Two Positive things to about the new TFT (Legacy Edition).

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by hcobb

The list of combat options have been reduced since Advanced Melee. For example rise from a knell and half-move, cast spell in HTH, etc.
See https://www.hcobb.com/tft/legacy_first.html#Combat

Thanks. I will need to make sure that I understand these differences. So far, it still looks like the combat sequence has been mostly preserved in the new TFT. That aspect of the game is still a strong part of its overall appeal.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

So, going back to the original post, I must ask these questions about the two points that I claimed were positive with respect to the new TFT.

1. Are there any details of combat sequence/resolution that have changed?

One rises to stand at the END of the round now, instead of as their adjDX-determined action. Also, polearm charges are resolved before other attacks.

2. Are their any problems in the application of the staff spells with their 5 level progression.

I find the new staff spells to be overpowered. My houserules offered on my bog.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Shostak

One rises to stand at the END of the round now, instead of as their adjDX-determined action. Also, polearm charges are resolved before other attacks.


I find the new staff spells to be overpowered. My houserules offered on my bog.

I just read through the original Advanced Melee. It basically said the same thing about polearm attack resolution. It is resolved first. The assumption is that they are first resolved in the action phase before the normal AdjDX order. In the original, some GMs opted to resolve them at the end of the movement phase which was effectively the same thing. The glaring difference was the damage bonus reduction for a charge attack.

Right now, I like the new staff spells as they are with the house rules tweak that I mentioned. Now, I say this with little experience in their application. In my own scenarios that I'm going through to retrain myself before subjecting others to my rusty GM skills, I have two wizards with Staff 2 spell. One just got it and the other has had the opportunity to add a few mana points. So, I haven't seen how Staff Spells 3, 4, and 5 affect the situation. However, it looks like it will take a lot of play to start moving through these while still trying to add mana points. If the wizard has put in the time to get the EXP to get there, he deserves it. It won't happen quickly unless there is a GM that is overly generous with EXP. So far, that's not the case whether I am the GM or Jesse. Jesse seems to be following the general guidelines of ITL which is fine with me. It makes a GM neither too stingy or too generous while giving the GM some room for rewarding PCs for extraordinary deeds/feats.

This is why I asked if there are any issues with the new 5 levels of staff spells. So far, I'm not seeing any issues at the Staff 2 level. I made an initial blunder that lasted only one session. After rereading the spell carefully, I took the IQ level of mana points off of the Wizard's staff. It seems that I missed the part about 200 EXP for each mana point. After much reflection, I decided to give it 1 point per the house rule that I mentioned. I may change my mind on the staff spells but this is one area to which I thought the original ITL was lacking. I can see where the new Staff Spells could be considered to be overcompensation for the past overlooking of the importance of a staff to a wizard. Time will tell for me on this one. However, in my opinion, following the rules (even with the house rule that I mentioned) doesn't give a wizard any more advantage with their staff than they deserve for their experience level.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Shostak

One rises to stand at the END of the round now, instead of as their adjDX-determined action. Also, polearm charges are resolved before other attacks.


I find the new staff spells to be overpowered. My houserules offered on my bog.

Referring to your own collected writings as a "bog" isn't inaccurate, but a little bit self-deprecating.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by hcobb

The list of combat options have been reduced since Advanced Melee. For example rise from a knell and half-move, cast spell in HTH, etc.
See https://www.hcobb.com/tft/legacy_first.html#Combat

I'm glad you keep that up Henry, because I keep forgetting Defend is no loger allowed after moving 1/2 MA.

Which, incidentally, bugs me no end. The Attack and Defend options are otherwise identical in implementation, two sides of the same coin. Both are a swing of your ready weapon, raised to strike your opponent or raised to strike your opponent's weapon. Legacy saying one can move 1/2 MA and Attack but not move 1/2 MA and Defend is very, very arbitrary.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I'm glad you keep that up Henry, because I keep forgetting Defend is no loger allowed after moving 1/2 MA.

Which, incidentally, bugs me no end. The Attack and Defend options are otherwise identical in implementation, two sides of the same coin. Both are a swing of your ready weapon, raised to strike your opponent or raised to strike your opponent's weapon. Legacy saying one can move 1/2 MA and Attack but not move 1/2 MA and Defend is very, very arbitrary.

Yes. I have noticed that several actions require less than half MA. That makes zero sense and is worthy of a house rule to restore to original.

[hcobb]

The point I failed to make is that the game has changed.

Old TFT was semi-realistic gritty. PCs had lives that were brutish, nasty and short, and were only a few steps above Melee/Wizard figures.

Legacy TFT is semi-realistic heroic. PCs are much less constrained at creation and over time. It is much easier to recover from one bad roll, which used to at best set you back thousands of XPs. You no longer have to give up secondary talents in order to refocus a very limited memory point pool. The PCs now can hope to do it all themselves instead of depending on hirelings for most everything.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I'm glad you keep that up Henry, because I keep forgetting Defend is no loger allowed after moving 1/2 MA.

Which, incidentally, bugs me no end. The Attack and Defend options are otherwise identical in implementation, two sides of the same coin. Both are a swing of your ready weapon, raised to strike your opponent or raised to strike your opponent's weapon. Legacy saying one can move 1/2 MA and Attack but not move 1/2 MA and Defend is very, very arbitrary.

Does anyone actually play according to that rule? I always figured it was an oversight and that one could do a half-move and then defend during the action phase so long as he was engaged.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Legacy TFT is semi-realistic heroic. PCs are much less constrained at creation and over time. It is much easier to recover from one bad roll, which used to at best set you back thousands of XPs. You no longer have to give up secondary talents in order to refocus a very limited memory point pool. The PCs now can hope to do it all themselves instead of depending on hirelings for most everything.

How did a bad roll set one back XPs?

I've never played Classic TFT so I don't know how it worked in practice. I understand a lot of folks don't like the decoupling between IQ and talent points after character creation and I can get that, but the whole notion that one can just let talents go fallow so they can learn new stuff is pretty weird to me. I haven't sailed in months, but while I've gained some rudimentary Blender skills in the interim, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be completely untrained in a sailboat tomorrow.

(Close to untrained, sure, but that's just because I'm a poor sailor.)

Mind you, I do understand the need for something like "forgotten" skills if talents are tied exclusively to IQ. After all, that makes early choices very, very significant and the gaining of later, high IQ (and often multi-point) talents really hard. So as a mechanic, I get it. But it's still weird.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by phiwum

How did a bad roll set one back XPs?

I've never played Classic TFT so I don't know how it worked in practice. I understand a lot of folks don't like the decoupling between IQ and talent points after character creation and I can get that, but the whole notion that one can just let talents go fallow so they can learn new stuff is pretty weird to me. I haven't sailed in months, but while I've gained some rudimentary Blender skills in the interim, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be completely untrained in a sailboat tomorrow.

(Close to untrained, sure, but that's just because I'm a poor sailor.)

Mind you, I do understand the need for something like "forgotten" skills if talents are tied exclusively to IQ. After all, that makes early choices very, very significant and the gaining of later, high IQ (and often multi-point) talents really hard. So as a mechanic, I get it. But it's still weird.

In the original TFT, there were rules for revival after death that included the loss of 5 attributes which could be equated to the loss of EXP it took to gain them. However, I don't recall any instances where EXP were taken away other than a GM's call to punish someone--hopefully, based upon something founded in the game rules for characters. Usually, other than losing attributes the only way that a character lost EXP was simply not to be awarded any. Perhaps, some GMs liked playing God to the point of taking EXP from characters.

Original ITL (Page 17):

LOSING ABILITIES WHEN ATTRIBUTES ARE REDUCED

If some mischance (such as old age or death) causes a figure to lose attribute points, that figure may also have to lose spells or talents - or at least the ability to use them. A character whose IQ is reduced must lose spells and/or talents (in any combination he wishes) until his remaining
abilities conform to his new IQ. This does not apply to a temporary loss of faculties (i.e., that caused by a Decrease IQ potion), but only to a permanent loss. A character who loses abilities in this way may gain them back if his IQ goes up again, just as though he had never had them in the first place. A character whose ST and/or DX are reduced will retain all his abilities — but he cannot use those for which the original, higher ST or DX were prerequisites. For instance, if a figure with the Veteran talent (prerequisite: ST 14 or better) were to be killed and revived, he might choose to take some of the 5 lost points from ST. If this brought his ST below 14, he would not exactly lose the Veteran ability - but it would do him no good unless and until his ST got back to 14. Similarly, a Fencer whose DX is reduced below 14 will not forget how to fence — but he won't be able to, until his DX climbs to 14
again.
Note again that these restrictions apply only to permanent losses — not temporary losses from potions, spells, wounds, et cetera.

Notice that the pronoun 'he' is used instead of 'she'. I hope this doesn't violate any rules.

Because, Total IQ was the max limit of talent IQ costs, it limited the number of talents a character could acquire. The rules for starting talents were the rules period as your character's IQ increased. So, there were provisions for forgetting talents so that more useful talents could be acquired. A developed character with an attribute total of 45 will have different abilities that cold drive the need for more or different talents. It was a compromise that could be made to accommodate a more mature character. In my group, that typically didn't occur and, as a GM, wouldn't allow them to do it if they commonly used the talent because that negates the argument that they could forget it. Wizards would forget magic fist to make way for Lightening or Wizard's Wrath spells.