Re: (TFT) Shields and Feats.

[Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca>]

Hi David,
  Thanks for the comments.

  Two handed weapons used to do one extra point of damage.
In my revised weapon list they usually do 3 extra points of 
damage.  (The exception is pole weapons.  A two handed pole
weapon does +2 damage, but then gets a x 1.5 multiplier if
it charges closing the distance by 3 hexes.)

  I have added lots of talents some of which come on the even
number of IQ points, (e.g. IQ 10, 12, etc.).  However, to make
talents easier to find, prerequisites are 2 IQ lower than the 
more advanced talents.  This means that given that Shield is
IQ 7, then advanced shield talents will fall at IQ 9 and 11.
(I've added so many talents, that this rule is actually fairly 
important to help people remember where to find talents.)

  We will have to agree to disagree about making an IQ 8 
fighter obsolete.  I feel that a barely trained fighter SHOULD
be beaten by highly skilled adversaries.  I am not troubled 
that many of the advanced fighting skills are higher IQ than
8.  That is how the TFT system is set up.  If you wanted to 
grab a bunch of my talents, but make them all IQ 8, it would
not trouble me.

The last edition of D&D that I played much was 2nd, which
was before feats, so I can't comment much on them.  But if
you were to write up a bunch of feats, I would read them 
with interest.  

In D&D you get more feats with higher levels.  Would your 
feats be based on buying DX and ST (but not IQ), or would
you have another system?

Warm regards, Rick.


On 2015-12-01, at 1:25 AM, David Bofinger wrote:
> If you make shields much better, you need to make two-handed weapons much
> better as well. Or one-handed weapons worse. Probably a bit of both.
> 
> Caveat: This is based on what I've seen of Rick's advanced weapon talents,
> which might have changed since I saw them.
> 
> Rick, you seem to like putting all your combat expertise talents (shield,
> weapons) at IQ 9, 11. I'm not sure why you do that but it has a couple of
> effects I suspect are undesirable. First, IQ 9 is only just above the hard
> deck of IQ 8 so it makes the classic IQ 8 fighter pretty much obsolete. The
> benefits of IQ 9 talents greatly outweigh the cost of 1 point so IQ 8 is no
> longer a sweet spot. As an example:
> 
> Fighter ST 12 DX 12 IQ 8 [Knife, Sword, Shield, Running, +3 @ IQ 8]
> broadsword, small shield: 2+0, aDX 12, stops 1, parries on 12 (10%), MA 12.
> 
> Fighter ST 11 DX 12 IQ 9: [Knife, Sword, Shield, Improved Sword, Shield 2,
> +2 @ IQ 9] shortsword, small shield: 2+1, aDX 12, stops 3, parries on 14
> (22%), MA 10.
> 
> OK, it's not absolutely one-sided, but I know who I'd rather back in a
> fight. It's a pretty huge gulf in capability. Two-handed weapons also take
> a hit.
> 
> I don't think the simple fighter should be made obsolete. Have to compete,
> sure, but not get badly outcompeted by obvious analogous designs.
> 
> Generally it tends to make the odd-IQ levels more useful than the even
> IQ-levels, for anyone with an interest in melee combat. That's already true
> to some extent in the standard rules, because the best stuff is, IMO,
> somewhat more common at odd IQ than even, at least at lower IQ levels. IQ 8
> has Seamanship/Boating/Horsemanship which might be useful but is highly
> situational and anyway that doesn't count because we don't get to choose
> whether we have IQ 8. IQ 9 has Missile Weapons which can easily be really
> important, IQ 10 has Fencing but that's not a huge deal, IQ 11 has Two
> Weapons which can be quite a big deal (along with three critical party
> skills, it's a big skill monkey level), IQ 12 has nothing much, IQ 13 has
> nothing much, IQ 14 has the high level unarmed combat abilities though they
> cost a fortune. Add in your special combat talents and I think characters
> will be putting their IQ up two at a time.
> 
> (Another feature of your weapon talents is that IQ 9 to IQ 11 is a smaller
> jump than IQ 11 to IQ 13 so characters tend to stop at IQ 9 or IQ 13. I
> think.)
> 
> I'm not sure what the answer is to this. But I sort of like the idea that
> the special abilities should be a bit more like what D&D calls feats and
> less just "add two". Actually, my current theory of RPG design is to ditch
> as many numbers as possible and describe everything by characters having
> feats. Because feats are more fun than numbers.
> 
> --
> David
> 
> =====
> 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"