[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...


(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"