RE: (TFT) Suggestion: Break Weapon item and immunity. --> Rick's comments.

[Mark Tapley <mtapley@swri.edu>]

>Hi All, Stan and Mark.
>	My comments are between *** *** below.

Rick,
	thanks for the comments! Some of them I agree completely with, some
I have a different opinion.

>	***
>	Actually in TFT you can strike at an opponent's
>weapon at -4 DX.  (I think this is in Adv. Melee in
>the special weapons sections e.g. Quarterstaff's
>striking at opponent's weapons.)
>	So this would not require new rules.
>	***

True, and would streamline things a *lot*. I didn't go this way for a
couple of reasons:

1) Quarterstaff gives a -4 DX to make the opponent *drop* his weapon (well,
if he fails a 3/DX roll of his own). I think of that as an attempt to
maneuver his weapon so as to force him to let go. I see that as different
from just trying to cross swords (or slam my Small Ax against his
quarterstaff, or whatever) to break his weapon. I think of the latter as
being a lot easier to arrange.

2) I wanted the Shatter Weapon item (unlike Break Weapon) to be something
that just amplified a user's ability in normal combat (like Flaming Weapon,
or Weapon/Armor Enchantment), rather than forcing him to do something
different, or penalizing him. Also, see below.

But the complexity of the rules I ended up writing *is* discouraging.

>	***
>	This is true (e.g. missile weapons being more
>delicate than lassos), but does the extra complexity
>add any drama to the game?
>	***

No, and a good point. I think I should withdraw the exception for Missile
Weapons, so the Lesser Item enchantment Immunity to Break Weapons works on
any weapon.

In comparing different sets of rules for Shatter Weapon, I'll refer to the
set I originally posted as Shatter Weapon(1).


>	***
>	Shatter weapons(1) seems VERY powerful to me.
>(So powerful as to be an unbalanced item.)....
>	***

Possibly. (In fact, I doubled the suggested price from $8000 and bumped it
to a Greater Item after reading Stan's comments.)

But:

$16000 = Shatter Weapon(1)		$3000 = Blur ring
					$1500 = Speed Movement item
					$4000 = Stone Flesh item
					$5000 = Shock Shield item
					$1000 = Sleep Arrow (or Dagger)
					--------
					$14500  total

Which pile would you rather have? I think the guy with the Shatter
Weapon(1) item would stand almost no chance at all against the other guy,
all else being near equal. Or substitute a $6500 Invisibility ring for the
Blur and Shock Shield items - still comes out less than $16000. Still gonna
be a tough fight for the Shatter Weapon(1) guy.

>	***
>I also am bothered that low DX figures get more
>advantage from it than someone with a high DX.
>This seems WRONG to me.  In addition the amount
>of special rules for this item bothers me.
>	***

On these points I'm in agreement with you.

How about... (Second version of rules, will refer to as Shatter Weapon(2))

SHATTER WEAPON(2): Takes effect whenever the user chooses the Defend option
in combat (or parries with the enchanted weapon, if he is using the Two
Weapons talent) and an opponent attacks him from one of his front hexes.
(Also affects Spike Shields being used to shield-rush.) Normal weapons are
broken (per the spell). Fine Weapons get their normal rolls to avoid
breaking. Weapons enchanted with Immunity to Break Weapons are not
affected. All attacks do normal damage, even if the attacking weapon is
broken during that attack. No ST cost.

	Rationale would be that when attacking, the user is concentrating
on the opponent's body, but when defending, he's concentrating on the
opponent's weapon, so this is when he'd be likely to hit the weapon a
shattering blow.
	Tactical analysis would be quite a bit different. The user would
have to remember that "charge defend" (ie move 1/2 MA, then defend) is not
a legal option - though he could "shift" one hex forward into combat and
still defend. Still has the effect of spending one of the user's actions to
disarm his opponent, but at least the user gets some good out of it (his
opponents roll 4D to hit him that turn, rather than 3D). Makes the item a
lot more defensive in nature, which I guess would make it more of an
underdog's weapon of choice in single combat - it'd be little use against
an inferior foe. It might be very good against a swarm of inferior foes,
disarming up to 3 of them at a time.

>	***
>	In my experience once combat starts people
>won't have time to switch weapons. ...
>	***

Probably true. To get that opportunity, they'd have to have friends willing
to hold the line while they changed.

>	***
>...Any decent
>weapon MUST have Immunity to Break weapon or it
>will soon be toast.
>	***

I agree - but I think this should have been recognized from the beginning.
As I pointed out to Stan, even a Very Fine weapon will break one out of
1296 blows - and that's without wizards helping things along. That's a
pretty high risk of loss for something that could have cost tens of
thousands of silver. I think the lack of inclusion of Break Weapon (and
hence Immunity) on the magic item table has let us all get by without
buying that insurance for our fancy weapons, when we really should have
been doing it all along.

>	***
>	Life as a spear holder has just got that
>much more dangerous.  Rich PC's will have this
>spell and the ordinary NPC's will suffer endlessly.
>	***

	Absolutely true. But see my comparitive item list above. I think
poor PC's (and poor NPC's for that matter) just have to face the fact that
in the TFT system, they are at a big disadvantage. I sympathize with your
desire to have more of a character's combat effectiveness based on his
attributes than on his hardware. I myself have a tough time recognizing the
potential of a character combined with one or more nice magic items. But
the game is set up such that magic is powerful stuff. Characters that don't
or can't take advantage of it should suffer, compared to characters that do.
	I think the only way to try to control the problem is to make money
hard to come by and easy to lose (by taxing players ruthlessly, charging
them for every little thing they do, making dungeons poor in treasure,
having sneak theives steal their money or bankers cheat them, etc.). Thus,
characters will less often be able to afford serious magic.
	But even then, the GM is limited because of the dollar amounts on
the Jobs table and on the Magic Item creation table. I mean, a lowly guy
with Master Physicker can just set up a health bar with Healing Potions on
tap - what are you gonna do? You *know* there's a market for him...
	For myself, I'm working on trying to recognize and integrate the
potential of magic into my adventures as much as possible. More emails
coming later as I try to work through other subjects.

>	***
>	In my opinion, there is too much emphasis
>in TFT in buying tons of cool magic items.
>These items (especially Shatter Weapon) mean
>that tough fighters who are not wealthy enough
>to buy immunities are hosed vs. the rich....
>	***

I don't think that Shatter Weapon(1) is out of line with the rest of the
magic items in that regard. If it is, I can crank the price farther up, of
course. Shatter Weapon(2) is even weaker, I think, and may be overpriced at
$16000. See below on Shatter Weapon(3)

>	***
>	...This is a step in exactly the wrong
>direction....
>	***

Well, from the point of view of the poor, I guess it is. But there are ways
around it. Sleep arrows are relatively cheap - and just as effective, if
not more so. I don't think Shatter Weapon (any version) unbalances the game
against the magic-item-challenged characters any more than it already is
unbalanced.

>	***
>	If I were to try to run these rules I
>would say that for Shatter Weapon to work, you
>must deliberately hit the opponent's weapon.
>This requires a -4 DX (and Defending does not
>add a die to the roll).
>	This way, the item is more useful to
>capable people, which is how it should be.
>	***

I'll call this Shatter Weapon(3).

Compare Shatter Weapon(3) to Break Weapon - no one would ever buy the
former. Think about it: it takes a roll vs. DX-4 instead of vs. DX-1 (and
Break Weapon can be used from 2 or more hexes away, albeit at increasing
DX-), and it still takes up an action. The *only* benefit is saving the 3
fST. Not worth it to me, at least not at $16000. Maybe at a much lower
price, but even then I'd rather have the smaller DX- and the thrown-spell
range for Break Weapon.
						- Mark
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"