Re: (TFT) New File on Dwarves on Rick's web pages.

[Jeffrey Vandine <jlv61560@yahoo.com>]

All of these differing opinions just go to prove the old adage of "differen
t strokes for different folks," I guess (I come down on the Dwarven ladies 
NOT being bearded side of things personally).  

But regardless of those details, I really appreciate the fact that you sugg
est just changing the part of the visible spectrum Dwarves see in -- makes 
perfect sense to me. And as for Elves, I'd suggest that they simply have bo
th larger pupils and a greater array of receptors within their eyes -- whic
h helps them see much more effectively in natural darkness with a little am
bient light, but NOT in the infrared range like Dwarves (sort of like the d
ifference between a "Starlight scope" and an "IR scope").  And Frost G
iants or Yeti might see more in the UV side of the spectrum than Humans wou
ld.  All of which probably means that Humans see better and more effic
iently in broad daylight, while the other species do better in their prefer
red environments...  As you said -- it makes it easier for the players
 to grasp and creatively use the ability in the game without all the nonsen
se rules-lawyering that sometimes follows in the wake of a poorly thought o
ut explanation.
And I'll agree with you on the "stealthy Dwarves" too -- I figure a Dwarf i
s the kind of guy or gal that will simply charge in shouting a war cry and 
clanking and squeaking like a tank with poorly maintained end-connectors fr
om all the bits and pieces of armor banging and rubbing against each other 
as they charge (or even walk).  Of course, there would always be the o
ccasional exception...

 

      From: Meg Tapley <barnswallow@sbcglobal.net>
 To: tft@brainiac.com 
 Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 3:09 PM
 Subject: Re: (TFT) New File on Dwarves on Rick's web pages.
   
I'm all in favor of bearded dwarf ladies, and the elaborate beardstyles 
they would surely wear, but that's just my opinion. And I, too, 
appreciate what you've done with the MA and armor penalties thing.

My problem with the Advantages of Great ST is that it's tough to build 
your ST that high, without really being hit hard by the tradeoff in 
terms of DX and IQ, especially DX. I actually don't recall ever seeing a 
player character with ST 18+, even in games where everyone started with 
40 attribute points. For this reason, I think the Advantages of Great ST 
should start kicking in around ST 14 or so.

As far as being able to see in the dark, instead of some ill-defined 
magical effect, I'd rather give dwarves natural vision in the infrared 
spectrum (still doesn't work against Shadow spells, which presumably 
block infrared wavelengths as well as the spectrum visible to humans). 
Explicitly basing game effects on real-world physics seems to result in 
less rules-lawyering, and more creative problem-solving.

As a balancing penalty for the infra-vision, my thought was severe 
acrophobia - forcing dwarf characters to make an IQ roll vs. panic when 
they get more than a certain distance away from solid ground. Could be 
good for both frustration and laughs, depending on the player. It does 
seem fair to allow that particular trait to be bought off with experience.

Stealth? Dwarves? Hah. Just as Mr. von Kleinsmid pictures dwarf women as 
beardless, I imagine dwarves being about as stealthy as an 
overcaffeinated three-year-old getting into the pots and pans cabinet. 
Stealth, a dwarf might say, is for cowardly elves who can't stand up in 
a fair fight, bouncing blows off well-designed armor like a respectable 
warrior.

- Meg



On 2/3/16 10:09 PM, Rick Smith wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>    I didn't like in the Advantages of Great ST, you only got bo
nuses for
> ST for some armor and that these bonuses only came at rare magic
> numbers.
>
>    So ALL armor can now have reduced DX and MA penalties, if yo
u are
> strong enough.  There are two numbers: The threshold number where yo
u
> are strong enough to start getting less penalties, and the No Negatives
> number which is at what ST (and higher) that a given set of armor no
> longer gives you any penalties.
>
>    Because dwarves get less MA negatives for armor, the No Nega
tives
> number also has to be reduced to make things work out right.
>
>    Warm regards, Rick
>
>
> On 2016-02-03, at 3:49 PM, Peter von Kleinsmid wrote:
>> Hi Rick,
>>
>> Your dwarf page is cool and interesting, even though I probably wouldn't
 run it myself in a campaign due to having enough other visions and version
s of dwarves. I never liked the "bearded dwarf ladies" idea. I also rarely 
have anyone anywhere who's pushing 50 attribute points total.
>>
>> I do think the way you did the reduced MA but less reduction from armor 
thing well. It nicely mirrors the elf MA advantage. That I probably would u
se, as that's pretty much the same reduction we have in GURPS.
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> What is "armor's no negative number"?
>>
>> What do you mean by "sacrificing 5 attribute" and re-earning them? Do yo
u mean a character can reduce attribute levels they already have, or just s
pend EP equal to 5 points' improvement (or is it 5 times the cost of the ne
xt +1)? Does it count as 5 points towards the cost of the next attribute, i
f you have the ability?
>>
>> >> 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"


  
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"