*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2019, 01:38:18 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 158 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Print
Author Topic: "naked Dwarf" syndrome and a posible fix  (Read 19885 times)
Turin
Member

Posts: 105


« Reply #60 on: June 26, 2004, 10:30:37 AM »

Quote
If 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.
Logged
toli
Member

Posts: 313


« Reply #61 on: June 28, 2004, 08:30:43 AM »

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.
Logged

NT
Turin
Member

Posts: 105


« Reply #62 on: June 28, 2004, 04:14:12 PM »

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.
Logged
toli
Member

Posts: 313


« Reply #63 on: June 29, 2004, 08:41:57 AM »

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....
Logged

NT
Turin
Member

Posts: 105


« Reply #64 on: June 29, 2004, 10:05:36 AM »

Quote
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.


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.
Logged
toli
Member

Posts: 313


« Reply #65 on: June 29, 2004, 10:58:01 AM »

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
Logged

NT
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!