RE: (TFT) Justifying an aspect of combat...

["Eric Coles" <eac42@columbia.edu>]

Interesting approach.  For a couple of reasons I took a rather different one
to deal with the same problem.  My basic desire was to get more realistic
combat without multiplying dice rolls.  

First off, armor and shields and such modify opponents DX roll equal to the
hits they stop.  This is to model the deflective properties of defensive
equipment as well as the protective aspect covered by "hits"  So a fighter
wearing chain and a large shield would be at -4 DX to hit, but his or her
opponent would be at -5 DX to hit (from the front 3 hexes, -3 DX from side
or rear).  Yes, this gives a huge advantage to armor.  Justified, I believe,
by actuality.  By the way, I also allow gunpowder weapons to ignore this
rule, to model the different forces involved.  

Secondly, I have some additional talents that come into play.  Master
Swordsman requires fencing as a prereq, adds one to each die roll needed to
hit the user.  Master Polearms does the same.  Shield Expert doubles the
defensive values of a shield in the hands of the expert.  The talent
"Martial Arts Weapons" allows any Unarmed Combat bonuses to also be applied
to armed combat.  It's not easy to become a Master Swordsman with UC V, but
if you do you are VERY hard to hit.  Quarterstaff has a few additional
talents available, including a defend option that still permits an attack at
-6 DX.  I didn't allow this as an add-on to fencing both because I consider
fencing powerful and accurate enough already, and because the skill level to
parry a battleaxe with a rapier is IMO (and based on about 40 years of
varied Eastern and Western MA experience) rather high. 

I really have to get around to putting a lot of this stuff up on the web....

Best,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: tft-admin@brainiac.com [mailto:tft-admin@brainiac.com] On Behalf Of
Sgt Hulka
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:52 PM
To: tft@brainiac.com
Subject: RE: (TFT) Justifying an aspect of combat...

I justify it as both sides trying to kill eachother as quick as possible
instead of dueling or fencing. I've always liked the "Harn" method of
breaking combat down into four basic maneuvers: Strike, Counterstrike, Block
and Dodge.

In Melee all figures are "Striking" or "Counterstriking" by default. Those
with high dex are striking and those with lower dex are counterstriking.

Figures may Dodge or Block (parry) by the melee rules by choosing the defend
or dodge options. They give up their attack to add 1 die to their attackers.

I can certainly see an argument that instead of adding 1 die a defender
should make a dex roll.  To that effect, I really like Chris Brandon's idea.
What I find particularly attractive to Chris' idea is that a sword's
defensive qualities are respected (since they can block anything) and even
moreseo if you take the "fencing" talent. 

However, I'd probably prefer to keep those seperate combat options,
replacing the current dodge and defend options, instead of adding them as
additional actions within the round. That way, the default system still
works 90% of the time, since generally you'd want to just hack at eachother
instead of getting fancy. Only those characters with the fencing talent (who
have a pretty good chance of disarming their opponent before getting hurt)
or characters waiting for a buddy to flank their giant opponent or
characters about to enter extremely dangerous circumstances -- like charging
a polearm or bowman -- are likely to choose "defend" or "dodge".

The interesting metagame aspect of this rule is it hurts high dex figures
more than it helps them. Take an adjDex 18 character with a halberd. In the
current system he can drop pretty much anyone at first contact since a)
charging polearms go first and b) even if his opponent defends he can make
an 18 pretty easily on 4 dice. Charge that same adjDex 18 halberdier against
an adjDex 15 swordsman using Chris Brandon's system, and the halberdier is
very likely to miss. A one on one fight will keep going back and forth like
this with the halberdier charging, getting blocked, disengaging, charging,
getting blocked, disengaging and so forth until someone drops or breaks a
weapon.

--- On Tue, 9/2/08, Christopher Brandon <brandon@pokemon-seattle.com> wrote:

> From: Christopher Brandon <brandon@pokemon-seattle.com>
> Subject: RE: (TFT) Justifying an aspect of combat...
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 7:39 AM **After years of play, I 
> just realized something. Combat is only based on your ability to hit, 
> and it doesn't take your opponents Dex into
> consideration***
> 
> In my home rules we allow a person who is the target of a successful 
> attack to roll to parry if they are using a sword (not a foil or 
> rapier) or a matching weapon in Melee(axe vs Axe, mace vs mace
> etc.)
> Alternatively they may dodge if they are not using a correct weapon to 
> parry with. A player may only make one defense roll per turn in 
> combat.
> So you get one attack roll and one defense roll per turn.
> 
> Note: I do not allow for the dodging of arrows if the person firing is 
> within 15 hexes of the target, but I do allow a dodge attempt if the 
> weapon is a thrown one.
> 
> 
> This allows someone with a higher DX a chance to avoid the blow and 
> makes combat interactive. I know some TFT purists dislike the extra 
> die roll, but I think it makes combat more interactive and
> intense.    
> 
> Cheers!
> Chris
> =====
> 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"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"