[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) How would you modify HaOW? (Heroes and other worlds)
My comments are directed towards TFT, and in that sense are off topic for
the thread, but not the list.
> The second thing I should mention is that my favorite version of the TFT
> rules is Basic Melee + Advanced Wizard + Legends of the Ancient World
> skills and experience. There are a few too many things about Advanced
> Melee that force mini/maxing down a particular path, in my opinion. And I
> don't like Into the Labyrinth's talent system. I think it's a really
I think the min/maxing is only tru if your interest is combat. And TFT
doesn't have to be played that way (and ideally, isn't played that way.
You could say it's a fault, even though I say it's a strength). I don't
have a problem with the Talent system as a whole. I prefer fewer Talents,
as it makes it more necessary to role play or to creatively use a Talent
> interesting idea that was poorly executed. I also don't like the ITL
> experience system. The whole "killing blow" thing is used in a lot of
> games, and I've always thought it was a broken mechanic. Fortunately, I
I think that it's not the killing blow mechanic that's broken. It may be
the the non-combat XP mechanism is broken. It seems like definitely the
fastest way to gain XP is to fight. It's also deadly. It could also be
argued that using XP gained in combat to learn a language is silly. The
counterargument is simplicity.
> LOVE the LAW skill system. I think the individual skills are really simple
> and intuitive. But I also love the tactical game play of Melee and
> Advanced Melee, which I feel is lacking in LAW. That's why I've found my
> sweet spot in combining Melee/Wizard combat with LAW skills.
Well, nearly all of us love the tactical end of combat in TFT. And that
creates some tension. Combat in TFT is more fun than in a lot of systems.
It's also a lot deadlier, so characters shouldn't do it.
> The second thing that intrigues me is that, based on the list of spells he
> released for his spell supplement, it appears he's making a genuine
> attempt at making Heroes & Other Worlds compatible with D&D. I don't love
> the TFT magic system. Believe it or not, I prefer D&D. For whatever reason
> D&D has always felt more evocative (no pun intended) to me, and I've
> always felt it encourages creative use of spells. I know that's probably
> unique to me, since most people hate the Vancian spell system. In TFT,
> magic just doesn't feel THAT different from mundane archery or melee
> combat to me.
I think you may just have run into unimaginative use of spells, or spells
in combat where they are used only in the ways weapons are used. Sure,
every combat wizard is going to have a missle spell. But that doesn't mean
that it's the right spell for every occasion. Slippery floor in a narrow
corridor? (and that's just the tip of the iceberg)
> 1) Endurance. I think this is a great bonus to give player characters.
> Without healing magic, TFT is a little too lethal for long-term RPG play.
> I also think separating Endurance from Strength for Wizards is great from
> a flavor standpoint.
Only too lethal if the style of play is heavily into combat. I prefer
campaigns where the decision to fight is made carefully, and the odds
stacked in my favor ahead of time. But part of that is my 'TFT is Nehwon,
D&D is Middle Earth' argument you've all heard.
> 2) Square grid support. In my opinion TFT really shines as a skirmish
> game, more so than an RPG. The mechanics are perfect for a Warhammer Quest
> or Mordheim style game. But I want to use it with cool dungeon tiles,
> which are grid rather than hex based. Also, old D&D modules are all grid
> based. I've tried to convert TFT to a grid and failed. The trouble is you
> end up with two extra rear hexes or two extra side hexes, which makes
> getting outnumbered even more deadly than it already is, and makes taking
> down big monsters like dragons and giants even easier than it already is.
> I'm not sure how the Heroes & Other Worlds rules implement square grid
> support. If it's simply to add two rear or side hexes, well then I'll be
I've done TFT on a square grid, and it works out very well. How I do it is
to have a human character decide which handed he is. Then he gets 4 front
squares -- the three directly in front, and the 'side' that his good hand
is on. His off-hand side has 2 side squares, his good hand side 1, and a
single rear square. It works out just fine. And if you do megahexes
instead of ranges, 9 squares makes a 'mega-square'. And if I recall,
weren't the old D&D modules inch-based (recalling Chainmail's miniature
> 1) No characteristic improvement with experience. One of the things I love
> with Melee/Wizard is that, thanks to the bell curve of 3D6, there is a
> default hierarchy among warriors. Unarmored militia can be effective at 32
> points. Leather-wearing light infantry can be effective at 34 points.
> Chain-wearing Huscarls/Household retainers/oathsworn types can be
> effective at 36 points. Chain-wearing mounted Knights can be effective at
> 38 points. Plate-wearing heavy Knights can only effective at 40 points or
> higher (that all assumes typical historical gear, i.e., not a plate
> wearing knight armed only with a dagger). So you have a natural funnel
> effect where most combatants will be militia and only the rarest
> combatants will be the heavy knights. Without increasing stats, how can
> you possibly achieve heavy knight status? That plate mail is too big a
> drain on DX, and the mounted combat drains it even further. I suppose you
> could do it with Weapon skills, which one
> could say is far more realistic than having an 18 DX reduced to 12 from
> Armor, Shield, and Horsemanship. But I'm suspicious as to how well this
I see your point here, but skills can make up for a lot of this.
> 2) Poorly conceived ST requirements for weapons. I read somewhere that
> there was a much more even distribution of ST or "heft" requirements for
> weapons. I think your post mentions that there's nothing over 12. In my
> opinion, this undermines one of the coolest aspects behind the Endurance
> idea. I like that you have to choose between ST and END. END seems to be a
> superior defensive stat, since it regenerates more quickly. But you still
> need ST to gain access to those good weapons. If you don't really need ST
> to gain access to weapons, well then it seems like a no-brainer. Just put
> all your points in END.
Well, TFT is also broken here. When you get strong enough, a club is
better than any weapon.
> 3) IQ used to cast spells. LAW does this too and I really don't like it.
> Admittedly in TFT casters are weak because they have to spread out their
> points too much. But END should solve this problem. In LAW, the problem is
> that casters can be too specialized. Just pump up your IQ and you can be a
> super caster. I like using DX for casting.
TFT casters are only weak in combat in certain circumstances, such as long
battles where they are trying to damage the enemy. But your point about
them having to spread out their points is well-taken.
Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body