[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) TFT: Attack Order
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Dave Seagraves wrote:
> Dan writes . . .
> >If you read the example of play in the back of the Wizard
> >rules booklet, it seems clear to me that fST was intended
> >to count towards killing people. Not counting fST toward
> >death seems to bias the game even more in favor of wizards.
> >Have you noticed any negative effect on playability due to
> >this rule?
> Of course you mean /play balance/ here, not playability
> (two slightly different things).
Yes, thats what I meant - sorry for any confusion.
> From my campaign's ground rules . . .
> Wounds and Fatigue
> Wounds and fatigue are now assessed separately against
> a figure's ST and are not added together. (Normally these
> two are added together when determining a figure's status.)
> So a ST 12 figure now has 12 "hit points" and 12 "fatigue
> points." A ST 12 wizard with 4 hits of damage on him can
> still have up to 12 fatigue points left to cast spells, not
> just 8. This simplifies bookkeeping for players and GM
> alike, and is actually more realistic as well.
I don't know about this. Specifically, I'm thinking of the
extreme case where a figure with a base ST of 12 has taken
10 points of damage, but still has 12 fatigue points left.
This seems unreasonable. What about this: each two points
of damage causes a loss of 1 fST as well. Bleeding takes
an awful lot out of you.
(Note that the converse is not true ... every 2 fST lost
would NOT mean a loss of 1 "hit point.")
Post to the entire list by writing to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Unsubscribe by mailing to email@example.com with the message body