Re: (TFT) Injury and Healing rules --> discussion of -2 & -3 DX penalties for damage.

["Charles Gadda" <cgadda@earthlink.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick Smith" <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>
To: <tft@brainiac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 5:48 PM
Subject: (TFT) Injury and Healing rules --> discussion of -2 & -3 DX
penalties for damage.

> Damage is so complicated that we MUST simplify
> it for TFT.  That said I would rather the rules be fast
> and unrealistic than more complicated generally.  So
> my bias is stated up front.

So noted. I confess that what I dreamt up is too complicated in spots.
That's why its a draught!

> > I also wanted to make firm demarcations between magical and non-magical
> > healing "potions" -
>
> In my Chemists / Alchemists rules I say that
> healing potions use magical ingredients but do not need
> magical processing.  Thus Chemists / M. Physickers can
> make them.
>
> I did this deliberately.  We want the chemist
> potions to be powerful in game effects and simple to
> describe and use.  This means that they are required to
> be unrealistically quick or have other 'magical' effects.
> If every chemist potion that was unrealistically powerful
> in some way was moved to the Alchemist side of the fence,
> we would have darn few chemist formulas left.
>
> However, your rules do close this illogical
> problem.

That was the point! But I do not want to destroy the Chemist talent, either.
This has wider implications - I'm going to have to mull this one. However, I
will point out that the Alchemist potion is far more expensive, so most
folks will still be seeing the Chemist or Physicker for their healing
salves.

> Another story real life.   In a knife fight
> I read about in LA a man was attacked by two thugs.
> ...>
> However the newspaper did not mention the
> fact that the guy missed his attacker because of
> the -2 DX penalty!  What shoddy reporting!

That's the L.A. Times for you! We don't call 'em "Pravda West" for nothing!

> I would suggest that we go with A)  what is
> fun, and B)  what is more dramatic  and C)  what is
> easiest to play.
>
> Erol's suggestion to just ignore -2 DX for
> serious wounds -3 DX for permanent negatives has
> the advantage C) in spades.

Yeah, but its not like you need a Cray Supercomputer to sort it out, either.
Its not THAT complicated... ;-)

> > Grave Wounds
> > A figure that receives a SINGLE injury that inflicts damage equal to or
> > greater than = of the figure's basic ST suffers ... a Grave Wound.
>
> I feel your rules are more realistic.  However
> as I said above, I do not worry much about realism
> now-a-days.  I question are Grave Wounds fun, dramatic,
> and fast?
>
> Obviously they are not faster.  My feeling is
> that most players do not generally like more realistic
> damage rules.
Admittedly
> you can magically heal, but that just puts more
> emphasis on the technology of magic and the whole
> Industrial Disease discussion.
>
> Would the rules be more dramatic?  Well yes, I
> think they would be.  Being Gravelly Wounded is more
> dramatic than saying, "...and in the fight near the
> Pebble I was knocked down to 2 ST!!!"  Note that they
> are not MUCH more dramatic if you have Industrial
> Disease and the PC's just magically heal.

I may have made this too complicated and am mulling streamlining it.
However, I disagree with the "Industrial Disease" concern, as that is solely
determined by the competence or lack thereof of the GM. While nothing is
proof, I think I have put some firm limits on healing - but I can't GM your
world for you! If a given GM cannot keep healing from being "industrialized"
I submit it is the fault of the GM and not the rules.

> > Optional Rule: Lingering Injuries
>
> I don't like this.  Sure it is realistic.
> But this is an area where I don't want realism.
> Sure it can be solved with Industrial Disease but
> I already think TFT has too much magical Industrial
> Disease...

Well, yes, that's why I made it "optional"... I realise not everyone is
going to want something this "gritty". But I think the rule should be
available for those that want it. Certainly it is not too complex, and I
think adds a little... something, to the game. Can't really define it, but I
think I like this.

Again, I don't acknowledge the Industrial Disease arguments for the reasons
noted above.

> > All attribute points lost as a result of a lingering wound may be
recovered
> > normally through experience, but the "lost" point is still counted
towards
> > the character's point total.
>
> I do not want to add insult to injury.
> This is also another think to keep track of.  It
> would also be a real temptation for the PC to
> cheat.  If the GM does not bother to double
> check the PC's addition, then the only people
> who are punished by this are the honest players.
> I do not like this.

Well, humpf! But I would submit that if the GM is not keeping tabs on the
PCs in his campaign, then he is not doing his job. I do not think it to be
all that much trouble, but I admit it is adding insult to injury! However,
the alternative of not counting it would dilute and trivialize the lingering
injury, which is worse. Again, in the end, this is a strictly optional rule.
>
> > 4.3.1 OPTIONAL RULE: REMAINING CONSCIOUS IN SPITE OF INJURIES.
>
> I think this is dramatically important
> enough to keep track of.  'Fighting for
> consciousness, I slew the dragon and stumbled
> out of the lake of acid before passing out...'
>
> See my healing rules for how I handled
> this.
>
> > 4.3.2 REST AND HEALING
> >
> > 4.3.2.1 NORMAL HEALING
> > A figure may recover damage from regular injuries at a normal rate of =
> > point per day of bed rest for every 8 points of basic ST the figure has.
>
> Interesting that healing rate is based on
> ST.  I guess that explains how Conan recovered
> so quickly between fights.  Do you care to comment
> on the logic / evidence on this Charles?  I'm not
> arguing against it, I would just like more
> discussion on this point.

Logic and evidence? HA! We don't need no steeenking evidence!!! Much less
logic.

Actually, I was thinking from a percentage viewpoint - should a 10 ST figure
with 9 damage really recover faster than a 20 ST figure with 18 damage?
Proportionally they have similar injuries, so why should the weakling heal
faster than the stronger one?

Don't know if its right, wrong, or indifferent, but that was the basis for
it. Observations and comments welcome.

>
> > 4.3.4.1 PHYSICKER REVIVAL.
>
> Your Physicker revival seem very familiar.
> Did you adapt them from other rules?

Yep. Straight from Interplay, as I recall. Probably with few or no mods.

> > BARBER (1). Basic Healer's ability.
>
> I like the name far better than the
> 'First Aid' talent that I've seen in a couple of places.

Thanks, but I can't claim credit for the name. Someone brighter than myself
came up with it.

> > HEALING AND CURING MAGIC/SPELLS
> I prefer my version of healing spells,
> (see past posts).  However I really like that
> if the wizard has Physicker etc. he can heal
> more and better.
> In general it opens up the whole idea that some
> spells are more useful if you have talents.
> Very cool, and it should be widely applicable.

Inadvertant genius on my part. I had not thought of that beyond the scope of
healing magic.

> > IQ 20 REGROWTH (T) ...
>
> I think that this spell should have a
> lower IQ than Revival.  It would not break my
> heart to see Revival go up to 24 IQ for example.

I think I need to relook at this. I introduced a bit of inconsistency here
that needs to be ironed out.
> >
> > OTHER HEALING
> > ELIXIR OF HEALTH: This very potent potion will heal 1d+1 ...
>
> Generally I do not like rolling dice to see
> how much healing I get.  If I'm spending more than
> 2 grand for a healing elixir I would be choked if
> I rolled a one and got only 2 points back.

Magic ain't wholly predictable, baby! Yeah, this is a bit problematic. I was
using the amulet in "Master of the Amulets" as a basis, here (I think - that
sounds right but I don't remember for sure) I will need to rethink this one.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"