1 extra die for all rolls for every attack beyond the first.

Thus, if you want to attack and actively parry your foe's attack on the same turn, you are free to do so but must roll 4d for each (or possibly more dice on your attack if your foe defended).

There are other fine details re. limitations and interactions with two-weapon fighting, but this is the base.

My experience was that people rarely took advantage of these rules unless the combatant in question had a really high adj.DX and was fighting a less skilled foe who was using a relatively light weapon. I interpreted that to mean that the rule I came up with was pretty balanced, because it wasn't obvious that you would benefit from it, on net, except under special circumstances.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Kieddicus

Great catch, thanks! I'd probably go with the example as to allow two people to hit each other at the same time.

Do both combatants hit if they roll critical successes, but one succeeds by more than the other?

I see DX more as general skill rather than speed.

That's totally cool for house rules, but represents a major departure from standard TFT.

Since DX penalties from injury only occur if you get hit it doesn't change anything during that round, thus all penalties apply to the next round of combat.

By relegating DX adjustments to the following turn, you allow movement to respond to and possibly ameliorate things like knock-downs. I think the overall effect of your house rule will be to limit taking advantage of changing conditions and prolong combat.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Kieddicus

Do you have to choose which opponent gits the DX penalty or does it affect everyone that attacks you that turn?

Actually, the player can choose to split the DX penalty if they are facing multiple foes. So in your goblin example, the hero could deduct say 4 points from his own DX and then spread the penalties across all three attackers if they wish (i.e. -2, -1, -1, etc.).

One of my primary goals for this rule was to keep from having to make extra die rolls, especially opposing rolls. Not that those are necessarily bad, but I prefer my TFT game to function without them.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Shostak

That's totally cool for house rules, but represents a major departure from standard TFT.

Not really. All TFT stats are abstractions that cover multiple physical and mental attributes. Even back in the day, we always accepted that DX was something not unlike a level-based bonus representing the character's general prowess as well as the more obvious aspects of agility, quickness, manual dexterity, etc.

[Shostak]

However abstracted DX is, it defines who acts first. Assuming no modifiers, those with a higher DX act more quickly than those with lower.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Shostak

However abstracted DX is, it defines who acts first. Assuming no modifiers, those with a higher DX act more quickly than those with lower.

Yes, it is that as well. My point was that it is not only that.

My rule would require the player to trade that particular advantage for a better defensive posture, however.

[Steve Plambeck]

Always used a house-ruled Parry option as an active defense. Success or failure of the defense always depended entirely upon the DX and tactics of the defender, and never on anything to do with the attacker. That always felt more in keeping with the self-deterrninative nature of TFT.

[Kieddicus]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Do both combatants hit if they roll critical successes, but one succeeds by more than the other?

If they both roll the same crit they both hit.
If you roll a better crit than your opponent you hit them without being hit yourself regardless of DX.

Originally Posted by Shostak

That's totally cool for house rules, but represents a major departure from standard TFT.

Originally Posted by Shostak

However abstracted DX is, it defines who acts first. Assuming no modifiers, those with a higher DX act more quickly than those with lower.

It doesn't seem that big of a departure to me (if even a departure at all). As the only line of text in DX's description that relates to speed is "(1) the order in which figures act each turn after movement." and this rule could simply represent the fact that a more skilled fighter is more likely to succeed at hitting their foe first.

Originally Posted by Shostak

By relegating DX adjustments to the following turn, you allow movement to respond to and possibly ameliorate things like knock-downs. I think the overall effect of your house rule will be to limit taking advantage of changing conditions and prolong combat.

I don't fully understand what you are getting at... RAW DX adjustments already persist to the next turn. ITL states that the -DX last till your next action, not your next action during that turn.
Thus if you inflict a DX penalty to someone who has already taken their action for the turn the -DX will affect them after next rounds movement.
But if you inflict the DX penalty to someone who hasn't gone yet, the -DX will affect their action in the current turn.
My system actually simplifies this by making it so DX penalties always affect the next turn.