first i wanna say that having a toughness about 6 is not working very good, we tryed to play yesterday, (mock combat), and the T7 character was simply to good, anyway was is the logic in having the toughness to ignore a blow, a unarmored TO7 guy hit with a sword is gonna have a wound, not matter what! his skin is not metal.
From now on i recomend only to have MAX TO6 to start with, im maybe even going to say 5....
but i hope anybody out there will help me.....
That's nearly a universal house rule. In my games max TO for a normal human is 5. Mose peoples limit in their games is 5 or 6.
This topic seems to come up every so often. I wouldn't limit TO but I would only let it negate the ST bonus. Thus ST5 - TO8 = 0 not -3....
That sound like a very easy and realistic way to do it, so far you system that toughness only cancels strength is one of the two method i will try, the other is to roll the the toughness and (TN6), the success are the effective toughness.
Anyway i think your system is better, i will try that first..
How comparable is this to the rest of the attribuites, anyway?
Say, a guy hitting with a rapier does -5 damage or something in that area, right?
Now, if one character has a Strength of 8(Perfectly possible for a beginning character) is against an opponent with a Toughness of 3, and than aims a Cut at their head with 7 dice, one die to increase damage, 4 dice are successes, the other party fails an evasive move, so the damage dealt is 8-5+5-3, a level 5 wound to the Neck, which decapitates them. It's not realisticly possible to decapitate someone with a rapier, right?
My personal opinion, is that anything above 6 is nearing the fantastical and under the right circumstances, produces results which are not simulated in human nature.
[RANT MODE ENGAGED]
Methinks you get ahead of yourself Sirogit..
The one die spent to increase damage only happens in the case of the bash manouver I beleive..
The rapier's stats on a cut are ST - 3. So the negative 5 strength thing is preposterous. If the character in your example had a strength of 8, the total damage would be 5 plus the margin of success. Say four of them are successes.. That's a damage rating of 9.
Minus the toughness of 3, makes it a level 6 wound.. if the victim of the attack has no armor..
You were off on calculating the damage my friend.. even in the methodoligy you used to do so. Take Strength plus weapon damage plus # of offensive successes.. subtract from that the sum of toughness, armor, and defensive successes.
Let me reclarify for purity's sake.. as I am not the most easily understood person on here..
Offense: Strength + weapon modifier +successes
MINUS
Defense: Toughness +armor +successes
I agree that high TO and high strength are bothersome in terms of the way that they 'corrupt' the purity of the system..
In order to combat a high strength, you need a high toughness, in order to defeat a high toughness..you need either more strength or more skill with a blade(ie. more combat pool dice, hence more chance of hitting someone more skillfully).. or a lowered ATN weapon.. such as one with 'fine qualities' to reflect its superior balance, ease of use, etc.
Those are the real variables to this equation, not just strength or toughness. Put more emphasis on skill with a weapon, quality of the weapon, etc.. and show that to your players by beating the shit out of their characters with it. They will soon see the light as I have seen it.
Now from my point of view.. I typically do not like high toughness characters.. especially confronted with high TO and full plate, or fine full plate. The latter of which is the purpose of my new character.. to wear fine full plate, and his original toughness was 8.(7+1TO being from stahl)
In playtesting I saw the faults of this while I was playing in the mini-campaign I am involved in, I had a sorceror who just casted the 'armor of air' spell, giving me full coverage at AV 8. His toughness was 4. This made for a defensive rating of 12, without anything being rolled.
My character for the other tros campaign with the fine plate and TO of 8 had a defensive rating of 14 before anything was rolled for defense..
The armor of air made it so that my sorceror basically did not even have to TRY to defend... hence me leaving only 1 die in my CP after each first exchange.. so that I could declare a 'defense' in the case I lost the initiative in my attack.. and even when defending.. I would supply my character with bonus dice from the acrobatics skill... So, on defense.. I had the potential of a 24-die CP.(Base 12, plus full agility(6) every exchange from the acrobatics skill) I did this little bit of min-maxing to see how extreme the system could be brought and to see just exactly how game-play was destroyed in that fashion.
I figured that when this character was capable of taking on what was between a Gol warrior and a Gol captain in terms of strength, combat, attributes, etc.. without really being afraid of 'what if the thing hits me'.. that it was bad for anyone involved with having to play with such a character. This same character, through the fact that I had a much much much larger CP than anyone normally would have.. was successful in buying initiative(with his base 12 dice mind you.. acrobatic bonuses were kept seperate)and then beating the Gol's weapon.
What is the point of allowing a character in your game, that through his sheer 'numbers on paper' destroys game-play? The very fabric of what makes the game interesting compared to others is at stake. TROS is very brutal, realistic to a degree, and most normal characters can die from a single blow..and a very high TO character shatters that. It destroys the common risk-factor that the entire PC party has to contend with.
Essentially you are creating a 'Riddle-master', speaking in terms of the riddle-seekers... Someone that doesnt fear death from the very beginning of play..because if he gets hit, he wont feel it.. save from something huge like a charge in which a lance is used.. a dragon.. an elephant sitting on the guy..etc.
My motto as a player is, 'If it is not a challenge.. there is no point to it.'
Hence, why I decided to re-tool my new character with a TO of 4, granted it is still a defensive rating of 10 when we combine that with full plate.. but it IS full plate after-all...
Solution: If you are the GM of a group which has a high TO character and it comes to be too hard.. simply cheat. Make NPC's with a ST that is the same as the TO. On top of that, have him wield a 'fine' weapon with a lowered ATN number. Combine that with a powerful weapon such as a greatsword or a pole-axe and suddenly that high TO character is in for some trouble. Perhaps that might teach that player a lesson, that his character is FAR from invulnerable...
-Ingenious
Quote
The one die spent to increase damage only happens in the case of the bash manouver I beleive..
I'm pretty damn sure it applies to Cut manuevers as well, Thrust being the only basic-attack it does not apply too.
Quote
The rapier's stats on a cut are ST - 3. So the negative 5 strength thing is preposterous. If the character in your example had a strength of 8, the total damage would be 5 plus the margin of success. Say four of them are successes.. That's a damage rating of 9.
That sounds about right. Maybe you could apply the -5 strength to a nail file and my point would be made the stronger.
Quote
You were off on calculating the damage my friend.. even in the methodoligy you used to do so. Take Strength plus weapon damage plus # of offensive successes.. subtract from that the sum of toughness, armor, and defensive successes.
Let me reclarify for purity's sake.. as I am not the most easily understood person on here..
Offense: Strength + weapon modifier +successes
MINUS
Defense: Toughness +armor +successes
I assumed no armor or defensive successes, as the result of a failed evasive manuever. I'm pretty sure my math turned out right.
I would agree that yeah, high ST and high TO are the most powerfull attribuites in combat... and there's a good reason. They're not usefull for anything else. Gamebreaking, if the game is dependant on the challenge of combat? Possibly. But if no one else has high profiencies/armor/ST/TO in a game that is dependant on scheduled combats with players who can leisurely strap on Plate mail, than they choose to have skills that have considerable less use in the campaign.
That hits me as a problem that should be settled before proclaiming the game is broken. Either you should instate a rule where characters can't be aimed so much at combat so that they arn't on equal standing with players who don't want to focus on combat, or have everyone focus tightly on combat. Either way I see as the only permanant fix to a semi-fair combat-centered gaming.
I probably wouldn't allow ST or TO above 6 in my game. That said, I don't necessarily see hi ST/TO characters as a problem.
First of all, all PCs need a high stat. I consider the high stat to be somewhat special, like the incredibly nimble AG 7 guy, or the MA 7 guy who can pick a new language in a snap. Why couldn't you build your character around hi TO or ST? With ST 7 you'd be the strongest man around, and everyone would notice. TO 7 would mean the character probably has reputation of being the one who was kicked in the head by a horse with almost no effect, and who fell from the roof of a three-story house trying to rescue his girlfriend's cat, and walked away.
It so happens that you are also quite effective in combat. In a mercenary company, your buddies laugh afterwards when you do take two arrows, one in the leg and one in stomach. They buy you drinks and tell war stories of the mighty Ivan, who actually has like 30 scars in his body (no kidding!). When it goes bad for the unit, you find yourself alive after all others have been killed and looted.
Actually, I saw 'Last Samurai' (or whatever the name, where Tom Cruise is the last samurai) last week and it struck me that perhaps Tom had TO 7 or so.
It's just not right in my opinion that people can have almost superhuman attributes and hide them, no way. Others will be interested in them, in good or bad. And when an evil nobleman wants to kill or capture the notorious veteran of 30 battles who 'cannot be killed', he sends enough of his guards, and then some. Perhaps hires a strongman. Adventure possibilities are endless. Besides, nobody in this game is invulnerable..
Quote from: Overdrive
It's just not right in my opinion that people can have almost superhuman attributes and hide them, no way. Others will be interested in them, in good or bad. And when an evil nobleman wants to kill or capture the notorious veteran of 30 battles who 'cannot be killed', he sends enough of his guards, and then some. Perhaps hires a strongman. Adventure possibilities are endless. Besides, nobody in this game is invulnerable..
I agree. The same should apply to stats which are painfully low. My take on this is that attributes that at least 2 away from the average either way tend to attract attention unless the character actively attempts to hide them, requiring relevent skills checks. Thus equally as the strongman will have to dodge every recruiting sargeant in the city, the uneducated man becomes the target of various folks who have 'a hundred and one answers to all his problems... for a price of course...'
High tough guys in full plate can be easy dealt with by a character with a higher CP (not hard to find after you put on full plate) and an anti armour weapon (I suggest a greatsword if only for the half-sword manoverve). There is also the option of hooking or grappling the character while another baddy raises his visor and dirks him in the eye. Ganging up was the usual answer to knights.
And if nothing else works have the character annoy a sorceror...
I'm partial to the, "TO negates ST but no more" approach because it is simple. It also allows high TO characters to fight that big gol where others flee....blah...blah...blah.
However, another approach would be to use a RuneQuest like approach where damage and damage reduction would be derived traits. In this case you would replace TO with size. The damage bonus would be (ST+Size)/2. Large and strong characters do more damage because they have more mass behind the force of the blow. Damage reduction would be (Size+HT)/2 or something like that. WP would be the measure of "toughness" indicating how well a character can ignore pain....
Just a thought...NT
I'm partial to the "It ain't broken damnit, so stop trying to fix it" approach.
I think Overdrive's comments about having a high stat character hit it fairly well on the head. If I had to limit it in one way, I'd say that the high stat is for the life of the character.. No other attribute can ever be equal or greater than the high stat. That is where the character shines.
But really.. High TO and ST are perfectly fine if you ask me. Give me any legal character, and I can kill him legally if I so choose. Let 'em have their strengths.
Quote from: WolfenI'm partial to the "It ain't broken damnit, so stop trying to fix it" approach.
Oh, I would generally agree. My first option above is a simple fix for people who think TO is too powerful. THe second option tends to smooth out stuff so that everyone is almost equal...not really all that good.
I play a Stahlnish genrty guy with high TO. While he is a bit of a combat machine, he's spent a few luck points on not dying. He also ain't too educated, which provides a completely different set of problems...
The Riddle of Steel is: Toughness 10
I don't have a problem with high strength. Over and over again, we see that with modern day chemicals/techniques we can create people with amazing strength.
I do have a problem with amazing toughness; flesh and bone will always have the same material strength. I'm fine with WP modifying things like shock; that's supported by the historical record. But I don't accept a toughness of higher than 6/7 (7 because I don't mind stretching things for fantasy a little).
-Jeff
P.S. It would be interesting to work out a system where you made toughness rolls to reduce damage rather than subtracting directly: then a toughness of 7 wouldn't always be -7, but only sometimes -7 and mostly less. Then armor would be nice and linear, and toughness would be variable: sometimes the tough guy takes the hit well, others the hit is clean and no amount of toughness can save the day.
Yes, but the key issue is did they have those modern techniques and steroids back in the day? No.. but that still doesn't mean exceptional strength can be had via constant stress and exercise.
The toughness being variable compared to static finally interests me...
though I would not know how to model such a thing in game mechanics terms. Should the number of the opponent's margin of success be the target number? Should it be a fixed number +successes?
*shrug*
That one someone else will have to sort out.
-Ingenious
I would mention that there'll be something on that in TFOB, but then I might get accused of taunting you all again, so I wont.
Brian.
I'm willing to bet a steroid-bleeding freak would still not be able to decapitate someone with a dull rapier.
I don't see what's wrong with thinking of Strength and Toughness as entirely puportional, anyway. A very weak man(ST 2) and a somewhat robust individual(TO 5) would be at the same standing as an above averagely strong man(ST 5) and a superhumanly resistant individual(TO 8)
Now, the first comparison would be something like if you had a anorexic fashion model versus an average heavyweight boxer. I'm willing to bet the model would have a lot of trouble punching the boxer out, besides the fact she doesn't have any formal training in it. In Tros, for her firsts to hurt him she'd have to get atleast 6 additionial damage.
A person with TO 8 would be to the boxer as the boxer is to the anorexic model. What's unrealistic for that to be a tall hurdle to pass?
Again, flesh is flesh. There's nothing you can do to change that. That's why high toughness has a false feel to it. Sure, there are occasions where a rasputin survives a tremendous amount of shock, but move the bullets an inch one way or another to sever an artery and he's dead despite his toughness & will.
RE: Steroids. For realism, I could see limiting strength as well, but you should put the limit to strength higher than toughness IMO.
RE: "Soft" toughness. Do something like this: make the same damage calculation, but don't subtract toughness. Now, add 1+ the final damage number (inc str, wpn, armor), and roll toughness dice. Each success subtracts. A lucky roll subtracts all of the dice (bullet misses artery), an unlucky roll and your toast. Of course, this makes the system a lot bloodier. :-)
RE: Decapitation by wet noodle. Rolemaster & Warhammer had this problem with descriptions violating 'reality'. The simple answer is to modify or ignore the dumb description, but keep the numbers. So your rapier may not decapitate the person, it's just slices through the kneck to the spinal column and stops. Same difference, person is dead.
-Jeff
Quote from: sirogit
Now, the first comparison would be something like if you had a anorexic fashion model versus an average heavyweight boxer. I'm willing to bet the model would have a lot of trouble punching the boxer out, besides the fact she doesn't have any formal training in it.
Another alternative to the whole TO/ST problem might be to have TO act differently by damage type.
With unarmed damage especially, the full TO rating should probably apply. I find it highly unlikely that I could KO any heavy weight boxer.
With bladed weapons and puncture weapons TO might only negate ST to 0 because flesh is only so strong. THis would give a big advantage to fighting with a dagger vs fighting bare handed....
I'm not sure how one would handle maces...NT
Actually i havent read all the post here, had no time!
but here is what im planning to use
So you have TO, in my tought only ½ of it is "armor" and the rest is lvl1 wounds, im not good at this explanation so ill make an example
TO 6 has "ar" 3 points, damages from 4 to 6(or to 7) is processed as lvl1 wounds everything more than 7 gives the normal damage lvl up to the lvl5 lethals
With this, eaven the touhgest guys take minnor woulds but still there is no more critical woulds than normal ruleset. So now you can scratch more often, and there is less cases where you stab opponent with dagger with no effect.
I think tougness is really a problem when you got armor too . 5 tougness look like decent but when you add 4 for chain mail its a lot.
I'm agree with tougness can negate shock , but no way to negate a weapon damage with your toughness.
So i will say toughness negate shock but no damage and i will give more protection when you wear armor ( chain 5 or 6 and plate 7 or 8 ).
You dont have armor ? well dodge dodge dodge or parry or.....run
It has been said before and i am quite happy to say it agaiin :)
having alot of toughness can definantly negate dmg. Or rather the dmg is there but it doesn't effect you. So in a system (which i love) where there are only five levels of wounds rather than hitpoints the only way to simulate it is to negat the wound altogether.
I have seen big blokes shrug of dmg that would down lesser guys.
Which i can tell you is a bit disconcerting when it is you trying to take that big guy down :)
big block , if you wants but with sharp weapon it's not big block it's flesh damage and nobody have a iron flesh , the reason why i think toughness help with shock ( big block effect ) but not with damage .
I can show you some mens who can break some very hard things with arms and legs or smash a wall with head but if i say ok now i hit you with this sword and you resist ....... oh come on you are a big men with high toughness .
One of the jobs i used to have was that of a bouncer at various nightclubs and pubs. I have seen plenty of fights in these places and i remember one occassion when a bloke got glassed in the head with a pint. He had most of a glass sticking into his head. He then proceeded to beat the crap out of the guy who hit him with it... after taking him out, most of his mates and one of the other bouncers i managed to get him out side. It was here that he pulled the glass out of his head and face and asked me to call an ambulance for him.
Apart from the jagged cut down his face he wasn't really all that worse for wear... it was mainly cosmetic... on the other hand i have seen smaller guys glassed and ended up straight in hospital straight away
For me its chance factor , not toughness . The nex time perhaps he will loose 1 eye or will have a "pierced the throat , destroying the larynx and jugular " with the same hit because his toughness give no protection to eyes and throat .It was not his day , lucky man .
By the way you can have this kind of luck too with spiritual attribute but not with your toughness.
I've been considering how to make high toughness less of a guranteed resistance to damage (its basically permanent armor as I see it). I was wondering about this method:
Damge is defined as normal, then modified by armor. The target then rolls their toughness against a TN = the damage done. Each success cancels one point of damage. New number becomes the actual amount applied to the target.
Has anyone used something like this in a game and if so how does it work?
it increases the number of rolls in a dice heavy combat system.
I really don't seem to have problem with TO in the game. Basically you have to perform maneovres that eventually give you a significant dice advantage where you go in for the kill
Newbie observation (probably not correct, but I thought I'd mention it to see what Jake and Brian have to say about it). People seem to be having trouble with the word toughness and the dictionary meaning. They are assuming that the person is STILL being gutted by the attack but is somehow ignoring the effects (and consequently the gaping holes in their bodies). Obviously this is not the case because if it were then there would still be all the bleeding, organ damage, etc, that normally would have been inflicted (I mean...really...shrug it off all you like, but if a blade buries itself in your chest there is going to be physical damage done that needs to be repaired).
Is it worth considering a "redefinition" of that stat to quell the cries of discomfort with it (yes, I'm aware of the ridiculousness of that suggestion due to reprinting the books, etc,....and I realize there is zero chance it is ever going to actually happen, but at least hear out my reasoning even though it is out of the question...just so I know whether or not you think my line of thought is reasonable or complete trash). To me it really seems like this TO stat is really a "damage avoidance" stat, not a "shrug off the damage" stat...just due to the way it works. Actual damage done is incoming damage - TO, and incoming wounds ACTUALLY lessen or just plain vanish if the TO is sufficiently high. Now since that's actual WOUNDING that is changing and not REACTION TO wounding that is changing, it really doesn't sound to me like "shrugging off"...it sounds like "avoiding it in the first place". Perhaps the stat would be more readily accepted by the masses if it were called something like DamageAvoidance. Basically the mechanics would remain the same but the description of what's going on changes a little, possibly into a little more palatable form. The description "DamageAvoidance" basically would mean "rolling with the blow to lessen effect (backing up, diving, etc, in the same direction as the incoming blow so it just grazes you lightly instead of just standing there and letting it bury itself deeply in a stationary target)". Another description could be "contorting your body to avoid the well placed blow (turning sideways so that rapier grazes your chest instead of just standing there chest forward and letting it bury itself in your heart)". Yet another description could be "on an incoming wide cut, stepping inside the opponent's guard to take the lesser damage near the opponent's slower moving and less sharpened part of the blade instead of out at the rapidly moving and heavily sharpened tip of the blade where damage would be severe due to motion, torque, etc,..."
Again...newbie here....probably completely off base, and I know that...but I thought I'd mention it anyhow to see what people thought.
<grin> ok, now everybody in unison..."you're an idiot you stupid newbie. That makes no sense at all and we've heard better reasoning out of a dead squid. Isn't your mom calling or something? Don't go away mad...just go away."
I see where your coming from here but i don't think it really works that way. This is my opinion anyway.
The ability to avoid dmg is based on agility and that is worked into your CP and therefore you defence.
I also like to think of TO as how Tough my character looks. That combined with ST. but def not ST by itself
Back at you Edge. Understand where you're coming from too. I'm not quite so much thinking this of an "evasion" though (especially since there is already a skill for that), but more like a "damn, I screwed up and this is going to hurt,...at least I can twist or squirm a little bit (probably as a reflex more than anything else) to minimize the gore. I probably should have mentioned that....that I'm thinking of it more as an "I failed to get out of the way whether by parry or evasion or whatever, now skill doesn't enter into it anymore and my body reflexes curse my brain and take over to try to keep me from dying ."
hmm fair enough :)
yeah that makes sense... does it still make you look tough? :)
Hey Edge,
<chuckle> I think that kindof is a character description thing...eye color, hair, height, weight,...all things kindof left to the discretion of the player to design physical looks of their character. Under the rename though I think "DamageAvoidance" would end up being more of a "scary dude with lightning reflexes". Usually I personally associate toughness as a ratio of ST, AG, and EN to weight of the character in most of the games I play....but I think usually most gamers associate toughness with your description you write on your character sheet and what kind of attitudes you show while role playing, and with what kind of situations you stride into without a second thought (and how well you survive them).
Then again...I'm a newbie here, so my thoughts don't mean squat.
of course your views mean something... i haven't been here all that long at all and i feel my views mean everything :) jk
but i do agree with what your saying :)
...hmmm...maybe given the overlap with Kaa (sorcery) and Knockout, maybe "Instinct", "BodyAwareness", or "BodyInstinct" would have been better names than "DamageAvoidance"...assuming the whole idea isn't totally off base that is.
Dain,
this is essentially the exact form of my interpretation. TO is not so much the meaty ability to absorb a blow, but instead the ability, both through being meaty and in knowledge, in lessening the impact. Rolling with the punch, if you will.
For example, if someone punches me in the shoulder, and I fail to avoid it entirely (MoS to attacker) I can drop that shoulder slightly, or turn my body, or take a step backward, or whatever. I still get hit, chances are it still hurts.. But it hurts less.
"But that's a skill, and as such is covered my CP!" most will cry.. But it's not. It's reflex. It's pure muscle memory. I don't think, even for a split second, about lessening the blow.. All of my concentration was on avoiding it entirely, or on hitting them, or what-have-you. I have conditioned my body to the point that it reacts to lessen a blow I know is going to land, and that the muscles and fat and bone and skin are toughened to resist.
This is my interpretation, and is frankly why I don't limit the effects of TRoS. Jake calls it the cinematic factor. Others figure out how to "fix" it. I say it ain't broke, and it's perfectly realistic.. just not in the strictest interpretation of the word.
Before you, or someone else, asks, yes I would limit TO if the victim were entirely unaware of the incoming attack, or otherwise unable to react to it.. If they were unconscious, for example. Of course, generally in those circumstances, the attacker has free rein on what he wants to do to his victim anyhow.
Always a pleasure hearing from you good sir Wolfen. So far it sounds like I'm 2 for 2 on my interpretation, so maybe I'm not totally out in left field. I don't really have a problem with the mechanic at all myself, and see no reason to limit it either (other than the one you just brought up that I hadn't thought of yet...attacked unaware). Still currious to get first hand thoughts from the powers that be though. thanks again!
I agree with what Wolfen is saying as well to a large degree. You do "learn" to resist damage in a way that goes beyond physicial conditioning. When i first started doing kickboxing I was in decent shape and had skills better than many of the guys I had trained with because I already had an advanced rank in another system, but got my but creamed in the ring. The reason was partially that I didn't know all the tactics necessary, but also because I would get staggered by a single hit where most of them could press through it. Once I learned how to conrol my breathing, roll with impacts, etc. things got much easier and I could begin to fight on a more equal footing.
How the relates to getting hit with a poleaxe I'm not sure, that's something I've never personally expirienced (and don't intend to!) :)
<grin>...well....if TO is really "the cinematic factor", maybe it should be renamed StarTrekShirtColor (STSC), where low numbers represent the low frequency end of the spectrum (infra red, red, etc,....) and high numbers represent the high frequency end of the spectrum (blue, indigo, etc,....). Then everyone would know how to use this stat intuitively because security (red) should be avoided and science (blue) almost never get hurt. That way it would be almost impossi....ouch, ugh, umpfh, ok, stop. Those virtual dice you're throwing could put out a virtual eye or something.
With the "roll with the hit" idea for toughness, I think this is a learned defense. This is best represented by the combat pool (plus it's hard to "roll with the punch" from an arrow).
Toughness could also be somehow factored in the way that will is - reducing effects of pain, stun, etc. Maybe even help with bloodloss. Even 1 point differential of toughness has a huge effect - severely reduces damage taken.
A quick and fast way to handle high toughness would maybe be, that all toughness above 6 is counted in halfs when deducting damage, ie. having toughness 8 is actually only 7. and 10 is onlt 8. maybe could could even say from TO 4 its "1 for every 2"....
Óne of the problemes i see with the high toughness, so i dont need armour, i that if a non armoured area gets hit and the toughness reduces the hits damage into zero damage. then the guy will still have some kind of damage on him, becouse i still think that a sword will piece through human skin, even by a soft blow, leaving a bleeding wound. ¨
The penalty could by one of these things:
automatic blood loss, or automatic chock
I like TO as is.
The Player in my game has ST 8 TO 5 a bit of a beast but he is a 6'4" 240lb Savaxen (Viking) Warrior.
However Alexander the great was a little guy but was porbably TO 6+ in Tros terms. He was always at the head of a charge, always in the thick of the fighting, and he did get a few very serious near fatal wounds, but in the end it was probably sickness (or Poison) that killed him.
He was tough.
I see toughness as a combination of lots of things, rolling with punches being a hardman, being lucky (I know there is the Luck SA but this is a more general always active kind of luck) and even fate. (he didn't die becasue it wasn't his time). All of these combine to make the hero tough. Tough to kill, tough to wound. I don't see it as them having actual tough skin like an ogre might have. I don't see it as blades bouncing of bare flesh.
Alexander, while a little guy (around 5' tall), was still about the norm for that time and region. Not a big guy, but not the equivalent of a 5' guy in today's times.
It appears some favor the cinematic approach for toughness, allowing high scores in this, using it by the book. Nothing wrong with this, if that's what you like, I just prefer a more realisitic approach.
However, trying overly hard to justify or rationalize toughness is very similar to the old idea of trying to rationalize D&D hitpoints, the idea was the character moved enough to allow this hits to be grazing hits, when the hit points get down to 10 or less the character is winded and can be killed like anyone else
God how I hated that approach!!!
QuoteAlexander, while a little guy (around 5' tall), was still about the norm for that time and region. Not a big guy, but not the equivalent of a 5' guy in today's times.
well small or average, what I mean is you don't have to be huge hulking brute to be tough
QuoteHowever, trying overly hard to justify or rationalize toughness is very similar to the old idea of trying to rationalize D&D hitpoints, the idea was the character moved enough to allow this hits to be grazing hits, when the hit points get down to 10 or less the character is winded and can be killed like anyone else
Well I'm not really trying too hard to rationalize TO that was just my take after reading this thread, before that I hadn't really considered it. I think the difference between HP is though no matter what you're toughness you can still be killed by a single strike, and that single strike could be the first strike of your first fight.
I will admit to having a prefernce for a slightly cinematic feel.
I've got the same problem in my (new) group - a guy with TO6 + chain mail = 10 armour. Very hard to even injure him.
Reading through this topic, I thought about a fairly simple approach:
Whenever you get hit with a weapon on a non-armoured location, you can not lower the damage to 0 unless your TO is twice the DR.
That way, getting hit always hurts, though you are still immune against punches (unarmed combat) and the extremely weak hits.
How's that?
[/b]
In my group Toughness 5 is the max for the charatcers, reserving the 6 and 7 for real professional soldier, who train every day to keep there Toughness up.
This fix most of the problems i think
Another solution would be to somehow incorporate toughness and strength in 1/2 steps.
Damage tables could be 1-2 equals a level 1 wound, 3-4 equals a two, etc. Although armour would then have to be increased as well as weapon damage mods. The problem would be that the effects of sucesses would have to be somehow increased.
Another option would be to treat toughness over 4 subtracted from Pain, shock and perhaps bloodloss. Toughness under 4 would be an addition.
Real large creatures/beings could use toughness as it stands, or perhaps a combination. A real large Gol could have a "true" toughness of 5, subtracting one from injury levels.
Another approach would be to modify toughness by hit location.
OK, I teach my (very few, so far) self-defense students the value of poking enemies in the eye, and hitting enemies in the nuts, because, compared to the rest of the body, there is a disproportionate pain response in those areas.
I realize that this is incorporated into the damage charts, but it still takes a higher strength to achieve a level 1 wound to the eyeball on a TO 5 character than on a TO 2 character with the same level of success, but in reality I bet Bob Sapp (an extremely large and tough no-holds-barred fighter) would not allow an infant to touch his bare eyeball, and I am sure that any six-year-old could still cause some shock to him with a lucky shot to the balls.
Simple 'fix', based on merging some of the suggestions above:
roll dice, TN:6, for the *difference* between attacker ST and defender TO. Higher score is effectively <lower score> + successes.
e.g. a ST:6 mauling a TO:4 gets effective strength 4 + 2 dice, or avg 5 points [plus weapon base damage and #sucesses], a ST:3 poking a TO:7 gets "-4 dice" [effective toughness is 3 + 4 dice for defender]
For equal-stats combatants, no change at all. For granma (st:2) vs the naked dwarf (to:7) you'll avoid invulnerability _and_ the theoretical possibility of granma winning the contest. (best she can get is a draw).
possibly set a lower TN to make toughness/strength more powerful. The main point is that you are not invulnerable.
In our game, this does not apply to armor, only to 'natural toughness' and strength. Steel is harder than skin. [and armor-piercing weapons pierce steel better than brute strength].
When reading this thread I see people trying to "fix" high ST/TO problems by limiting TO. But I think that you are solving the wrong problem by doing that. Because high ST/TO can be realistic is non-combat situations imposing limits on TO is itself unrealistic.
In my opinion the problem is that a high TO counts for a much larger portion of defense than armor. Even a moderate TO of 4 is equal to the defensive power of some pretty heavy armor; giving a "naked dwarf" the same defense as a well armored child. And having a high ST counts for a large portion of the damage than the skill of the attack.
So the simple "fix" is to reduce the effect of ST/TO in combat by half. Only half of your ST counts toward damage, only half of your TO counts toward defense. Now armor and weapon skill becomes much more important and you don't have to place any limits on abilities. Combat will be just as deadly except in the cases of a very strong ST/TO against a very weak TO/ST. But that's what we are trying to "fix" isn't it?
I still say the easiest thing is to allow TO to eliminate ST but no more. No extra calculations etc.
Thus, ST8 - TO8 = 0 and ST5 -TO8 = 0 not -3.
You could also run any sort of variation on that:
For unarmed attacks, TO might get it's full effect. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do much real damage punching a heavy weight boxer unless I got off a perfect shot...so ST5-TO8 = -3.
For cutting/stabbing attacks, TO might eliminate all but 1 ST damage damage, since the blade would still probably cut through flesh if it hit...
For blunt attacks TO would simple negate strength as above.
So... What part of the damage gets subtracted by armor? The ST or the successes?
If the ST part of damage is subtracted first, then TO is useless.
Why not leave it as it is? Some people _are_ tougher and more resistant to damage/wounds than others...
Me..
I just do it this way.
If a character is hit where they have no armour. TO reduces damage to a minimum of 1.
This means, you might be the most hard ever, but if you keep getting hit, then you are going to die a death of a million cuts.
-James
Quote from: StarshadowSo... What part of the damage gets subtracted by armor? The ST or the successes?
If the ST part of damage is subtracted first, then TO is useless.
Why not leave it as it is? Some people _are_ tougher and more resistant to damage/wounds than others...
If you are asking me (as in my suggestion above), it doesn't matter. TO just eliminates any bonus that high ST might give. It isn't a matter of what gets subtracted first.
I've played around with the following. TO eliminates a maximum of:
ST + 0 for edged weapons (ST5 - TO8 = 0 then + weapon dam and succ)
ST + 1 for blunt weapons (ST5 - TO8 = -1)
ST + 2 for unarmed attacks (ST5-TO8 = -2)
although I do like the 'at least a level 1 wound' approach for no armor
NT
Now, admiddedly I haven't read all 4 pages due to my lack of time this morning, but here are a couple of lines:
The origin of Naked Dwarf Syndrome was, if I am not mistaken, the old WFRP rules.
In that game I once played a Dwarf who ended up with a Toughness stat of 8. (Average for a Human is 3). This character proved quite killable by our DM since this was after more than a year of real time playing and many of the oponents we faced were also very hard indeed. As far as I have seen combat in TROS is even more brutal that the good ole' WFRP system so any character should be killable through some cunning use of the rules.
Now to the important part: as the GM it is part of your job to fudge the dice! Feel free to roll them behind your screen in order to sattisfy your players, but if you don't like the result, for one reason or another, just ignore it.
If you feel that one of your players need to be taken down a notch or two because he is getting cocky bout his high TO character just give that character a solid smack from one of his oponents. Sure rolle the dice, but if your NPC is incapable of hurting the guy that way, just tell the player a different result. Show him that no one is invulnrable in the game as in real life.
I agree. Although I try to minimize the amount of "cheating" perse, sometimes it is a necessity in order to keep things on the right track or make results that otherwise wouldnt be possible.
Quote from: James BuchananIf a character is hit where they have no armour. TO reduces damage to a minimum of 1.
This means, you might be the most hard ever, but if you keep getting hit, then you are going to die a death of a million cuts.
yeah. I like that! Simple, no dice and no invulnerability.
When you _are_ armored, do you subtract AV and then treat as unarmored, or use the rules as written (e.g. should 7 net successes against plate be enough to cause a level 1 wound regardless of TO ?)
...on the other hand, a strong greatsworder may still inflict level 5 wounds without even aiming (1 dice attacks and such). But as I guess noone dares go in melee with a low-toughness character anyway, that may not be a problem.
Quote from: Fleinhoymany of the oponents we faced were also very hard indeed.
Now to the important part: as the GM it is part of your job to fudge the dice!
This is in many ways the core of the matter. It doesn't really matter if your character has a TO of 8 or 4. The seneshal should provide a challenging campaign. Hi TO characters can be challanged by other high TO characters or multiple opponents or non combat situations that have nothing to do with TO. Having a starting character with 3 A priorities isn't that powerful...if the opponents also have 3 A priorities...
I've played a high TO character for a while. His lack of social graces (Soc 2) have caused more problems than a high TO alone generally will get him out of. Piss off the local knight and town and have 100 armed peasants chasing after you...a stint in the slave pits...being too stupid to figure out how to bribe the guards etc....
BEsides some bigass gol captain can always squash your head...NT
O yea, I forgot to mention that: in the socially complex world of WFRP this fellow's horrible Fellowsgip (Equivalent to Soc) stat gave him more trouble than his extreme physical stats could ever pull him out of.... hehe!
QuoteHi TO characters can be challanged by other high TO characters or multiple opponents
This is not a good solution IMO regarding toughness. What you are saying is to make the opposition toougher, which IMO hurts the "suepenion of disbelief". For example:
There are normaly two guards at the gate, toughness of 4. Because "tuff guy 8" is playing, the toughness on these guards increases to 6. Of course, this also hurts the other PC's, who may not have as high of a toughness, unless the guards who fight the other PC's always have toughness 4, while tuff guys opponents always have toughness of 6.
It is a very contrived feeling, reminds me of old D&D type "dungeons", where all opponents are geared to the toughness of the party and you need to be a certain level to expect to live.
Quote from: TurinThis is not a good solution IMO regarding toughness. What you are saying is to make the opposition toougher, which IMO hurts the "suepenion of disbelief". .....................
It is a very contrived feeling, reminds me of old D&D type "dungeons", where all opponents are geared to the toughness of the party and you need to be a certain level to expect to live.
My only point is really that the GM should be able to work to the strengths and weaknesses of the group or individual. If your opponents don't get harder what's the point? Then it all becomes too easy like having 400 hp and being indestructible. That is not to say that EVERY guard should become a total tough guy, but the challenges that at group or individual faces should be tailored by the GM to, well, challenge the players...otherwise it's boring. The challenge could be physical (TO8 bad guy who you have to fight) or mental (MA* bad guy who you have to out think). It's not that difficult to put the TO 8 guy in a position where TO does do him any good.
If you don't like high TO, just limit it to 6 or some thing.
QuoteIf your opponents don't get harder what's the point? Then it all becomes too easy like having 400 hp and being indestructible
This is really two seperate issues. Toughness can be an initial trait, not always one that was improved through experience to get to a high value. It could have been there initially. There can be varying degrees of toughness, true. But the system as is provides far too much variability in the toughness of a human, as well as in the srength of a human. It would be to boring for everyone to have a 2-4 toughness and strength, so it should be broken up un more on a 1/3 scale, where strength of 5 means you do an extra IL 4 out of 6 on a die roll, 6 means you do an extra 1 IL, 7 means you do an extra 1 IL and 2IL's on a roll of 1-2 on D6. The same thing should be done with toughness.
In regards to challenging PC's with better and better opponents, the problem is that high toughness, especially when combine with high CP and good armour, make you invulnerable. If you refrain from making PC's invulnerable to all but similar skill/equipped PC's, then there is a chance of death on almost any adventure. Sure, the skilled PC's will be less likely to see death, but if you keep the system to where an human can die at any given time by the hand of any opponent, you do not need to always make bigger and badder opponents.
Lastly - I like the idea of a minimum 1IL if hit in an unarmoured area regardless of toughness. I would extend this to if armour is defeated, a minimum of IL is received.
For example - toughness 6 guy is hit on an area covered by mail. the striking weapon does 8 points, indluding weapon mod, strength, sucess. Since the armour was defeated (8-4=4) but to appreciable wound was caused (8-10<0), the recepient still takes 1IL, since the armour was penetrated/defeated.
Quote from: Turin
Lastly - I like the idea of a minimum 1IL if hit in an unarmoured area regardless of toughness. I would extend this to if armour is defeated, a minimum of IL is received.
For example - toughness 6 guy is hit on an area covered by mail. the striking weapon does 8 points, indluding weapon mod, strength, sucess. Since the armour was defeated (8-4=4) but to appreciable wound was caused (8-10<0), the recepient still takes 1IL, since the armour was penetrated/defeated.
I think most of us agree that the TO/ST/Damage thing is a bit broken.
My approach has been to just let TO eliminate ST but not do anything more. That way one can have a high TO that helps with falls, or big gol or, opponents with high ST, but it doesn't make one invulnerable. It just offsets any TO advantage. It's also very easy.
I'm not against the approach of at least 1IL for unarmored opponents. It makes a lot of sense, especially for cutting or puncture weapons. I'd probably require a higher damage vs armor, say at least a 2 or 3 point wound in the absence of armor.
If I were to completely rewrite the rules, I'd probably drop TO and make it Size (SZ). I would derive damage as (ST+SZ)/2 and as TO as (HT+SZ)/2 (a RuneQuest approach). I might then change some of the pain modifiers under the damage tables so that WP becomes more important in resisting CP loss due to pain. That way a high WP character could be damaged easily enough and start bleeding but not lose CP immediately. He would appear to be "tough". High HT would be important for resisting blood loss. TO and Dam would be some what more limited because they would combine a total of 3 stats making it harder to start out as a complete menace to society...
But at present, just letting TO drop any ST advantage to 0 is pretty easy.
Although, not only toughness is off IMO, but so is the damage for strength, as well as some weapons. Long weapons obviously do some additional damage, but their advantage is as much or more reach as it is damage (though TROS represents the reach factor as well or better than any RPG I have seen). But a +3 weapon does a level 4 wound (pretty well incapacitated), when a thrust dagger does a 1IL wound, a very light wound.
This is one reason I like the scaled effectiveness (about 1/3 ratio) for toughness, strength, weapons damage. Another way to correct this along with some use of scaled strength/toughness would be more common results like the belly thrust result that is the same amount of CP loss regardless of the Impact.
I like the Size idea, pretty well along what I was thinking. Though I think I would include strength in the toughness factor as well.
Though strength should be used in the game to help CP, for the following reason. The stronger the blow, the more difficult to block, and the more the block can knock you off balance. I think reanactments and sparring have made it appear that strength is not as important in getting through a defence and hitting someone, as it is tournament style withuout an attempt to kill or maim, similar to how tournament shoto-kan differs from real life applications.
Although probably more realistic than having strength effect CP (although more time consuming) would be to make a difference in strength effect the TN's of certain manuvers.
Quote from: Turin
This is one reason I like the scaled effectiveness (about 1/3 ratio) for toughness, strength, weapons damage. Another way to correct this along with some use of scaled strength/toughness would be more common results like the belly thrust result that is the same amount of CP loss regardless of the Impact.
Sure. You could easily change the denominator to 3 instead of 2 or what ever.
Quote from: Turin
I like the Size idea, pretty well along what I was thinking. Though I think I would include strength in the toughness factor as well.
That certainly makes sense. The only reason not to do that would be to prevent one stat from becoming too powerful. But it is certainly logical that more muscular characters would have higher TO.
Quote from: Turin
Though strength should be used in the game to help CP, for the following reason. The stronger the blow, the more difficult to block, and the more the block can knock you off balance.
Although probably more realistic than having strength effect CP (although more time consuming) would be to make a difference in strength effect the TN's of certain manuvers.
This makes sense too. At various time when I've kicked around ideas for writing games (never really tried though), I've often thought of giving characters two approaches to fighting. One would be ST based and the other AG based. Additionally certain weapons would be more useful with certain types of attacks vs others.
In TROS lingo, you would leave Reflex as it is but call it WtReflex. Then, you would create a similar score for strength based attacks where StReflex = (ST+AG)/2. Weapons could have different DTNs for each type of attack. A rapier would stay the same for Reflex attacks but have higher ATN/DTNs for ST based attacks because it is more of a finesse weapon. War hammers and other mass weapons would have lower ATNs for ST based attacks because there isn't that much finesse in smashing some one over the head with a hammer...
But all that seem to get a bit complicated....
QuoteIn TROS lingo, you would leave Reflex as it is but call it WtReflex. Then, you would create a similar score for strength based attacks where StReflex = (ST+AG)/2. Weapons could have different DTNs for each type of attack. A rapier would stay the same for Reflex attacks but have higher ATN/DTNs for ST based attacks because it is more of a finesse weapon.
My thought would be with a parry for instance, the TN is increased by every 2 points os strength less than the opponent, or decreased for every 2 points stronger.
This isn't an exact playtested rule, more of an idea. Though some of the manuvers would be immune to this (like evasion), and others would not. It would have to be thought through carefully though, so that a strength advantage does not make some manuvers too effective and others useless, thereby limiting the combat option that is one of my favorite parts of TROS. However, the only effective option against something the size and strength of a troll for instance might be an evade, maybe an occasional different manuver (read - low risk manuver!) here and there to keep it off balance.
Quote from: Turin
My thought would be with a parry for instance, the TN is increased by every 2 points os strength less than the opponent, or decreased for every 2 points stronger.
.....the only effective option against something the size and strength of a troll for instance might be an evade, maybe an occasional different manuver (read - low risk manuver!) here and there to keep it off balance.
That is a nice, simple solution. It makes ST useful for scoring a hit or blocking/parrying a blow, but no overwhelming. TFOB...?
You might let it affect evade too but will a larger difference like 3 or 4 points of strength. Strength will affect how quickly one can swing a weapon (like bat speed in baseball). The faster some one can swing, the harder it would be to get out of the way...
NT