[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) More Weapons, and variable strength
I agree you are better being one ST higher than the minimum needed
for that weapon. I am not troubled by that. The weapons list the minumum
ST not the ideal one. Also, the rules I've given are simple. I certainly do
not want to change them in order to make the minimum ST the ideal one.
Basic TFT was very unkind to two handed weapons. When I revised the
weapons, I made two handed weapons do 3 points more than a one
handed weapon of the same ST.
I agree in principle about adds to damage reducing the variance, but I
am not troubled about it enough to worry about it. TFT is already highly
stylized as far as reality goes. I've made many house rules that were both
'realistic' and 'too complicated to remember a month after I wrote them'.
Warm regards, Rick.
On 2015-02-11, at 2:29 PM, Peter von Kleinsmid wrote:
> Rick, I don't think your system to unbalanced. It does change the weapon choice situation. It seems better to aim for the weapon one less than your ST, because you'll do the same damage as with a weapon of your ST, but it will weigh and cost less. A larger affect occurs with the choice of 2-handed weapons versus one-handed weapons, since for example:
> ST 13 Shordsword 2d, Broadsword 2d+1, Bastardsword 2d+1 or 3d-2 two-handed.
> ST 14 Shordsword 2d+1, Broadsword 2d+1, Bastardsword 2d+2 or 3d-1 two-handed, 2-h.Sword 3d-1.
> ST 15 Shordsword 2d+1, Broadsword 2d+2, Bastardsword 2d+2 or 3d-1 two-handed, 2-h.Sword 3d.
> ST 14 Mace 2d+1, Pick 2d+1, Morningstar 2d+2, Great Hammer 2d+2
> ST 15 Mace 2d+1, Pick 2d+2, Morningstar 2d+2, Great Hammer 2d+3, Battleaxe 3d
> ST 16 Mace 2d+1, Pick 2d+2, Morningstar 2d+3, Great Hammer 2d+3, Battleaxe 3d+1
> To me, this makes one-handed weapons with shields even more attractive than they already were, compared to two-handed weapons. And I might even prefer a Mace at ST 14-15, because it can be thrown. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it tends to de-value two-handed weapons (e.g. at ST 14 and 16, there's no advantage to using a 2-handed hammer over a one-handed morningstar, in fact there's a weight penalty). I might add +1 damage to all two-handed weapons to make them a more interesting choice, and for realism reasons (in real physics, a 2-handed swing does tend to hit harder, as does a swing with a heavier weapon).
> There's also the issue of dice versus adds. As I mentioned before to you in the context of house rules that add + some amount of damage, the more those stack, the less varied damage amounts are, and this is another thing adding a flat +, without ever adding dice. That's why I wrote I would add "damage rank" rather than adding damage points. E.g. I would follow the base progression used by the weapons: 1d, 1d+1, 1d+2, 2d-1, 2d, ... or similar, because otherwise you get ST 14, with very fine +2 Smallaxe 1d+6, which seems like a funky predictable damage range to me, which can have gamey uses that I don't think make real-world sense (e.g. guaranteeing penetration so poison will take effect, or having your guy with the high-plus weapon attack the target he's guaranteed to take out, while the high-die weapons go for the targets that need a higher max damage).
> At 12:36 AM 2/11/2015, Rick Smith wrote:
>> My thoughts on very strong figures being able to use weapons better:
>> In my campaign, if you are 1 ST higher than a weapon you do +1 damage.
>> If you are 2 ST higher than that, you do +2 damage.
>> If you are 3 ST higher than that, you do +3 damage, etc.
> Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body