[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (TFT) Action Report - DCG's "The Dark Vale"; also rules comments

	We played with several house rules. One we particularly liked
is the "mostly dead" rules ("I've seen worse") under which a
character isn't irremediably dead until his ST goes to a negative
value equal to his normal uninjured ST. At less damage than that, he
can be physicked or healing-potioned back to life, if he makes a roll
of less than ((original ST) - (amount below 0 post-potion and
post-Physick)). This helped a lot; we lost two characters, at least
one of whom turned out to be absolutely crucial later on, but were
able to revive both. However, we think maybe these rules take *too*
much of the sting out of dying. I think maybe it would be a good idea
for a "mostly dead" character to lose some attribute points upon
revival; maybe (amount below zero as wounded)/2, rounded up, maximum
5 points?
I don't particularly care for these sorts of rules, but... Maybe look over the section on dying and resurrection, and make the penalty a little less somehow. Even though I don't like it, I can see the point of it, especially in a one-off, where there just isn't time or interest to play the weeks where you heal up from a big fight. 
	Indigo turned out to be quite effective, to my shock. Turns
out the fencing double-damage bonus (or better) comes up over 16% of
the time, and with two attacks/turn that means every 3rd turn or so
he can expect to see it. Meantime, he can clean off a swarm of
nuisance creatures or goblins or whatever, or disengage first if he
likes because he has three extra points of adjDX that he didn't have
to pour into ST to carry the broadsword.
DX rules. Fencing rules. Two weapons rules. The combination is pretty deadly, but it does eat up the IQ. 
protection. One of our more experienced players commented that he had
never ever seen a character go on an adventure with no weapons talent
at all; nevertheless, this one worked out well.
I've done it several times. Usually, the party wants to keep me alive, because I'm the guy who deals with the after-battle stuff (Physicker, Business Sense, Assess Value, etc.) 


	The Hobbits. Sigh. They came through like troopers, which was
kind of the problem, in some views. A 34-point Hobbit, with racial
bonuses, Thrown Weapons, a fist full of Sha-ken, and a copy of
Advanced Melee flipping back and forth between "Dagger Marksmanship"
and "Aimed Shots" rules (AM pp.20-22) turns out to be death on two
(short) legs. Big, dangerous opponents - dagger to the head. Numerous
weak opponents - sha-ken snowstorm. Medium opponents - either way. Our referee was somewhat frustrated with our MO of ringing up, 
defending the hobbits, and letting them pick off his best fighters
with aimed daggers and sha-ken.
But not against armoured opponents so much (especially if you're wearing a helmet.) 


	Does anyone else have issues with the MPNS Hobbit concept? It
really does seem like a very *very* effective character, and one that
seems to take such strong advantage of a set of rules that it almost
forms a loophole.
I have no problem with it at all. It's pretty historical to have high-damage ranged weapon types protected by troops whose job is to keep them from getting up close and personal. In short, the party used combined arms pretty well. 
Sha-Ken (particularly in combination with MPNS Hobbits)
Naginata
Boomerang
Nun-chuk
Molotails
Gunpowder
Initiative bonus for having Strategist
Reaction roll bonus for a Charismatic Hobbit with New Followers

	Most just seem overly powerful for the IQ cost to master
them, particularly in comparison with e.g. Unarmed Combat, which can
soak up an amazing number of IQ points to really exploit. The generic
answer, I think, is that if the party uses them, the party can expect
to face them, at least where the adventure is not pre-canned.
I disagree that they're overly powerful. Naginata, in particular, gives you a slight damage bonus for a single, very particular type of weapon. If you get more ST, you either keep using your (now) underpowered weapon, or you spend the next several months unlearning the skill, then having to learn something else. At least you can buy a bigger pole weapon. It's less powerful in an ongoing campaign.
Gunpowder is balanced out somewhat by cost and unreliability.
Gunpowder wins when the powder is dry. Otherwise, it's nothing. 
>the "making friends and influencing people" skill ... seems too
>overpowered on a D6 reaction roll. Maybe make reaction rolls be 2D6. >... it could really alter the game play in an open ended setting 
>(Nazgul walks up, <character> wins him over, <character> and Nazgul
>are now buds?) .
It also depends on whether the NPC begins neutral to the party (and/or their aims) or not. Enemy guard does not get a straight roll on the table, and neither does the guy the baddie you're hunting down just threatened. And teh GM can always make it appear as though the NPC is friendly, when he's not (no reason for the PC to see the roll). 
>Strategy and Tactics- again, seemed overpowering using D6. Our party
>went first like 80% of the time (it seemed) which doesn't seem
>realistic when facing bands of hardened foes. Maybe make Initiative
>a 2D6 roll as well. S&T would still be very useful, but one side
>doesn't consistently dominate the battlefield. It seems like
>deciding who moves when is the single best benefit to have in ITL
>combat
Sure, the foes were hardened in battle. But that doesn't mean that they were leaders there. How many privates who've been in battles could really command well? 


	In fairness, our party *heavily* exploited the initiative
advantage, with our HTH specialist and the desire to get MPNS Hobbits
close to but not engaged with their targets.
Of course you did. You should have. 
>A character with strength six should not be able to do six points of
>damage (on an aimed shot) that puts a 30 ST character out of the
>game from such a distance and at virtually no risk at all.
David vs. Goliath. Wouldn't have been a problem if the hobbits had no protection, or the enemies had decent armour. Charge in, maybe dodge, until you get cloe enough to hit. The hobbits are fragile when hit. Maybe the baddies needed some archery. 
	More generally, I think adjDX is underrated - it really *is*
valuable in this game.
I can't think of a single instance where a player character put their first earned attribute point into anything other then DX (except for a wizard or two who needed the IQ to get Illusion.) 


	I admit, I don't have a good feeling about shield-rushes. At
best, you hit, they miss, they get knocked down. Next turn, they
stand during movement, and you get a "free" attack at them. But if
all you want was an attack at them, you could have done that on the
first turn.
It could be that you have a lower DX than them (so they got to attack you first), and you need to go first the next turn. Or, as stated, you knock them down to give the bonus to other characters (especially ones holding action). Good in a battle, not so good mano y mano. 
	It has always made me a little nervous, too, though. We count
on the new followers as though they were NPC's, but I think they
should take morale checks periodically when they face, oh, say, Death
Incarnate or something.
I've always had new follwers be NPCs. That way, not only does the PC not know if they are actually new followers, following the 'business case', or sent by enemies to infiltrate. You want employees? Fine, but there may be industrial espionage. 
Neil Gilmore
raito@raito.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"