Re: Weapons for pulling you down / off balance.

[jackal@speakeasy.net]

 

Rick -

Not sure what I'm saying: more thinking out loud.

Your idea reminded me of the shield rush attack. My thinking was, "So why not reuse it for hook weapon rules?"

Three reasons to do so, off the top of my head:
- I like player choice. The end result of this tactical choice is the same for both attacks: knock the foe down on success, no damage.
- Easy to implement: just amend the rules to say "shield rush or hook attacks", and designate hook-able weapons.
- Less chrome. The rule change flows naturally from an existing mechanism, not via additional special cases.

Reasons NOT to do so (or perhaps do both?):
- Players love it when they get a good surprise. The idea of a sudden cool thing happening, like with option 2, is neat.
- Easier to GM. Hook weapons mean more tactical decisions for the GM, more chances for players to cry, "Unfair!"
- Pole arms are OP already. This is just another reason for players to abuse their usage.

But hey, it's your game!

Cheers.

- Jack

On Wed, 2 May 2018 09:15:47 -0700, Rick wrote:

Hi Jack,

  Sorry, on my last email, I just started typing and hit send before I realized that 

had not really addressed what you had said.  

 

  Do you think that such hooking weapons SHOULD count as a defence, e.g. 

stopping one hit?

 

  I think that hooking weapons might do the following:

 

— Reduce enemies' shield’s protection.

 

— Reduce enemies attacking DX (interfering with weapon arm.

 

— put them off balance.

 

— Pull them down.

 

 

You might have a weak and strong version of each.  So enemy gets a saving throw.

— If he makes it, he is at -2 DX.  If he fails he is dismounted.

— If he makes it, his shield protects 1 point less.  If he fails the shield does not protect 

at all and he is at -2 DX.

etc.

 

Warm regards, Rick.

 

 

 

On May 2, 2018, at 8:44 AM, jackal@speakeasy.net wrote:

Rick - 

Interesting idea. 

Option 2 is the easiest. But is it the most satisfying? Would a player need more of a reason to spend talent points on such a weapon if it's special effect isn't under their control?

Suggestion: there are already rules for shield rush. Why not apply them to hook weapons? Success means foe falls down. Failure means player just wasted a turn. 

You might sweeten the pot a bit by allowing the player to treat his hook attempt as a block, too: say, by giving a -1 damage modifier for just that turn, to reflect that the player is using his weapon to impede the foe?

Thanks for the idea.

- Jack


On Wed, 2 May 2018 08:26:58 -0700, Rick  wrote:

Hi all, 
 A number of weapons were intended to hook shields, pull enemy off of horses, pull enemy off balance or pull shields out of position.  

 Examples of such weapons are:  The Egyptian Khopesh, Halberd, Pike Ax, Shuang gou (hook sword), Kusari, jabajabba, battle axes, Jutte (or Jitte), Hakapik, Guisarme, and no doubt many of have missed.

Some people have said that the TFT naginata could be used this way, but looking at it on wikipedia, it is simply a spear with a slightly curved blade. I’m willing to say that the TFT Naginata has this ability, simply to make the weapon more interesting.  (You have to have a special talent for it after all.)


I will refer to this class of weapons as ‘hooking weapons’.

Hooking weapons that are pole weapons will simply allow them to have a greater reach, but will other wise behave the same way.

There are several ways to handle these weapons:
1. — Ignore them.  They don’t exist in TFT.

2. — Give them some sort of built in advantage that does not require special actions.  e.g. If a hooking weapon rolls a 7 exactly, the opponent is hooked and something happens.

3. — Give them an even more abstract advantage.  e.g. Enemies fighting such weapons must make a 3vsDX or fall if they move away from a hooked weapon wielder.

4. — Special rules to hook opponents.  You say that you are making a hooking attack, if you hit the target gets a saving throw, etc.

I’m thinking of something along the lines of #2 above.  Just give them some sort of ‘back ground’ advantage which is always there and may be triggered rarely.


Anyone have ideas, or wish to discuss this?

Warm regards, Rick.


=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"

=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"