Post by Mhegrrrim Skulltosser on Jun 2, 2007 12:51:26 GMT -5
I remember at one point, the group had agreed to look at the STR attribute differently for Rogues and Wizards. It was still used to power Spells but did not give any combat adds and was divided by 4 when making any physical saving rolls for these character types.
Really???!? I am glad I never heard of that suggestion.
I accepted high STR for spell casters when I realized that the high STR could be the result of magic. The effect gave a vampire like STR to spell casters. No one suspected Dracula had great strength by looking at him, but the vampire could toss people around like dolls. I started viewing T&T spell casters the same way.
Of course I was one of the louder proponents of WIZ, but that was only for dealing with my wizard fairies. I would have been equally happy with certain magical kindreds using LK to fuel their spells. (i.e. Leprechauns and Fairies)
Still WIZ allows characters to avoid nasty effects of spells. Better than carrying meteoric metal around!
I like 5E best as well. I suppose that using KREMM in place of STRENGTH is a nice idea so that you don't end up with Wizards who can bench press a pickup truck
Vin, let me tell you how I fixed that little problem in my own games... if you find it appealing, please use it (and spread the word!).
I have Strength and Weight Possible separate but linked. 0 Level and 1st Level Characters begin with Strength and Weight Possible at the same level. (In case it's not obvious, Weight Possible is expressed as an attribute rating here). This means there is no need to change anything for first level characters, or NPCs they meet.
When characters "level up," options A and G, which affect Strength, do not affect Weight Possible. The only way to affect Weight Possible is with option H: Add 1/2 the new level number to Strength and 1/2 the new level number to Weight Possible. Note that there is no option to increase Weight Possible by itself; it must always be increased in conjunction with Strength, or not at all. (This is because Weight Possible isn't a prime attribute, but more along the lines of a secondary attribute; the only way to increase it is through its "link" attribute of Strength).
Since Weight Possible is linked to Strength, spells and effects that modify Strength, e.g. Double Double, will affect Weight Possible. Or, put another way, spells that change how strong you are will change how much you can lift and carry.
(I currently have no spells that affect "inner-strength" exclusively, although I guess there's no reason why you couldn't, if you wanted to. You cannot affect Weight Possible exclusively, however, for the reason detailed in the next paragraph).
Weight Possible measures potential, not actual. As a result, if magic or other fatigue lowers Strength, the character can lift and carry their Strength rating in weight, or their Weight Possible rating in weight, whichever is less.
Note that this rule does not apply to Strength Required to wield a weapon or to wear armor, where it is assumed that inner strength and holding back fatigue is as important as muscles.
If you want to control physical strength in combat, add this additional part: Since Warriors are trained in focused combat, they receive any and all Strength adds they are entitled to (as do Warrior-Wizards). All others only use their actual muscle in combat, and as a result only get combat adds for their Strength rating or Weight Possible rating, whichever is less (this will never affect 0- or 1st-level characters, as the ratings are equal at these levels).
(Note: I add the above as an "option" because in Sorcerer's Apprentice the concept of Strength as "inner power" was discussed, and the SA team (Stackpole, I believe) stated that Wizards should get all Strength adds they are entitled to, even if you are using Strength to indicate inner power. To me, that's just wrong, but I feel that in the interest of full disclosure, it should be mentioned).
Lest this seems too confusing, here's how it works in play (and trust me guys... it works, and has for about twenty years now):
*Merlyn the Mage starts with ST: 12 and therefore WP: 12. This means he can lift 120 lbs, and carry 60 lbs before becoming encumbered.
At second level, he wants to increase his Strength so he can cast more spells. Because he also wants to be stronger, he chooses option H. *He now has ST: 13 and WP: 13 (Lift 130, Carry 65), and one Strength Combat Add. (To see what happens if option A is chosen, keep reading).
At third level, he had to increase his IQ so he can cast better spells, but at fourth level he once again is able to raise his Strength. The choice is his; Raise both parts of Strength and have a rating of St: 15 and WP: 15 (option H), or just add all the points to Strength (option A). Wanting more spell power, and figuring 130 lb deadlift isn't bad for a Wizard, he chooses option A. *He now has ST: 17 and WP: 13. Because he is a Wizard and is not trained in combat arts, he still only gets 1 combat add.
If Merlyn casts a spell costing 6 points of Strength (after staff and/or proficiency), his Strength drops to 11. Because this is less than his WP, he can only lift 110 lbs, and carry 55 lbs before being encumbered. This will last for another 20 minutes (assuming he isn't in combat) and then his Strength will have rebuilt to 13, which is equal to his WP, so he can carry and move like he always does. Four full turns later, his Strength will be back to it's full rating, but he still can only lift and carry as his WP.
Notes: *If Merlyn had been a Warrior, he'd have 5 combat adds rather than 1. Note also that now that Merlyn has chosen to increase Strength independently of Weight Possible (which is really just muscle power), he can never get them equal again. There is no option to increase just Weight Possible; it can only be increased through its "link" attribute. *Magic that affects Strength affects Weight Possible. I tend to show this as a "plus" or "multiplier" next to the attributes, rather than change them on the character sheet. Thus, if someone casts a Double-Double on Merlyn (when he was at full strength), he'd have ST: 34 and WP: 26 for the first half of the spell, then ST: 8 and WP: 6 for the second half. Along the same lines, if he found a magic ring that gave +5 Strength points, he'd gain +5 Weight Possible as well. (Although, for simplicity, my character sheet just keeps the normal ratings and says x2, x1/2, or +5 off to the side).
As characters continue to grow and "level up" they continue to increase Strength over Strength/Weight Possible (especially Wizards, who don't really need the muscle power as much as they need inner-strength anyway), and you'll eventually see characters with Strengths of 30-40+, but Weight Possible of only 17-24.
This may still seem overly complex when written, but it's not complex at all; please try it out before making any decision of it's worthiness. In gameplay, it is not only simple, but also logical.
Oh and Fenris, seems all straight forward, but not a rule i will be using. I quite like the idea of Gnomes with weapons as large as themselves, and fairies carrying unfeasibly large amounts of gold. I guess my group is approaching T&T with a hint of Python after many dark, serious games of RQ & MERP.
I guess my group is approaching T&T with a hint of Python after many dark, serious games of RQ & MERP.
If the board could speak with one tongue, I suspect you would have spoken for it with that sentence. T&T, probably because of it's spell names mostly, seems to be preferred for a more light-hearted, almost goofy style of gaming. My own preference for T&T is based more on familiarity and simplicity, and the ability to be GM-driven (I like that there are no "fixed" difficulties, for example, and usually determine difficulties on the fly, based on my familiarity with the game... the system has become "second-nature" and I can adjudicate situations easily, quickly, and fairly).
However, my own worlds tend to be rather dark and serious... I eschew light-hearted fantasy for more darker, grimmer fare. This is one reason why you don't normally see Elves (the other white meat) and Dwarves, etc., in my games. They've become practically synonymous with more light-hearted gaming, if not out-and-out "geek" silliness. My own gaming borders on the genre sometimes defined nowdays as "survival horror." Make no mistake, the PCs will survive, I'll make sure of it... but they'll never be quite the same ever again.
On some other boards they call it a "take no prisoners" style of gaming. I prefer to call it a "take prisoners" style of gaming. No one dies, as long as it's still possible to ratchet a scream from them.
(I assume everyone here is familiar with Kulan Gath from the 80's Conan/Red Sonja comics? That's just about what my PCs have to deal with on a regular basis, but Kulan is too nice for my game worlds... I have much meaner foes for my players.)
Sounds very cool. I do like dark , bleak campaigns from which the small, rare rays of hope light up the surrounding darkness. One of my favourites was a 1920's reservoir dogs meets call of cthulu campaign - now that was dark, a heist goes hideously wrong. And your violent amoral companions are your only hope against a gathering evil.
But a place for everything Nice that t&t is flexible enough for almost anything.
One of my favourites was a 1920's reservoir dogs meets call of cthulu campaign
Since I enjoy Conan-style gaming so much, I do try to incorporate Call of Cthulu style horror when possible... unfortunately, nowdays it seems like CoC = "tentacle horror" and "tentacle horror" = hentai... which tends to spin off into it's own form of silliness.
There comes a point where you either have to move on, or just buy yourself a Klingon costume and "go with it." --Xander Harris
Umm... I don't actively involve myself too much with Hentai, sorry. That's why I don't usually put too much Cthulu into my RPGs... it sometimes causes the game to devolve into Hentai, which I don't like in my games... I have to rein everybody back in.
You can read a little bit about Hentai here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hentai, if you're really curious, but it's not for the squeamish or easily embarrassed.
EDIT: While skimming through the entry, I noticed there is a link to another Wikipedia entry on "tentacles" directly, but good taste (and probably Forum Board Code of Conduct) prohibits me from putting it here... you'll find the link in the above entry about half down; the last entry/link under "classifications."
Y'know, this is probably one of the reasons I've become a raving T&T fanboy - the ease with which one can cheerfully yoink rules out of other editions for use with their favorite (try THAT with That Other Game!).
I've been sticking with solos right now, and the dice rolling/character tracking software I'm using is all from 5th edition, with the occasional 7th Ed. filip. So I'm pretty much using 5th Ed. rules, plus Spite damage, 5th Ed. MR rules, TARO during chargen, no talents, Wiz-Wars instead of Paragons, 5th Ed. level/AP rules, and I'm considering yoinking the missle rules out of 4th Ed. for simplicity's sake (though the rules in Hobbit Hole #8 were pretty nice, actually).
"You may ruefully note my lack of respect for the inherent solemnity of the proper exercise of the craft; I cannot even plead ignorance, for I know better." -- wisdom from the sadly defunct blog Huge Ruined Pile
It's true...I can't think of any other system that would be robust enough to survive this much tinkering. Check out Tunnels &Trolls Superheroes sometime(it's at "that company") and see how much range this game has!
Sig Under Construction...please reduce surfing speed.
Post by castiglione on Mar 26, 2008 17:31:52 GMT -5
The 5th edition rules were very succinct and clear and it was also the first version I bought and played. However, the earlier editions do have their charm, especially when you note the evolution that T & T went through while the core mechanism (combat and SR's) pretty much stayed the same.
My only gripe about the 5th edition is that armor tends to sometimes lead to never-ending fights; it's a little ironic because one of the combat examples in the 5th edition actually highlights this problem! A warrior wearing only leather armor (6 hits x 2) is basically a tank! With better armor (and a shield in hand), he's basically impregnable. And this was illustrated in one of the combat examples! However, I think this just adds to the charm of the game. I really doubt Ken St. Andre and Liz Danforth (the editor of the 5th edition) really thought too much about probability distributions and what the chance of two evenly matched warriors doing enough damage to overcome leather armor effectively absorbing 12 hits.
One "fix" I've been pondering is to go back to the 1st edition standard of ablative armor. To adjust things for this, I'd probably double the hits that all armor can take before falling apart and double it again for warriors to account for them being able to wring as much performance out of armor; for shields, I'd probably keep the number of hits they can take the same and make the difference between warriors and non-warriors when using shields being that non-warriors ablate their shields whereas warriors are skilled enough at deflecting blows with shields that their shields absorb rather than ablate. Ablative armor would probably also give warriors something to spend their money on (wizards have to buy spells, as do rogues and warrior-wizards, giving them plenty of stuff to spend their loot on...but warriors...not much...so they just get rich).
As mentioned in a 4th Edition Thread-1st Edition aparrently had Ablative Armor. I haven't seen it, but one of the Tables seems to appear in 4th by mistake. The Advanced Armor Table is the correct one for 4th I think.
Also in 4th-Armor protects a bit less. Weapons are downgraded a bit too, but Armor seems less protective in greater proportion to even the reduced codes.
Sig Under Construction...please reduce surfing speed.