[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(TFT) Ideal realism in TFT weapon tables
Hi Jeff,
You did miss it. It can be found here...
http://tft.brainiac.com/RicksTFT/Weapons_Equipment/Equipment_Title_Page.html
(You will have to click on a link to go to the download page.)
Note to people who looked at it before, this version has had a few typos fixed
and the one handed Mace now can be thrown.
I wish all of my design ideas were so clean. I treasure an idea like
this when I can find it.
Warm regards, Rick.
On 2015-10-21, at 11:19 AM, Jeffrey Vandine wrote:
> Rick,
> That's an interesting approach to cutting/bludgeoning versus impaling dam.
> I've been trying to work out a way to do that without going full-on
> GURPS, and it seems like your solution has the advantages of being both
> simple and self-evident. In a word, "brilliant!" ;-)
> Have you posted those tables anywhere? (Keep in mind, I've been having
> a lot of computer trouble the past month or so with Hughesnet, so even if
> you posted them recently, I might have completely missed it!) I would
> LOVE to look them over in detail.
> As an adjunct to your story; I took fencing in college. Going in, the
> class' attitude was "a sword is a sword is a sword." After a single
> sabre bout, I can painfully assure you that there is a HUGE difference betw
> een an epee and a sabre, & their tactics are accordingly going to be radi
> cally different. Now picture just how different the tactics used by a
> n axeman, maceman and spearman would be from any swordsman's style & you
> begin to see why different weapons SHOULD work differently!
> On the other hand, we can't go too far down that road, because if we do, we
> stopped playing TFT and started playing 5th Edition or something. So
> again, I'd really like to see a copy of your weapon tables! ;-)
>
> From: Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>
> To: tft@brainiac.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:02 AM
> Subject: (TFT) Realism and ideal realism in TFT
>
> Hi everyone, David.
> I agree with your argument completely. A bunch of my rules are
> there
> because they 'feel' more real to me, e.g. DX penalties for long pole
> weapon users when their user's back is obstructed. I increased the
> strength of the long bow to ST 15, because from my readings of the
> English Long Bow, I understand that it required a very large amount of ST
> to use properly. The arguments that bows could be learned relatively
> quickly but the English Long Bow requires years of practice make more
> sense then. It takes years to build up that massive amount of upper
> body strength.
>
> The things I feel happiest with are when I can make something
> more realistic with no increase in complexity. For example, should
> some missile weapon do 1d+4 dice damage or 3d-3 damage?
>
> One does an average of 7.5 points.
> The second does average damage of 7.5 points. No difference...
>
> However, I've adjusted the weapon tables so that impaling weapons
> do X dice minus Y, where as cutting weapons and massive impact
> weapons tend to do X dice plus Y.
>
> Thus with NO special rules, my impaling weapons tend to have a
> high standard deviation to damage. (Especially if the target has some
> armor.) They might do a little or they might do a lot of damage.
> GURPS
> system is more realistic. But it is more complex. After the hit
> is made and
> damage is done, you calculate the amount of damage that get's thru the
> armor and then you double the adjusted damage for impaling weapons.
>
> (Note that in GURPS, impaling weapons tend to do less damage, so
> they are more often stopped by armor. Thus they have high variance
> of damage, especially if they against armor....)
>
> My rules are less complex and faster, but the key thing is that they
> capture an idea with no mechanics. All that has to be done, is that
> those who design new weapons apply the same system.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"