"naked Dwarf" syndrome and a posible fix

[Edge]

hmm fair enough :)
yeah that makes sense... does it still make you look tough?  :)

[Dain]

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.

[Edge]

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 :)

[Dain]

...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.

[Lance D. Allen]

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.

[Dain]

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!

[Tash]

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!) :)

[Dain]

<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.

[Turin]

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.

[bergh]

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

[ZenDog]

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.

[Turin]

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!!!

[ZenDog]

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.

well small or average, what I mean is you don't have to be huge hulking brute to be tough

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

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.

[Tom]

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]

[bergh]

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