Re: (TFT) RE: Health Stat

[Yendorian@aol.com]

No you really can't think of a creatures ST, as also being its chance to 
resist disease. Then you have rats that get sick and die all the time and 
elephants that are all but immune to disease. Size, which is related to ST 
has no bearing on how healthy a character or creature is. You could have 
healthy or sickly creatures no matter the species.

I would be reluctant to add a forth attribute myself. (I just like the three).

If I had to come up with a way of handling it, I would say its a 10 for all 
creatures right across the board. After all, 10 is concidered the average for 
an attribute. All creatures average being healthy, followed by above and 
below average individuals withing that species. If you throw AVERAGE 
elephants and AVERAGE rats against the players then they should also have 
AVERAGE resistance to disease. Now that you have determined the creatures 
AVERAGE resistance to disease, you can very it up or down for an important 
individual just by making a notation on its record sheet that it is 
resistant/unresistant to disease/cold/poison (whatever) +2, +4 or -3.

This does away with the need for an extra attribute, and only changes 
existing rules on certain KEY individuals.

Rod

Ps - yes I know some creatures are naturally more healthy than others. If you 
wanted to note on some creatures that they get an inharent +4 to resist 
diease (rats for example) that would be fine. I'm just the kind of person 
that when he makes a change to an existing system he want's to make it as 
unnoticable as possible.


In a message dated 99-08-04 17:07:18 EDT, you write:

<< >> From a game standpoint, halflings often have low STs. Does this mean
 >> they are sickly and constantly dying from the common cold? Incapable 
 >> of distance running? I hope not - would make them rather unpopular as 
 >> PCs, wouldn't it?  So, yes, quite simply there often IS a difference 
 >> between Strength and health.
 > 
 > Not at all. Quite simply Hobbits live in nice neat clean little homes. > 
They don't get sick from common colds because they are huddled in 
 > their warm little house and not in a lot of dangerous, wet, clammy 
 > and damp environments. "3/ST to resist colds, -2d6 if your wrapped 
 > in a blanky by a fireplace drinking a hot cup of camomile tea and 
 > haven't gone outdoors all winter!"
 
 Well, I wouldn't want to tell you how how to run your campaign, but 
 this is definitely runs counter to the "traditional" view of hobbits
 from Tolkien's writings, in which they are "hard to daunt or kill" 
 and have a generally high resistance to hardship.  A quick review of
 the hobbits' trip through Mordor should suffice to dispel any such
 notions.  A hobbit (whether running around or snug indoors) should be 
 no more vulnerable to disease or starvation or exhaustion than a human 
 in a similar situation.  
 
 Now if you want to view them as a bunch of sickly pantywaists in your
 campaign, fine and dandy, but I don't think such a view is generally
 applicable enough to use in a discussion of the game's rules.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 Stan >>
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"