Re: (TFT) Combined Offensive/Defensive Action

[Joey Beutel <mejobo@comcast.net>]

This is quite true... and I think its the problem for this house rule long term.

But really any time you allow combined offensive and defensive actions you're going to give an advantage to high DX. 

There is a slight disadvantage: using this action will decrease their AdjDX for the turn (perhaps it should be -4, even) and so they are much more likely to strike second. So if the other guy hits, or if they fail their DX roll, then they are a bit up the creek.

Speaking of which, should the roll to defend perhaps be 4d6? 3d6 for fencers, maybe?

I liked the idea of splitting DX for offense and defense, but it seems to create more problems, as well... its somewhat similar to how my in development advanced dueling rules do, in practice. But I think it gives an even greater advantage to high DX players (even if you have fatigue ST expendable to increase DX, which I may or may not use) with the bonus just being that high DX fights are a bit more interesting and duel-like.

The advantage of my proposal is that its simple, is in the same "flavor" as original TFT rules, and will work pretty well for the types of characters and NPCs I'm working with (in my current plan for using Melee as battle rules for a grand scale game, Knights and other elite NPCs are around 42 points... 32 is about where most soldiers are, levied troops, but "regulars" like medieval sergeants are around 36).
On Aug 16, 2013, at 7:58 PM, PvK wrote:

> There have been various such rules proposed and tried. I think the concept can work well, as long there is no unwanted side-effect created. It all depends on the rules chosen, and also the players' tastes and senses.
> 
> Benefits tend to be more options of how to fight, more ways to try to stay alive, and less feeling of helplessness as one steps up to the line of death. 
> 
> Problems can include: new effects on balance, new best/standard options that just replace the old option, effects that don't make sense, more complication than players want, and/or unwanted balance effects.
> 
> In this case, it sounds to me like these rules would give an alternative that is semi-defensive. The main disadvantage I see in is that the rule will apply differently to different DX levels, in a way that will make many high-DX figures usually want to use it, and so that high-DX figures will have more of an advantage over lower-DX figures than they already have. Also there is no even higher level to affect even-higher-DX players: If you can make 4/DX easily, then it will not have all that much effect on you.
> 
> PvK
> 
> --- mejobo@comcast.net wrote:
> 
> From: Joey Beutel <mejobo@comcast.net>
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Subject: (TFT) Combined Offensive/Defensive Action
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:11:01 -0400
> 
> I mentioned this in another email but haven't really used it before and would like some feed back.
> 
> Do we think it'd be a good idea, as a house rule, to have on additional action:
> 
> Anytime a character can Attack, they also have the ability to combine this attack with a Dodge/Parry.
> 
> When they do this, they roll 3d6 against their AdjDX. If they succeed, they Dodge/Parry as normal, and may also attack at -3 DX. If they fail, they do not Dodge/Parry, but still are at -3DX on their attack.
> 
> Any potential problems? Any experience with similar concepts? Should -3DX actually be -4, or -2? Perhaps a failed 3d6 against AdjDX should prevent both attack and dodge, or the player chooses which one fails?
> =====
> 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"