TFT Beastiary Suggestion

[platimus]

Moving from here:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=78

I don't know if SJG plans on publishing a TFT Beastiary but if they do, I would suggest listing the monsters by attribute-point totals. A table of contents or index can provide alphabetical lookups.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I second that motion, although I have to wonder if stat totals alone are sufficient to defining a creature's 'challenge quotient'. I don't want to over-complicate this, but many creatures have special abilities that should somehow be factored into their difficulty rating, shouldn't they?

Originally Posted by hcobb

Just add up the attribute point totals listed for the critter's advantages and disadvantages.

Originally Posted by Skarg

(Fortunately, TFT doesn't really reduce to a "challenge quotient", or it'd be much less interesting.)

In the detailed combat experience rules a TFT friend and I designed back circa 1985, for fighters we ended up with ST + adjDX + armor + other offsets, such as off-ST-scale damage. Various abilities, combat spells, unusual MA, flying, etc are kinds of apples & oranges cases.

However, while that system seemed vastly better than just adding ST + DX, it's clear that it's not nearly enough to estimate even just combat threat value accurately - relative armor to damage is a massive factor, especially when someone has more armor than a foe is likely to do damage. Look at the damage amount they do and compare it to the armor of what they're fighting, and vice versa. Compare adjDX. Compare number of attacks. Notice MA, hex size, ST and other features. Still, the relative numbers and situation in a combat tend to be more important than one-on-one stat comparisons. Also, how deadly you consider a monster also has to do with how much of a defeat it is to lose one or more of your comrades defeating it.

Rather than trying to come up with a number, perhaps type categories would be more appropriate. Some monsters are sort of like fighting a human, or close enough. Others have peculiar abilities to sort out. Others are large beasts of varying challenge. Others are especially deadly mainly only if they get you in HTH. Others are deadly for unarmored people but have a hard time hurting people with enough armor. Many/most can be challenging one-on-one but will be wiped out by a coordinated group in a situation where they can all attack it at once.

[platimus]

Obviously, stat totals alone aren't enough to form a perfect "challenge quotient" but it's a good starting point.

[platimus]

It seems like each talent/spell/special attack/ability known could be added to a(n) (N)PCs stat totals to get a little closer to a simple but true-ish appraisal/comparison also...but for logistical sanity, listing by stat totals will suffice.

[TippetsTX]

I'd even be OK if everything was put into big 'buckets' like High/Medium/Low Challenge, but at some point GMs will want to know how to quantify their own creations and for that we'll need guidelines on how to weigh certain abilities against each other.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I'd even be OK if everything was put into big 'buckets' like High/Medium/Low Challenge,

I would rather they were listed by stat totals but they could be grouped by "20-30", "30-32", "33-35", etc.

but at some point GMs will want to know how to quantify their own creations and for that we'll need guidelines on how to weigh certain abilities against each other.

That would seem to come from experience - playing and GMing. It also depends on how intelligently the PCs and NPCs are played. I'm not sure any guidelines can be given beyond what I've already described. Some things will be obvious. Some things take time.

[larsdangly]

I wouldn't really like this organizing principle; I'd greatly prefer something more conventional, like a grouping by broad type (plants, wild animals, spirits, etc.), or just alphabetical.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I wouldn't really like this organizing principle; I'd greatly prefer something more conventional, like a grouping by broad type (plants, wild animals, spirits, etc.), or just alphabetical.

Hmm. Yeah, that's true. I can see a lot of value in that. I think I might prefer that grouping as well. Perhaps they could be sub-ordered by stat totals?

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by platimus

Hmm. Yeah, that's true. I can see a lot of value in that. I think I might prefer that grouping as well. Perhaps they could be sub-ordered by stat totals?

Or maybe just include a 'difficulty rank' in the stat block somewhere?

[Oneiros]

Originally Posted by platimus

Hmm. Yeah, that's true. I can see a lot of value in that. I think I might prefer that grouping as well. Perhaps they could be sub-ordered by stat totals?

Or perhaps a simple table in the back of the book? Because, really, anything but alphabetical is a hindrance to quickly looking up a creature in the middle of a game.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Oneiros

Or perhaps a simple table in the back of the book? Because, really, anything but alphabetical is a hindrance to quickly looking up a creature in the middle of a game.

This is true. You win! :)