toughness too useful

[Lance D. Allen]

I wouldn't up the average NPCs, but I would up the main NPCs. The average NPCs, a.k.a. mooks, are generally just there to provide a body count. Conan certainly didn't have any harder a time mowing down the nameless bad guys as he got tougher. But a nemesis should grow stronger, tougher and wiser as the player character does.

[Jake Norwood]

Remember also that part of the purpose of TO is to represent mean critter's innate armor, since TO an AV work the same way. It's one less stat to deal with when fighting a Hef, and makes them truly frightening. Keep human TO around 6 or less in your games, maybe up to 8 in very special circumstances, and keep the really high numbers for the critters.

jake

[toli]

I agree with Wolfen.  It is also what I meant more or less.  Your average guard shouldn't get any better but the nemesis NPC should always present a challenge to the PCs in some form or another--either in combat or some strategic non-combat way.  Otherwise it just becomes a boring hackfest.

A TO of 8 might make you a great warrior, but it also forces you to limit other attributes.  That big warrior might be constantly outwitted by the quick, fast thinking thief or whatever.....

NT

[arxhon]

Is there a maximum value for TO for humans at all? Besides 10, i mean.

[Brian Leybourne]

Is there a maximum value for TO for humans at all? Besides 10, i mean.

Not in the book, but if you do a search through the old forum messages (I think the thread may be in the "check here first" sticky, actually) you'll find that we've discussed this before and we came to the consensus that 7 was the human limit.

Not "official" but as official as you're likely to get, other than the 10 in the book.

Brian.

[ruusu]

I have no problem with relatively high TO scores. Sure TO is useful, but it is mostly ever used in combat situations. If a character really wants to be tough, he or she will also need EN and HT - the stats used in conjunction with skills and such. Just emphasize the usefulness of the other two physical health/toughness stats outside combat (and in combat, as well - fatigue works nicely) and the problem should solve itself. After the TO 7 character catches a flu or something because of HT 3, the player is going to notice.

Not that any of my players did go overboard with TO - the highest TO is 6, I think, and the character is big hulking barbarian fellow.

Ruusu

[PAD the MAD]

Hi again,

The TO 8 character in my game is described by her player as 'Big Buff Buffy' !

Just thought I'd share that thought provoking comment...

Yes, she did have to sacrifice other stats, but the player enjoys playing a none too bright, socially inept warrior type. What's funny is that she is next in line to a noble title (I let her take it as one level below nobility as she has a Destiny to NOT rule her hometown in Stahl...) and so is likely to get herself roped into the fight against Gelure by another PC who is a Farrenshire knight.

Should be fun anyway.

[Irmo]

I personally have two things that irk me about toughness: I don't think toughness should be similar to beast armor as Jake describes, because the way beast hide works is different from how toughness can work in a human. A thick, leathery hide DOES make it harder to cut through and reach muscle. But toughness hardly indicates a human's skin is thicker.

Second, I don't see how toughness reduces damage rather than how the damage is experienced by the individual -should a tough guy really fully ignore an attack that would have lobbed the arm off anyone else? Or should his arm be off anyway, but he wouldn't be lying on the ground screaming like a pig led to the slaughter? I can see people shrugging off attacks that cause surface wounds, but I don't see any intrinsic attribute in a person helping to prevent man-cleaver attacks. If someone has five excess successes with a great axe, it should mean something...

So I think some difference in how toughness and armor work would make sense, and I'd suggest making high toughness (together with health) size-dependent. Succeeding in an attack that can cleave a leg-sized peace of meat off a man should do just that, but a human leg-sized peace of meat has much less relevance for a blue whale...

Anyway, just brainstorming...

[Lance D. Allen]

Hi,

I'd like to chime in again with my personal theory of TO..

Toughness is more than physical beefiness, IMO. It's also an instinctive knowledge on how to move, tense, relax, or whatever to decrease the effect of the blow. It's the instant when you know it's going to hit, and your body just reacts to lessen the impact. You roll with the punch, letting much of the force be absorbed by the movement of your body. You tense just right, allowing an oblique angled cut to skip rather than catch and cut deeply into your body. You relax, and simply let the force move you, rather than fully impact. In some cases, you might even lean into the strike, causing it to hit with a portion of the weapon that has less momentum and leverage.

A piece of paper probably has a TO of 0, yet if you toss it into the air, you won't manage to cut it in half with a greatsword (maybe a razor sharp katana, but nothing much duller).  because it gives, rather than resisting.

Likewise with falling. A tough individual has learned how to take all sorts of impact, including that of his body to the ground.

This is my opinion, take it for what it's worth. But I personally believe TO is fine exactly as it's written in the book, though I'll admit it's damned inconvenient at times.

[Mokkurkalfe]

Well, that makes some sense. Especially it makes it more logical that you can improve your toughness. Now I only have to learn *not* to say "You hit him squarely in the neck" after a MOS of five only to follow with "and barely scratches him".

[Nick the Nevermet]

TROS combat is about meaningful combat; climactic, violent, terrible scenes that serve as watersheds for the story.  I think Ron described TROS as having the premise, "what would you kill for?"  And I think Jake used the terminology 'blood opera' once.  In this view, how you are good is at least as important as how good are you.  And in either case, why are you fighting is even more key.

Lets say you have a PC running around with a 9 TO.  Congratulations, my boy, on the relative scale of TROS, you are nigh invunerable.  What exactly does that mean, though?

Well... it means you're hard to kill.  That's about it.  It doesn't mean you can efficiently kill your enemies, or run them down if they choose to run.  It certainly doesn't help you if challenge a guy to a duel, and he accepts & states the duel is to first touch (as opposed to death or 1st blood).  If your job is to keep some innocent from being killed, there's plenty of opportunity for your high TO to be just plain tragic.

Then there is the bizarre reputation a guy with a high TO would have.  Duelists who value skill would sneer at him, and rough-and-tumble types would constantly be challenging him.  The point here is that a high TO character, just like any other character with an exceptional skill or trait, will eventually get a repuation that (s)he will need to deal with.  If a player wants to min/max, this is not a trouble-free route.  However, a high TO character could be fun to play, as long as everyone is on the same page about what he is.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

toughness 8 is no more powerful than the pict with agility 8 and sneak at sr3. every stat can be wicked. Strength 8 makes toughness 8 irrelevant in combat while perception 8 makes a nasty archer who can kill toughness 8 with but a few longbow successes.

[Sneaky Git]

toughness 8 is no more powerful than the pict with agility 8 and sneak at sr3. every stat can be wicked. Strength 8 makes toughness 8 irrelevant in combat while perception 8 makes a nasty archer who can kill toughness 8 with but a few longbow successes.

Exactly.

The point here is that a high TO character, just like any other character with an exceptional skill or trait, will eventually get a repuation that (s)he will need to deal with.  If a player wants to min/max, this is not a trouble-free route.  However, a high TO character could be fun to play, as long as everyone is on the same page about what he is.

I like this.  There is a price for everything.  You can have that over-the-top attribute (I cap humans at 7, before any bonuses), but it will draw attention.  And perhaps not the most friendly kind.

As far as combat goes...sure, you may be hard to kill with a melee weapon in a stand-up fight, but, isn't that why I would find another means of ending your life?  Poison?  A knife in the eye (or behind the ear) while you sleep?  Or, how about killing your family...slowly?  Or, there's always the chaps with sharp and pointy arrows.

Point is this: a high TO might have a pleasant upside, but the downside can be downright nasty without having to powerup the bad guys.  Just make them smart and ruthless.

[toli]

Hi,


Toughness is more than physical beefiness, IMO. It's also an instinctive knowledge on how to move, tense, relax, or whatever to decrease the effect of the blow.

I agree entirely and this is how I've always interpreted TO.  I also think you can interpret it as a TO fighter being less likely to get "set up" for the kill.  Perhaps he is harder to push around or isn't worried about minor cuts and bruises so doesn't get move "out of position" too easily.

NT

[Irmo]

Hi,

I'd like to chime in again with my personal theory of TO..

Toughness is more than physical beefiness, IMO. It's also an instinctive knowledge on how to move, tense, relax, or whatever to decrease the effect of the blow. It's the instant when you know it's going to hit, and your body just reacts to lessen the impact. You roll with the punch, letting much of the force be absorbed by the movement of your body. You tense just right, allowing an oblique angled cut to skip rather than catch and cut deeply into your body. You relax, and simply let the force move you, rather than fully impact. In some cases, you might even lean into the strike, causing it to hit with a portion of the weapon that has less momentum and leverage.

That, on the other hand, would make toughness dependent at least partially on awareness of the attack, which would again be a bit incompatible with the 'beast armor' type.