|
Post by lkmjbc3 on Jul 28, 2011 19:44:57 GMT -5
I humbly suggest the following thoughts....
You guys do need to publish a set of advanced/optional rules... I suggest the following strictures...
The rules should be an optional add-on. The should have the following attributes... 1. They should be simple 2. They should be compatible with the existing adventures 3. They should be clear and concise
I see 3 areas to add.
1st. Expand the tactical aspects of combat.
Your posting of Pole Arms, Charges, and Two-Weapon usage are excellent.
I would suggest rules for rear attacks, wounding, and terrain as well. You could also add weapon penetration and critical hit/fumble rules as well.
Finally.... mounted combat!
2nd. Expand the development of Characters...
An expanded skill/talent list with minimums for some would be excellent. Added skill/talents for characters with higher starting Int. would be great. Adding new skill/talents would be great..(Warrior and Veteran come to mind!)
Also, an expansion of Priestly and Thief skills would be great.
3rd. Expand the game system. These would be very optional. For instance... we use 2D10 for rolls rather than 3D6. You could explore a constitution stat for hits and a wisdom stat for perception.
A separate ship combat system should be developed... for LoT&S.
Just some thoughts guys...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Aug 1, 2011 11:59:19 GMT -5
Hey, Joe, thanks for the outstanding, thoughtful comments.
"The rules should be an optional add-on. The should have the following attributes... 1. They should be simple 2. They should be compatible with the existing adventures 3. They should be clear and concise"
You are speaking our language with all of these points, primarily simplicity. Even "advanced" rules can be straightforward and unencumbered by complexity.
"Expand the tactical aspects of combat."
As you noted, we are definitely looking at that. Glad you like the three concepts discussed so far.
Rear attacks is something we discuss. Not sure we want to get back into Melee's "facing" but some kind of flanking bonus, when two characters attack a dude from opposite sides is being tested now. Basically, it is what is said above - if two are attacking from opposing sides of the same figure, the second attacker gets a +2 to hit and the defender cannot use his shield.
Wounding is something we have discussed, but no concensus on. George has been close to many who have been in combat, during and after his days as a SEAL, and the adrenaline rush overcomes a lot of the damage you are taking. Now those are mostly bullet wounds as opposed to being mangled with a battleaxe, but I do think some of the effects of damage in Melee were overstated. So the jury is still out on this one.
Terrain effects on combat have been introduced in several of the adventures, as general subjects at the beginning and in specific encounters. Still, a comprehensive list is not a bad idea.
Critical hits we have been doing this way - a "4" being rolled gets you an extra d6 of damage, a "3" gets an extra 2d6. Not as powerful as triple and double damage, but with the ability to use skill as damage modifier, do you need more? Maybe, and while we all get very lucky sometimes I do not want to get overboard here. Critical fumbles - nothing yet, the old way works but we are talking.
Mounted combat - in the works, not happy with it so far. Haven't spent a lot of time on it, though - in our adntures we tend to dismount the characters rather early on.
Character expansion - a good topic. We do not want to get anywhere near the GURPS-level of options.We need to keep things simple. Always open to suggestions. A few "talents" or advantages" as opposed to skills are a good idea.
Extra stats - this is actually something we have opposed, as it tends to create more sub-systems and veers awau from the simple side of the equaton, for very little gain (if any). One submission along these lines had an extra stat for Fatigue, rather than combining it with ST. While it maybe added some deliniation, I don't think it improved the game play, and it definitely created more math. I know you said these would be optional, but do you feel they would add to the playing experience? I am genuinely interested in your further thoughts on this.
OK, Joe, we truly appreciate the suggestions and the enthusiasm. Thanks for the time to present this. Hopefully, you can see we agree with you on just about all of these points. We are certainly happy to revisit these topics, too, if you feel strongly about one that we do not (ie extra stats).
Thanks, Joe!
Bret
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Nov 29, 2011 20:47:09 GMT -5
I play a lot of Tunnels and Trolls when I don't have the time to push miniatures around a table. For those unfamiliar with the TnT rules, they have 8 stats:
Strength - physical strength Dexterity - manual dexterity/nimbleness Luck - how lucky one is Speed - reaction speed, not necessarily movement Intelligence - self explanatory Charisma - ditto Wizardry - affinity for magic Constitution - ability to take damage/stamina
I particularly like the Wizardry and Constitution statistics and think they, or something like them, could find a home in LAW. Wizardry is the "power supply" for magic, and also indicates one's abiltiy to resist magic.
Constitution allows one to build up a character's damage-taking ability without necessarily "beefing" him up. A low strength, agile character with a profound ability to roll with the punches and take damage can be a difficult opponent, especialy if "called shots" are allowed.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by sgthulka on Mar 12, 2012 11:38:11 GMT -5
Here's a vote for facing. You play on a hex grid anyway, so why not? It's not as if everyone's asking to play without miniatures or counters (at least as far as I know).
The +2 side/+4 rear facing rule is the one that really made TFT a thoughtful game, and the thing I miss most in LAW. Without it formations just aren't that important.
|
|
|
Post by rockprairie on Feb 13, 2013 15:45:15 GMT -5
I am a fan of facing rules and the hex map. Movement and facing added simple strategy to combat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 16:15:18 GMT -5
i never played Melee, Advanced Melee, ITL, TFT or any of that other stuff nor am i very familiar with them, so i'm not steeped in the 'TFT traditions'. hell, i'm not even steeped in D&D traditions. i never knew enough people that would play because of stereo-types, stigmas, and religious beliefs. i know i'm the odd-man-out around here. i'm open to everything in joe's wishlist. as long as each component is written to be optional, i know i'll be happy. i know anything Bret and George come up with will be sensible.
even though i have some house rules up for playing without miiniatures, counters, etc. i would never ever even dream of asking that they be dropped. never have (as far as i remember). if i did, i was a stupid, newbie punk and bret should have slapped me in the face so i'd remember how stupid it was. if i want to play without those things, that's my problem to solve.
if there were some flanking rules or something of that sort, there might actually be some 'tactical' value for me to use the battlemaps. currently, the way my battles play-out, people pair-off and beat the crap out of each other...unless the adventure is written so that (N)PCs are confined to a narrow space, that's how it plays out for me. of course, archers get a few shots before the real hurt begins, but it's just fore-play to the pair-off and melee carnage.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 14, 2013 16:49:26 GMT -5
if i did, i was a stupid, newbie punk and bret should have slapped me in the face so i'd remember how stupid it was. Dude, this DID happen! How could you have forgotten this?!?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 16:56:45 GMT -5
man, i have a terrible memory...and i wasn't raised by soft words. unless you are joking, you must have been too nice and soft with your slap. please tell me you are joking?
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Feb 14, 2013 17:27:15 GMT -5
man, i have a terrible memory...and i wasn't raised by soft words. unless you are joking, you must have been too nice and soft with your slap. please tell me you are joking? Just joking, amigo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 1:25:43 GMT -5
i've been looking over a lot of the original TFT stuff lately. it seems that i like it a lot as some of the little house rules i've played around with mirror the TFT rules but in a simpler 'LAW-ified' sense.
i've become a fan of simplified but full facing where direction is always determined at the end of the movement phase (like TFT) but you have 3 front hexes and 3 'rear' hexes that are +3 DX to hit. 'fuzzy facing' where your facing is undeclared until first attacked just seems really messy to me. whatever facing one prefers, tacking it onto the current rules presents no problems at all and requires no adjustments to other rules. i'm not real fond of the 'engaged' TFT stuff when using the battlemap but my optional rules for combat without the battlemap, miniatures, etc. sort of mirrors it. i think LAW's 'Zone of Control' does a nice job of keeping the 'engagement' spirit of TFT while keeping things simple.
i'm also in agreement, to a large extent, with nukesnipe's desire for 'Wizardry' and 'Constitution'. the Endurance (EN) and Spirit (SP) in my house rules thread mimic those stats very closely.
i look forward to seeing some mounted combat rules/ideas. i'm slowly adapting Barbarian Prince to use LAW mechanics, so mounted combat is something i'm going to have think about eventually. modeling it like 'super' Charging seems to make sense to me at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by bizarrojoe on Feb 25, 2013 13:22:13 GMT -5
I've been reading through Advanced Melee & Wizard, and I'm surprised to see how different some of the spellcasting rules are:
1. Spells use ST instead of Fatigue. Not a big deal, and I like how they are separated out in the LAW rules. 2. Spells are cast with DX , not IQ. This seems like a pretty fundamental shift. I wonder which one is better? 3. Creation spells require ST upkeep. I kind of like this rule. As a GM, this deters a wizard from blowing all his fatigue on a large summons and then sit pretty from behind the front lines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 14:26:02 GMT -5
I've been reading through Advanced Melee & Wizard, and I'm surprised to see how different some of the spellcasting rules are: 1. Spells use ST instead of Fatigue. Not a big deal, and I like how they are separated out in the LAW rules. 2. Spells are cast with DX , not IQ. This seems like a pretty fundamental shift. I wonder which one is better? 3. Creation spells require ST upkeep. I kind of like this rule. As a GM, this deters a wizard from blowing all his fatigue on a large summons and then sit pretty from behind the front lines. I think LAW is an improvement in all these areas. 1. Although spells are powered by Fatigue instead of ST, it's not much more than a namesake. The fatigue-absorbing wizard staff corrects for this. 2. Casting against IQ makes sense to me for the same reasons that spell casting shouldn't use ST. if you use DX, you're motivating a Mage to increase DX. I know a wizard suffered -4 DX when wearing metal armor. I like the idea of having armor adjust IQ when casting spells. 3. I don't like the ST upkeep/energizing.
|
|
|
Post by gbigdan on Jun 27, 2013 19:24:59 GMT -5
When I used to play TFT for many years, we were pretty faithful to the book. Facing was critical and the two back “flanks” gave you a +2 DX and the full rear hex gave you a +4 DX. I loved this because it forced tactical thinking. You often had to plan two moves ahead to try and get you that precious +2 or +4 for your armored turtle who can’t hit the broadside of a barn. If you were engaged, you could “shift” to another hex but had to still remain engaged. If there wasn’t another enemy also attacking, the foe would obviously also shift to keep you in in his front. This created very cool opportunities sometimes for sneaky thief characters or bow users who realized they had a prime target to shoot in the back. Once there was only a single enemy left and they got surrounded, it usually only took 1 round to dispatch them, but isn’t that realistic?
|
|
|
Post by gbigdan on Jun 27, 2013 19:25:29 GMT -5
On mages and DEX, etc.: yep TFT used DEX to cast the spell and this made creating and playing a wiz a LOT more challenging. They had to spread their points around and resulted in a weaker wiz. Oddly, it also made them more dangerous in actual melee combat because they had to have a decent DEX. This never made sense to me. A wiz just should never go into melee if at all possible. I did like the fact that they were rather weak characters and were a challenge to play, but I like now the spells being cast via IQ and having a wiz being a sissy in melee combat. Two things I would include if we’re talking rules: some spells just need a fatigue cost to maintain such as a summon, personal effects such as invisibility, blur, etc. I know this means more math, but it’s more “realistic” in the sense that the wiz must concentrate on empowering or staying in control of the spell etc. It also makes even more sense when the wiz casts via IQ and has a higher STR pool to draw from, otherwise they become a bit too powerful I think. For simplicity it should be s straight 1 fatigue cost per spell maintained per round period.
|
|
|
Post by gbigdan on Jun 27, 2013 19:26:08 GMT -5
We used fumble and criticals for our game. Here’s how it worked: on a 3 during melee it was triple damage, and on a 4 it was double, and on 5 & 6 it was max damage. For magic it was same if it did damage, or for illusions/ summons there be 3 or 2 of them (but the wiz still had to pay STR to maintain each summoned one). It was up to the GM to recognize a spectacular result for other spells or skill checks if the 3 or 4 were rolled etc. The “fumble” occurred on the dreaded 17 or 18, and we would roll again on our own DEX to hit ourselves. If we did, we would roll our weapons damage for a 17 to ourselves (armor still stopped but no shield) on 18 we would take FULL damage (but armor still stopped but no shield). To make things simpler, you could just drop the 5 & 6 rolls. I loved this system because it added that unpredicted randomness that only added to the game. It countered the munchkin min/maxer player who could never factor the crit/fumble variables! I personally lost one of my best characters to a fumble at the end of a battle, but that same character benefitted many times from criticals and I loved it. We would make up stories as to how/ why the fumble happened, etc. and it only added to the game.
|
|