(TFT) More on longbows / crossbows.

["rsmith" <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>]

>> I like 15 ST myself.  Basically with 125 ep...
>
>Could be. I'm undecided on where the exact ST point should be. I guess it
>depends on how unusual you think a particular ST is. ST 15 has always
seemed
>to me to be "really strong". Playtesting might disclose where the optimum
>point (from a game balance perspective) lies.

	Well a beginning character can start with
a ST 16 so a ST 15 can't be THAT unusual.  I
really don't think of someone as really strong
until they get ST 18+.

	I wrote sprinting rules for TFT where
basically you could double your MA on flat
terrain for two turns at a cost of 1 fST.  In
TFT someone with Running talent, +2 MA for long
legs and a genetic disposition for fast running
and sprinting every turn could ALMOST run a 4
minute mile (just possible in real life) if they
have a 30 ST to give them that much fatigue ST.
(30 ST is the maximum ST I allow humans to
reach in TFT.)

	Looking at the weights that Olympic
weight lifters can manage also puts the max
ST in the 30 range.


	With this point of view, a ST 15 figure
is strong, but the best possible ST is double
that.



>I've always envisioned TFT melees as
>comprising several blows rather than
>one. Add into that the need to parry and
>dodge enemy blows, 1 chance for a
>"good blow" per 5 sec turn is reasonable to
>me. Bowmen have the advantage
>that their target is not (typically) trying
>to take their head off with a
>battleaxe while they're firing.

	Ah, the D&D explanation of their one
minute sword swings!  I agree, but really
good swords men should be able to sneak in
an extra blow or two, especially against
poor foes.
	  I don't know about lighter bows but
the English longbow men were getting off one
shot every 10 to 15 seconds on average.
For playability reasons, I don't want to
slow down the rate of fire.  However firing
twice in a 5 second period seems too much.



>> If we say longbows do 3d-1 (I suggested this
>> a few posts back) then an average unarmored guy
>> would be mortally wounded about half the time from
>> a long bow hit.  Is this really so bad?
>> ***
>
>In game terms maybe not -- depending on
>the campaign. In terms of "realism"
>(whatever that is), maybe so. My contention
>is that the superior penetration
>of these weapons means that an armored
>foe and an unarmored foe have
>essentially the same chance of being
>killed or wounded. If true, your system
>would distort that. But as I noted before,
> if most of the opponents are
>well-armored, there will be little effective
>distortion.

	In my campaign anyone who makes a living
fighting has at least 2 points of armor.  Add
in a shield and your up to 3 points easy.


>This raises another point -- I have always
>felt that rabble in TFT are a little too hard
>to kill. I think that rabble should be able to take only
>one hit before being out of action. Yet a ST10
>goblin with a small shield and leather armor will
>take 2-3 average blows from a broadsword. Even unarmored,
>it will take 2 hits to put him out of action. So
>I usually just kill my rabble on the first decent
>hit. Saves bookkeeping as well. (You can't use
>weaker rabble; their weapons won't penetrate
>even light armor very well).  Thoughts?

	Well a beginning character with a broad
sword is only 3 or 4 attributes above that
goblin rabble.  So I'm not too troubled that it
takes two or four hits to finish them off.
When you get compitent characters (45 attributes
say) their heavier weapons, talent bonuses and
magic mow down goblins.

	On the other hand, my campaign is well
established and high level PC's are common.

	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"