I recently posted a set of guidelines for non-tactical, mapless combat for Felltower. I wanted to get down in one place all of the rules I'd made to supplement the rules in GURPS Basic Set: Characters for my own play. I also wanted to mention the Retreat ruling and the range bands.
All of this, except for the Retreat rules, has been seen in play already.
Before 2020, we played in person. We did mostly mapped combats for anything that was confusing, but also did a lot of mapless combat. All mapless combat used those rules, except that instead of formal range bands I'd just state a reasonable-sounding range based on the map and go from there. Come 2020, though, we had quarantine. We couldn't game together. We swapped first to the Roll20 and then to Foundry based on a Forge server. Suddenly, almost 100% of combats were mapped. Unless it was against a tiny amount of foes - one pudding, two spiders and some swarms, a single giant, etc. - we did everything on the battle map. The fact that we need icons on a map to roll against pushed us even more towards that.
But over the past year or so, I've tried to push here and there for mapless fights when I felt they'd be fast enough and small enough that no one would complain. When I did so, those were the rules I used, except for the "Retreat" ruling and the Reach ruling. I even used Range Bands. I didn't say I was using range bands, but the range penalties I'd offer up were straight from there. No one complained.
It's with that in mind that I decided to push a little more for mapless combat. My players are willing to give it a try. It'll be interesting to see how people react to formal, visible rules for something I ran informally (but almost identically) and with hidden rules determining the rulings.
The goal? More combats resolved in less time. Big set pieces are fun, but 1-2 hour fights for nothing really special just because someone really wants to make sure they clip as many people as possible with their area attack or get a +1 to Parry when they Retreat isn't really worth the cost in gaming time.
Let's see how it goes next week.
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Sunday, April 27, 2025
Thursday, April 17, 2025
Possible Mapless Combat approach for DF Felltower
I'm trying to do more mapless combat in my DF Felltower game, especially because it's hard to get a combat map of every place in Felltower up for the PCs to fight in.
In order to make mapless combat work quickly, but also to avoid player demands to used mapped to not lose out on perceived advantages of their characters, I am thinking of the following rules.
In these rules, the term "narrative reason" is used a few times. Only the GM will decide if there is a narrative reason for an exception to occur.
Melee
Mapless combat will assume that fights are in a rough melee, with multiple combatants able to engage one another more-or-less freely. If narrative reasons dictate it's more of a series of small duels, that will occur instead.
Flanks, Back shots, and Runarounds
These only occur if a GM-ruled narrative reason explains them. Exception: Backstabs work normally, but require the appropriate rolls and situational prerequisites.
Retreat
Each character can Retreat once per turn, unless it is prevented by some GM-ruled narrative reason that prevents it (backed into a corner, especially tight formation, etc.) or rule that disallows it (Grappled, Rooted Feet, took a Maneuver that forbids it, etc.). No actual "movement" takes place.
Range Bands
Characters in melee will be treated as using the Melee ranged band with one another. Characters outside of Melee are at Short range to the Melee, and either Short or Medium to foes also outside of melee depending on the GM-ruled narrative situation.
Movement
It takes a Move or Move and Attack to close from the back ranks into Melee, or from Melee to the back ranks. You can't move "partway" in order to reduce spell penalties; penalties are fixed by range band.
Reach
Weapon reach is essentially a non-factor. You cannot use your longer reach weapon to keep a foe at bay or "step" in order to keep reach. Neither can your opponents. You're just in melee and able to strike at will. Close combat still works as written, for attackers and weapons that require it. Optionally, there can be no Close Combat unless you're grappled, but I'm concerned this creates a big difference between mapped and mapless resolution results for attackers that depend on CC.
I think as an accepted basis of the game, this can work. You can't get flanked. You don't have to worry about "leaving room to Retreat" becuase you just get that bonus once per turn. It should just work, especially for fights that can't be easily mapped. My approach would be to use this by default, and used mapped for cases where it seems like a big potential set-to.
I'll see what my players think of this and try to give it a formal go during our next game.
In order to make mapless combat work quickly, but also to avoid player demands to used mapped to not lose out on perceived advantages of their characters, I am thinking of the following rules.
In these rules, the term "narrative reason" is used a few times. Only the GM will decide if there is a narrative reason for an exception to occur.
Melee
Mapless combat will assume that fights are in a rough melee, with multiple combatants able to engage one another more-or-less freely. If narrative reasons dictate it's more of a series of small duels, that will occur instead.
Flanks, Back shots, and Runarounds
These only occur if a GM-ruled narrative reason explains them. Exception: Backstabs work normally, but require the appropriate rolls and situational prerequisites.
Retreat
Each character can Retreat once per turn, unless it is prevented by some GM-ruled narrative reason that prevents it (backed into a corner, especially tight formation, etc.) or rule that disallows it (Grappled, Rooted Feet, took a Maneuver that forbids it, etc.). No actual "movement" takes place.
Range Bands
Characters in melee will be treated as using the Melee ranged band with one another. Characters outside of Melee are at Short range to the Melee, and either Short or Medium to foes also outside of melee depending on the GM-ruled narrative situation.
Movement
It takes a Move or Move and Attack to close from the back ranks into Melee, or from Melee to the back ranks. You can't move "partway" in order to reduce spell penalties; penalties are fixed by range band.
Reach
Weapon reach is essentially a non-factor. You cannot use your longer reach weapon to keep a foe at bay or "step" in order to keep reach. Neither can your opponents. You're just in melee and able to strike at will. Close combat still works as written, for attackers and weapons that require it. Optionally, there can be no Close Combat unless you're grappled, but I'm concerned this creates a big difference between mapped and mapless resolution results for attackers that depend on CC.
I think as an accepted basis of the game, this can work. You can't get flanked. You don't have to worry about "leaving room to Retreat" becuase you just get that bonus once per turn. It should just work, especially for fights that can't be easily mapped. My approach would be to use this by default, and used mapped for cases where it seems like a big potential set-to.
I'll see what my players think of this and try to give it a formal go during our next game.
Monday, March 31, 2025
Felltower Disads & Point Total clarification - item disadvantages
For DF Felltower, when a magic item gives or has a disadvantage, the PC that wield it/owns it suffers from the disadvantage but their point total is not decreased.
For example, Percy is 318 points and carries Agar's Wand, which is a Weirdness Magnet. Percy suffers the effects of the disadvantage, but does not drop to 303 points in value.
This is done so that PCs do not have a loot requirement (see DF21) that is below a given threshold thanks to have a magic item that has disadvantages. It's purely disadvantageous, and carries no additional benefits.
FWIW, this also applies to disadvantages earned/gained in play that take you below -55 points. The cap of effective point reduction for thresholds is -55, regardless of how or why the additional disadvantages were gained.
For example, Percy is 318 points and carries Agar's Wand, which is a Weirdness Magnet. Percy suffers the effects of the disadvantage, but does not drop to 303 points in value.
This is done so that PCs do not have a loot requirement (see DF21) that is below a given threshold thanks to have a magic item that has disadvantages. It's purely disadvantageous, and carries no additional benefits.
FWIW, this also applies to disadvantages earned/gained in play that take you below -55 points. The cap of effective point reduction for thresholds is -55, regardless of how or why the additional disadvantages were gained.
Monday, March 10, 2025
Rules & Rulings from DF Session 206
Two quick notes from last session.
How does healing, etc. work with the odd downtime?
The PCs didn't go through a gate, but a lot of time elapsed. In game, the PCs finished their delve December 12th/13th, and we finished the session March 9th. Healing - and weapon and armor repair - dates from that time. No one sits around not healing. Fixing gear is the same to me as healing.
Enchantments and special orders, though, happen from 3/9/25. It's a sanity-saving device where I can date from my actual emails and notes when something was ordered. Letting people back-order means I have to be stricter with travel time, rest time, etc. and it rewards people who count the days and buy accordingly. I just don't love that aspect of the game in the first place enough to add more of it on top.
Re-assembling armor
I ruled that re-assembling the suit of mail they'd found was a simple task of lots of time, and the Armoury (Body Armor) skill. Thor will learn it and assemble the suit. Costs are minimal - it probably should be 5%-ish of the cost of a suit - but the container did say it contained everyone for a suit.
The players wanted to know if they could re-assemble the suit into a dwarf-sized suit of mail instead of human, since both are SM 0. No. The armor is fine, and thus exactly tailored to a specific build. You can't just swap pieces. This is mail, so I get the idea that you can just move rings from here to there, and here to there, and so on, but a) I'm not sure that would actually realistically work, b) fine says no, and c) it seems iffy to claim that mail armor is just a square footage that is totally fungible into new shapes. Same with making "adjustments" to a different size - at that point, you're paying a substantial premium to have the armor rebuilt and extra, matching quality/enchantment pieces need to be made. In this case, that's Fine, Elven, and Fortify 3. Not cheap, not by a long shot. Better to just put it on one of the humans that it will already fit.
How does healing, etc. work with the odd downtime?
The PCs didn't go through a gate, but a lot of time elapsed. In game, the PCs finished their delve December 12th/13th, and we finished the session March 9th. Healing - and weapon and armor repair - dates from that time. No one sits around not healing. Fixing gear is the same to me as healing.
Enchantments and special orders, though, happen from 3/9/25. It's a sanity-saving device where I can date from my actual emails and notes when something was ordered. Letting people back-order means I have to be stricter with travel time, rest time, etc. and it rewards people who count the days and buy accordingly. I just don't love that aspect of the game in the first place enough to add more of it on top.
Re-assembling armor
I ruled that re-assembling the suit of mail they'd found was a simple task of lots of time, and the Armoury (Body Armor) skill. Thor will learn it and assemble the suit. Costs are minimal - it probably should be 5%-ish of the cost of a suit - but the container did say it contained everyone for a suit.
The players wanted to know if they could re-assemble the suit into a dwarf-sized suit of mail instead of human, since both are SM 0. No. The armor is fine, and thus exactly tailored to a specific build. You can't just swap pieces. This is mail, so I get the idea that you can just move rings from here to there, and here to there, and so on, but a) I'm not sure that would actually realistically work, b) fine says no, and c) it seems iffy to claim that mail armor is just a square footage that is totally fungible into new shapes. Same with making "adjustments" to a different size - at that point, you're paying a substantial premium to have the armor rebuilt and extra, matching quality/enchantment pieces need to be made. In this case, that's Fine, Elven, and Fortify 3. Not cheap, not by a long shot. Better to just put it on one of the humans that it will already fit.
Thursday, March 6, 2025
Attacking where I think the Vitals should be
One of the many banes of my GMing life is, "I attack where I think the Vitals should be."
Vitals has a lot of upsides for impaling and piercing attacks. A number of PCs in my campaigns - rather a lot of them - have taken Slayer Training for attacks to the vitals. So they have a mere -1 instead of the usual -3 to hit the Vitals.
The problems with "I attack where I think the Vitals should be" are plentiful.
First, it implies that your PC just knows where these things are on beings that they haven't encountered before. Knowing these things is exactly what the rarely-taken, rarely-used Physiology skill is actually for in a Dungeon Fantasy game. DFRPG Adventures, p. 85, says this outright. It's IQ-6 for a default. People don't want to roll that, generally, but just know because their guy is some kind of expert in killing humans in the Vitals. Better aim doesn't imply better knowledge - they're seperately purchased.
You can't easily just tell everyone if you do make the roll, either. If the Wizard has IQ 16 and rolls a 10, hurrah, the Wizard remembers where the Vitals are. Talking is a free action on your turn, but can you explain where to attack in a clear, concise, and easily understood fashion? Maybe. That's a Complimentary Skill roll to give the person you're telling a +1 to their own Physiology roll, in my opinion. Harsh? Maybe. But we are discussing 250 point characters who didn't bother to take a skill that enhances their ability to do the thing they want to do. I don't mind harsh. I'd allow a bonus or even automatic success if there is a clear target - "The horn is its life!" - but that's an exception, not the basic assumption.
"Wouldn't my PC just know?" No, see above. There is a skill that does this.
On top of that, asking - or describing a location and then hoping it just works - is offloading this all onto the GM. I get to decide if you know, if "vitals" on a Distorted Death Brain are in the spot you're describing, and then if it works I need to remember it. All the time there is a skill to do it.
"Can I guess?" Sure. Blind Physiology roll. Go for it.
So that's why I get grumpy when people want to "shoot where I think the vitals should be." There is an in-game, in-rules, easy way to deal with it, and saying that isn't it.
Vitals has a lot of upsides for impaling and piercing attacks. A number of PCs in my campaigns - rather a lot of them - have taken Slayer Training for attacks to the vitals. So they have a mere -1 instead of the usual -3 to hit the Vitals.
The problems with "I attack where I think the Vitals should be" are plentiful.
First, it implies that your PC just knows where these things are on beings that they haven't encountered before. Knowing these things is exactly what the rarely-taken, rarely-used Physiology skill is actually for in a Dungeon Fantasy game. DFRPG Adventures, p. 85, says this outright. It's IQ-6 for a default. People don't want to roll that, generally, but just know because their guy is some kind of expert in killing humans in the Vitals. Better aim doesn't imply better knowledge - they're seperately purchased.
You can't easily just tell everyone if you do make the roll, either. If the Wizard has IQ 16 and rolls a 10, hurrah, the Wizard remembers where the Vitals are. Talking is a free action on your turn, but can you explain where to attack in a clear, concise, and easily understood fashion? Maybe. That's a Complimentary Skill roll to give the person you're telling a +1 to their own Physiology roll, in my opinion. Harsh? Maybe. But we are discussing 250 point characters who didn't bother to take a skill that enhances their ability to do the thing they want to do. I don't mind harsh. I'd allow a bonus or even automatic success if there is a clear target - "The horn is its life!" - but that's an exception, not the basic assumption.
"Wouldn't my PC just know?" No, see above. There is a skill that does this.
On top of that, asking - or describing a location and then hoping it just works - is offloading this all onto the GM. I get to decide if you know, if "vitals" on a Distorted Death Brain are in the spot you're describing, and then if it works I need to remember it. All the time there is a skill to do it.
"Can I guess?" Sure. Blind Physiology roll. Go for it.
So that's why I get grumpy when people want to "shoot where I think the vitals should be." There is an in-game, in-rules, easy way to deal with it, and saying that isn't it.
Tuesday, February 18, 2025
DF Felltower: Tiger Sprint, Haste, and Serenity.
Our current martial artist PC did a lot of running around last session. Questions came up - not relevant at the time - about Tiger Sprint from DFRPG Adventurers, pg. 31.
Here is how we'll deal with it in DF Felltower.
First, although DFRPG doesn't show you under the hood, this is Enhanced Move with a Chi limitation (-10%). Thus, when we need rulings, especially with how it interacts with the non-DFRPG Power-Ups in other, GURPS DF sources, we'll have to go back to how it was built in GURPS before becoming a rules-lite version of itself.
It doesn't affect Basic Speed, Basic Move, or Dodge. It only works when Sprinting - from the second consecutive Move maneuver where you use all of your movement points to travel "along a relatively straight, smooth course" (p. B52).
How does this interact with . . .
Serenity (Pyramid 3/61, p. 12)? This improves DX, which improves Basic Speed, and thus improves Move before multipliers. For reasons mostly due to hating impenetrable defenses, I don't have any plans to allow the optional version of Serenity that affects Basic Speed. My post on the matter has been amended to make that clear.
Sprint Bonuses are a final add, and Tiger Sprint is used instead of the listed bonuses . . . taking the +20% for sprinting (min +1) to +50% and +100%. But DF Felltower doesn't use Sprinting. To be perfectly fair, this should increase the price of Tiger Sprint to 10 and 19, respectively, with a 1-point perk to cover allowing a non-used rule to apply. I won't do that.
Haste? Haste adds to your final numbers. We've been playing with Haste for a while and I have it add to your final numbers. If it adds to your base, then encumbrance should affect it. Have Move 6 and medium encumbrance? That's 6 x 0.6 = Move 3, and you get Haste +2, you're at Move 5 in DF Felltower. If it adds to the base, then it's 6 +2 = 8 x 0.6 = Move 4. No one liked that, so we don't do that. As a result, this also means that things that multiple move multiply your base, and then Haste is added afterward. This includes all similar effects from magic items. Speed elixirs do add to your base, as it specifies increasing Basic Speed, which then affects calculations down the line. So, Haste +2, for example, will add +2 to the final move after multiplying.
Some notes on all of this:
- This will not apply to Move and Attack. DFRPG Exploits, p. 33 is very specific about calling out Move and Move and Attack for how movement works. It then only references Move, not both Move and Move and Attack, under "Three-Minute Miles" and Sprinting on the same page.
I take that as sufficient evidence that you cannot "sprint" and do Move and Attack together.
- You must use all of your movement points for this; if you miss using your full movement points the sprint bonus ends. This may end up with seeming oddities like being able to run 18+ in one second or only half of that, not in between, but it's not unreasonable to have your weird Chi power only work under specific circumstances. If it bothers anyone sufficiently, it's probably better to save your 9 or 18 points and spend it on straight-up and more versatile Speed and Move.
- Although you can technically run in a circle with "forward movement," Exploits and Basic Set also say that when running away you only get a sprint bonus for "A straight, clear course (not twisting tunnels)" so I'll be harsh on attempts to zig-zag to keep speed up or otherwise min-max a sprint bonus.
- Perception rolls at speed will be penalized by your own speed on the Size and Speed/Range Table. It's hard to scout while running full speed.
I'll modify this post if anything changes or additional qualifications or notes need to be added.
These types of posts are fun, but this took a few hours of on and off writing, reading, and cross referencing. That's all for a movement powerup that someone may or may not take, and may or may not use. That's why I don't write as many as I used to back when I worked many less hours per week!
Here is how we'll deal with it in DF Felltower.
First, although DFRPG doesn't show you under the hood, this is Enhanced Move with a Chi limitation (-10%). Thus, when we need rulings, especially with how it interacts with the non-DFRPG Power-Ups in other, GURPS DF sources, we'll have to go back to how it was built in GURPS before becoming a rules-lite version of itself.
It doesn't affect Basic Speed, Basic Move, or Dodge. It only works when Sprinting - from the second consecutive Move maneuver where you use all of your movement points to travel "along a relatively straight, smooth course" (p. B52).
How does this interact with . . .
Serenity (Pyramid 3/61, p. 12)? This improves DX, which improves Basic Speed, and thus improves Move before multipliers. For reasons mostly due to hating impenetrable defenses, I don't have any plans to allow the optional version of Serenity that affects Basic Speed. My post on the matter has been amended to make that clear.
Sprint Bonuses are a final add, and Tiger Sprint is used instead of the listed bonuses . . . taking the +20% for sprinting (min +1) to +50% and +100%. But DF Felltower doesn't use Sprinting. To be perfectly fair, this should increase the price of Tiger Sprint to 10 and 19, respectively, with a 1-point perk to cover allowing a non-used rule to apply. I won't do that.
Haste? Haste adds to your final numbers. We've been playing with Haste for a while and I have it add to your final numbers. If it adds to your base, then encumbrance should affect it. Have Move 6 and medium encumbrance? That's 6 x 0.6 = Move 3, and you get Haste +2, you're at Move 5 in DF Felltower. If it adds to the base, then it's 6 +2 = 8 x 0.6 = Move 4. No one liked that, so we don't do that. As a result, this also means that things that multiple move multiply your base, and then Haste is added afterward. This includes all similar effects from magic items. Speed elixirs do add to your base, as it specifies increasing Basic Speed, which then affects calculations down the line. So, Haste +2, for example, will add +2 to the final move after multiplying.
Some notes on all of this:
- This will not apply to Move and Attack. DFRPG Exploits, p. 33 is very specific about calling out Move and Move and Attack for how movement works. It then only references Move, not both Move and Move and Attack, under "Three-Minute Miles" and Sprinting on the same page.
I take that as sufficient evidence that you cannot "sprint" and do Move and Attack together.
- You must use all of your movement points for this; if you miss using your full movement points the sprint bonus ends. This may end up with seeming oddities like being able to run 18+ in one second or only half of that, not in between, but it's not unreasonable to have your weird Chi power only work under specific circumstances. If it bothers anyone sufficiently, it's probably better to save your 9 or 18 points and spend it on straight-up and more versatile Speed and Move.
- Although you can technically run in a circle with "forward movement," Exploits and Basic Set also say that when running away you only get a sprint bonus for "A straight, clear course (not twisting tunnels)" so I'll be harsh on attempts to zig-zag to keep speed up or otherwise min-max a sprint bonus.
- Perception rolls at speed will be penalized by your own speed on the Size and Speed/Range Table. It's hard to scout while running full speed.
I'll modify this post if anything changes or additional qualifications or notes need to be added.
These types of posts are fun, but this took a few hours of on and off writing, reading, and cross referencing. That's all for a movement powerup that someone may or may not take, and may or may not use. That's why I don't write as many as I used to back when I worked many less hours per week!
Monday, February 10, 2025
Logic behind allowing and disallowing Power Ups in DF Felltower
DF Felltower tries to play like an old-school, early-edition RPG game. It's heavily influenced by AD&D, Rolemaster, and my earlier-edition GURPS games. It is intended - like normal DF - to be a higher-powered version of the same. You sure don't start at "1st level" in DF.
But in any case, GURPS DF isn't quite like the source material. I end up disallowing a lot of potentially potent and/or useful adventures. No chi blasts, no magic bolts, no special kill shots, no special skill at parrying with your bow . . . not even if I wrote the damn ability up in the first place. I know cool, and I know the rules, but I also know DF Felltower isn't a kitchen sink game.
How do I decide?
- Is it basically mundane? If the ability is largely just a souped-up mundane ability . . . it's likely going in. I don't mind more power. I like more power. It allows me to put in more and more powerful foes.
- Is it wiz-bang and video gamey? It's likely staying out. If it allows you to bend reality to pull off some cool move . . . or bypass some core power limitation of the basic rules . . . it's out.
- Does it usurp another template? Does it let you replace another template's core skills? Thieves as combat coordinators, scouts as spellcasters, wizards as missile spell machine guns . . . not for DF Felltower.
- Is it a "must have"? Probably not allowed. If it's the kind of thing that, once allowed, isn't something a template can do without . . . I won't include it. I don't want a splatbook approach where a new power comes along and you must buy it or be permanently relegated to second class in your own field.
That's pretty much how I pick and choose.
And, importantly:
The default answer is no. It needs to be "Hell Yes!" or the answer is no. I don't need a Power Up to argue for exclusion, but for inclusion.
But in any case, GURPS DF isn't quite like the source material. I end up disallowing a lot of potentially potent and/or useful adventures. No chi blasts, no magic bolts, no special kill shots, no special skill at parrying with your bow . . . not even if I wrote the damn ability up in the first place. I know cool, and I know the rules, but I also know DF Felltower isn't a kitchen sink game.
How do I decide?
- Is it basically mundane? If the ability is largely just a souped-up mundane ability . . . it's likely going in. I don't mind more power. I like more power. It allows me to put in more and more powerful foes.
- Is it wiz-bang and video gamey? It's likely staying out. If it allows you to bend reality to pull off some cool move . . . or bypass some core power limitation of the basic rules . . . it's out.
- Does it usurp another template? Does it let you replace another template's core skills? Thieves as combat coordinators, scouts as spellcasters, wizards as missile spell machine guns . . . not for DF Felltower.
- Is it a "must have"? Probably not allowed. If it's the kind of thing that, once allowed, isn't something a template can do without . . . I won't include it. I don't want a splatbook approach where a new power comes along and you must buy it or be permanently relegated to second class in your own field.
That's pretty much how I pick and choose.
And, importantly:
The default answer is no. It needs to be "Hell Yes!" or the answer is no. I don't need a Power Up to argue for exclusion, but for inclusion.
Sunday, February 9, 2025
More Power for Dungeon Warriors & Felltower: Final Availability List (Feb 2025)
The article More Power for Dungeon Warriors in Pyramid 3/61: Way of the Warrior and in Dungeon Fantasy Pyramid Collection has a number of Power-Ups created by Sean Punch and me.
This is a comprehensive list of what is available, and unavailable, for purchase in DF Felltower.
Please note that all purchasing rules still apply - what's available at start-up, prerequisite point investments for combat perks, prerequites, etc. This is only a list of what's available, and doesn't override the rules anywhere else unless explicitly noted below.
Available
Put it in His Eye
Ramming Speed
Retroactive Poisoning (only for Assassins, Druids, Evil Clerics, Thieves, Unholy Warriors)
Sacrificial Block
Third Hand
Willful Warrior
Greater Weapon Bond (Not recommended; this doesn't give any plot protection to your gear; we do not use Signature Gear in DF Felltower.)
Heroic Reserves
Peerless Slayer Training
Two-Weapon Mastery
Ultimate Ramming Speed
All Barbarian Power-Ups (Mountain of Meat, Sure-Footed, Greater Cleaving Strike, Naked Rage)
Both Holy Warrior Power Ups (Emergency Casting, Holy Weapon)
Most Knightly Powers (Bodyguard, Weapon-and-Shield Fighter, but not Tactician)
Most Martial Artist Power-Ups (Fists of Power, Grand Flying Kick, Hundred-Handed Strike, Chain Belt, Inner Alchemy, Mr. Pushy, Master of Lethal Strikes, Rolling Throw, Serenity (DX version, not Speed version), but not Chi Blasts or Unarmed Master, which doesn't play well with DF Felltower's generous unarmed rules)
All Scout Power Ups
All Swashbuckler Power Ups
Unavailable
These abilities are not in use.
Double-Ended Weapon Training
Heroic Sacrifice
Double-Ended Mastery
Interdiction
Killer Hair (for PCs, anyway, it might be a monster ability)
Wizard Hunter
Tactician
Prior discussion on the blog is overruled by mention here.
This is a comprehensive list of what is available, and unavailable, for purchase in DF Felltower.
Please note that all purchasing rules still apply - what's available at start-up, prerequisite point investments for combat perks, prerequites, etc. This is only a list of what's available, and doesn't override the rules anywhere else unless explicitly noted below.
Available
Put it in His Eye
Ramming Speed
Retroactive Poisoning (only for Assassins, Druids, Evil Clerics, Thieves, Unholy Warriors)
Sacrificial Block
Third Hand
Willful Warrior
Greater Weapon Bond (Not recommended; this doesn't give any plot protection to your gear; we do not use Signature Gear in DF Felltower.)
Heroic Reserves
Peerless Slayer Training
Two-Weapon Mastery
Ultimate Ramming Speed
All Barbarian Power-Ups (Mountain of Meat, Sure-Footed, Greater Cleaving Strike, Naked Rage)
Both Holy Warrior Power Ups (Emergency Casting, Holy Weapon)
Most Knightly Powers (Bodyguard, Weapon-and-Shield Fighter, but not Tactician)
Most Martial Artist Power-Ups (Fists of Power, Grand Flying Kick, Hundred-Handed Strike, Chain Belt, Inner Alchemy, Mr. Pushy, Master of Lethal Strikes, Rolling Throw, Serenity (DX version, not Speed version), but not Chi Blasts or Unarmed Master, which doesn't play well with DF Felltower's generous unarmed rules)
All Scout Power Ups
All Swashbuckler Power Ups
Unavailable
These abilities are not in use.
Double-Ended Weapon Training
Heroic Sacrifice
Double-Ended Mastery
Interdiction
Killer Hair (for PCs, anyway, it might be a monster ability)
Wizard Hunter
Tactician
Prior discussion on the blog is overruled by mention here.
Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Rules and Rulings from Session 204
Rules and rulings from DF Session 204.
- At one point Hannari did a Move and Attack - ran up, threw at a cultist from a yard away, and then the cultist's explosive spell went off. He had 1 more movement point, but you can't use ordinary movement points as a Retreat reaction by my ruling. I don't think anything in GURPS supports using "Move" to escape the blast radius of an explosion or effect unless it's specifically a non-instant effect (Shape Earth comes to mind, nothing else does offhand.) Since he'd used Move and Attack he couldn't use Retreat. When a blast went off behind him a split-second later (from a cultist throwing on his turn, a bit further down the move order) he similiarly couldn't use that one last move point to move forward and further away from the blast radius. Someone argued for forward momentum, which might make some logical sense, but again, nothing in the rules allows for it. I don't want to get into the precendent of allowing people to have momentum and prior movement give combat bonuses since GURPS similarly doesn't penalize you for lacking such things. Had he been able to use Retreat, the fact that he'd moved 8 yards in one second in a straight line wouldn't have impeded him, so moving 8 yards in a straight line doesn't aid him, either.
- How do slams and knockdown and knockback interact? My players argued that knockback should occur before knockdown, basically because of the wording for Knockback, where you may fall and that's discussed after. Under Slam, it doesn't say either way, it only says knockdown. I disagree - I think if you do so much damage that you automatically knock someone down, you should get to overrun and trample them. But I did agree to run it the way they want to. I may need to enforce Knockback rules for crushing damage from now on. I generally ignore it because it's more calculations, more rolls, and rarely significant. I think everyone has images of knocking down NPC after NPC after NPC as they pinball off of each other. I doubt it'll ever come to that. I may have to make a ruling to cover situations were this doesn't make sense, and where trampling is the most logical effect. I'll probably have to argue rules again when that comes up, but I think if you can trample, that should be the default effect of a slam, and foes shouldn't be knocked back and away from the trample. Once again, a ruling makes another special case . . . which is why I largely ignored knockback until people wanted it back.
- I basically don't track shield damage unless someone has an attack that can reliably one-shot a shield. It's just too much headache in a VTT. People do ask pretty often, but the answer is pretty much, no, don't bother.
- Someone suggested that it would be cool if your missile spells got larger as you put more dice into it. No, no, no, no, no. No, as the GM, this would not be cool. People would want Per rolls to see how big it was. They'd argue that it should be Per-based or IQ-based Thaumatology and then later argue it should be Observation or Tactics or whatever the heck they're good at because "my guy should be experienced at this." Then they'd want to be able to guess within a die. Then people would want a perk to allow them to have missile spells that don't give away their power by size. Nevermind it makes no sense with Lightning even if makes sort-of sense with Stone Missile. Then people will ask about scaling to SM. This is pure give-a-mouse-a-cookie territory and doesn't add anything to the game except, "Wow, that Stone Missile was 18d, it must have been so big!"
- At one point Hannari did a Move and Attack - ran up, threw at a cultist from a yard away, and then the cultist's explosive spell went off. He had 1 more movement point, but you can't use ordinary movement points as a Retreat reaction by my ruling. I don't think anything in GURPS supports using "Move" to escape the blast radius of an explosion or effect unless it's specifically a non-instant effect (Shape Earth comes to mind, nothing else does offhand.) Since he'd used Move and Attack he couldn't use Retreat. When a blast went off behind him a split-second later (from a cultist throwing on his turn, a bit further down the move order) he similiarly couldn't use that one last move point to move forward and further away from the blast radius. Someone argued for forward momentum, which might make some logical sense, but again, nothing in the rules allows for it. I don't want to get into the precendent of allowing people to have momentum and prior movement give combat bonuses since GURPS similarly doesn't penalize you for lacking such things. Had he been able to use Retreat, the fact that he'd moved 8 yards in one second in a straight line wouldn't have impeded him, so moving 8 yards in a straight line doesn't aid him, either.
- How do slams and knockdown and knockback interact? My players argued that knockback should occur before knockdown, basically because of the wording for Knockback, where you may fall and that's discussed after. Under Slam, it doesn't say either way, it only says knockdown. I disagree - I think if you do so much damage that you automatically knock someone down, you should get to overrun and trample them. But I did agree to run it the way they want to. I may need to enforce Knockback rules for crushing damage from now on. I generally ignore it because it's more calculations, more rolls, and rarely significant. I think everyone has images of knocking down NPC after NPC after NPC as they pinball off of each other. I doubt it'll ever come to that. I may have to make a ruling to cover situations were this doesn't make sense, and where trampling is the most logical effect. I'll probably have to argue rules again when that comes up, but I think if you can trample, that should be the default effect of a slam, and foes shouldn't be knocked back and away from the trample. Once again, a ruling makes another special case . . . which is why I largely ignored knockback until people wanted it back.
- I basically don't track shield damage unless someone has an attack that can reliably one-shot a shield. It's just too much headache in a VTT. People do ask pretty often, but the answer is pretty much, no, don't bother.
- Someone suggested that it would be cool if your missile spells got larger as you put more dice into it. No, no, no, no, no. No, as the GM, this would not be cool. People would want Per rolls to see how big it was. They'd argue that it should be Per-based or IQ-based Thaumatology and then later argue it should be Observation or Tactics or whatever the heck they're good at because "my guy should be experienced at this." Then they'd want to be able to guess within a die. Then people would want a perk to allow them to have missile spells that don't give away their power by size. Nevermind it makes no sense with Lightning even if makes sort-of sense with Stone Missile. Then people will ask about scaling to SM. This is pure give-a-mouse-a-cookie territory and doesn't add anything to the game except, "Wow, that Stone Missile was 18d, it must have been so big!"
Sunday, January 26, 2025
DF Felltower: Why can't you temporarily suppress magic?
Over the course of Felltower, the question of countering magic has come up.
Canonically in GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, there is no way for PCs to temporarily suspend an enchantment. If magic is permanent, the effect remains and is not subject to the relatively simple and easy counters of Dispel Magic and Counterspell. Curse-like effects are often removable with Remove Curse, and you can dispel/counter non-permanent magic.
But it's deliberate that the spell list doesn't include Suspend Enchantment. Because of this, these things are generally true:
Dispel Magic doesn't harm created undead, contructs, or permanent enchantments (wether on items or locations.) It does generally have the potential to end the magic behind spells like Animate Shadow or Animate Object or Create Warrior. Some spells have very specific counters, and thus aren't subject to Dispel Magic - examples include Flesh to Stone and Entombment.
Counterspell can only directly counter spells, not magic effects in general, and are subject to the revised rules we use.
Ward is only useful defensively, and again, only against spells, not enchantments and magical effects that just happen to be possible to create with a spell. Just because you may potentially be able to Ward against Burning Touch doesn't mean all touch-based fire attacks from magical creatures are subject to Ward.
Remove Curse is effective against a special set of spells and effects - they're called out specifically in the descriptions of the individual spells.
Why?
Because enchantments should be special. They should not be subject to a high-skill caster or a good roll to end. Magic-based obstacles should be solved with cleverness or sucking up the effects, not by just spamming out Dispel Magic.
In additional, magical creatures - undead, constructs, mana-dependent beings, etc. - shouldn't be singled out for a special generic damage / save-or-die spell (such as allowing Dispel Magic to damage or outright kill such creatures). And if even some are, that means step one should always be casting Dispel Magic to see if it'll damage or kill such creatures. The spell would go from a way to counter temporary magic to doing that plus potentially killing otherwise potentially problem-causing foes. Don't know what to do with a critter? Start with Dispel Magic.
Therefore I don't even allow it on a critical - the "I rolled a 3, so a miracle occurs!" that is the equivalent of post-1st edition D&D/AD&D's "I rolled a 20." Allowing such would encourage people to just keep trying to same spells over and over and over, hoping/praying for a 3. Once that's possible, generally, people will just try Dispel Magic on everything unti it works. I've seen this with our special rule on Missile Shield that allows a 3 or 4 to penetrate it (if you had an effective 1+ skill in the first place, of course) - people just keep plugging away, hoping for that low roll that will solve the problem without them needing to find a different solution. I like that rule enough to keep it, but allowing it does push people to a thoughtless repetition of a failed tactic until they've rolled a 3 to see if it "really" doesn't work.
With that in mind, players can be sure that only NMZs really mess with their enchanted items, magical creatures won't just take damage from one spell that automatically acts as a damage spell / off button, and that spells designed to counter spells aren't the answer to fantasy problems that aren't instantly amenable to "I hit it really hard in the hit points."
Related:
Revised Dispel Magic (and for people who groan that a 1-hex spell was 3 seconds, 2 with Skill 20, is now 5 seconds, 3 seconds with skill 20, thus making the spell "useless" for combat . . . feel free to not cast it!)
But it's deliberate that the spell list doesn't include Suspend Enchantment. Because of this, these things are generally true:
Dispel Magic doesn't harm created undead, contructs, or permanent enchantments (wether on items or locations.) It does generally have the potential to end the magic behind spells like Animate Shadow or Animate Object or Create Warrior. Some spells have very specific counters, and thus aren't subject to Dispel Magic - examples include Flesh to Stone and Entombment.
Counterspell can only directly counter spells, not magic effects in general, and are subject to the revised rules we use.
Ward is only useful defensively, and again, only against spells, not enchantments and magical effects that just happen to be possible to create with a spell. Just because you may potentially be able to Ward against Burning Touch doesn't mean all touch-based fire attacks from magical creatures are subject to Ward.
Remove Curse is effective against a special set of spells and effects - they're called out specifically in the descriptions of the individual spells.
Why?
Because enchantments should be special. They should not be subject to a high-skill caster or a good roll to end. Magic-based obstacles should be solved with cleverness or sucking up the effects, not by just spamming out Dispel Magic.
In additional, magical creatures - undead, constructs, mana-dependent beings, etc. - shouldn't be singled out for a special generic damage / save-or-die spell (such as allowing Dispel Magic to damage or outright kill such creatures). And if even some are, that means step one should always be casting Dispel Magic to see if it'll damage or kill such creatures. The spell would go from a way to counter temporary magic to doing that plus potentially killing otherwise potentially problem-causing foes. Don't know what to do with a critter? Start with Dispel Magic.
Therefore I don't even allow it on a critical - the "I rolled a 3, so a miracle occurs!" that is the equivalent of post-1st edition D&D/AD&D's "I rolled a 20." Allowing such would encourage people to just keep trying to same spells over and over and over, hoping/praying for a 3. Once that's possible, generally, people will just try Dispel Magic on everything unti it works. I've seen this with our special rule on Missile Shield that allows a 3 or 4 to penetrate it (if you had an effective 1+ skill in the first place, of course) - people just keep plugging away, hoping for that low roll that will solve the problem without them needing to find a different solution. I like that rule enough to keep it, but allowing it does push people to a thoughtless repetition of a failed tactic until they've rolled a 3 to see if it "really" doesn't work.
With that in mind, players can be sure that only NMZs really mess with their enchanted items, magical creatures won't just take damage from one spell that automatically acts as a damage spell / off button, and that spells designed to counter spells aren't the answer to fantasy problems that aren't instantly amenable to "I hit it really hard in the hit points."
Related:
Revised Dispel Magic (and for people who groan that a 1-hex spell was 3 seconds, 2 with Skill 20, is now 5 seconds, 3 seconds with skill 20, thus making the spell "useless" for combat . . . feel free to not cast it!)
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Are we still using . . . (Felltower Rules)
Let's look at some rules we've used in the past but may or may not be using now.
Are we still using Trademark Move?
In a word, no.
It's 1 point for a +1 to a very specific combo. Only a couple of PCs use such a combo, and even then, they vary it up based on circumstances. So it's just easier to say no, we're not using that anymore. I'm not willing to have people pick a "best case" scenario that factors in the +1, pay 1 point for it, and then use it only when it's the best option . . . and then modify it anytime their skill increases, and ignore it whenever they quaff an Agility potion to increase their DX as it's not optimized for the temporary, new DX. I'm not sure it's a great use of 1 point, but it's also a poor use of the rule, and it sure doesn't fit the bargain of speeding up play in return for a bonus.
If I could get my players to agree to fixed feints and fixed Deceptive Attack, I would go for this . . . but they're always proved fairly resistant to the concepts.
Are we still using the Modified Mook Rule?
Yes.
You don't see it quite as often. The PCs generally encounter larger numbers of Worthy foes and less mobs of Fodder. I don't use the Modified Mook Rule for Worthies, so . . . it's in play but doesn't show up as often. And the Modified Mook Rule doesn't apply Mook vs. Mook, so when you have a big brawl of 62-point hirelings vs. 62-point cultists neither side just drops automatically. Those two factors mean it's not as front-and-center as it could be.
Are we still doing No Rule Lookups?
No. Sadly, no.
We look stuff up. Not enough of my players follow this post, so we fairly often get specialty moves used without actual certainty about how those rules work. Through in some "helpful" comments like, "I think a miss by 1 hits torso" or "I don't think we do that" or "Did you remember the -1 for Curse?" or "Can't you use (name totally different move)?" on top and . . . the game stops until we check. I get it when someone literally does a totally new thing we haven't had come up . . . but it comes up for always-used things like Evasion and grappling and weapons Getting Stuck, too.
So, in theory I'd like to get back to this but 9/10 times my players recollection of how the rule works isn't complete, generally people dont seem inclined to just let me rule and go, and so then what? Better to look it up.
Mapless Combat
No.
With a VTT, I've found that I need to keep tokens down on the screen to run a fight. Any tokens on a screen will result in people trying to move tactically. Any mapless aspect of the combat disappears into map-like combat without actual assigned hexes and facing . . . so it's the worst of mapped (slow!) and mapless (imprecise!) instead of either fully implemented. It's just easier to make everything mapped.
Are we still using Trademark Move?
In a word, no.
It's 1 point for a +1 to a very specific combo. Only a couple of PCs use such a combo, and even then, they vary it up based on circumstances. So it's just easier to say no, we're not using that anymore. I'm not willing to have people pick a "best case" scenario that factors in the +1, pay 1 point for it, and then use it only when it's the best option . . . and then modify it anytime their skill increases, and ignore it whenever they quaff an Agility potion to increase their DX as it's not optimized for the temporary, new DX. I'm not sure it's a great use of 1 point, but it's also a poor use of the rule, and it sure doesn't fit the bargain of speeding up play in return for a bonus.
If I could get my players to agree to fixed feints and fixed Deceptive Attack, I would go for this . . . but they're always proved fairly resistant to the concepts.
Are we still using the Modified Mook Rule?
Yes.
You don't see it quite as often. The PCs generally encounter larger numbers of Worthy foes and less mobs of Fodder. I don't use the Modified Mook Rule for Worthies, so . . . it's in play but doesn't show up as often. And the Modified Mook Rule doesn't apply Mook vs. Mook, so when you have a big brawl of 62-point hirelings vs. 62-point cultists neither side just drops automatically. Those two factors mean it's not as front-and-center as it could be.
Are we still doing No Rule Lookups?
No. Sadly, no.
We look stuff up. Not enough of my players follow this post, so we fairly often get specialty moves used without actual certainty about how those rules work. Through in some "helpful" comments like, "I think a miss by 1 hits torso" or "I don't think we do that" or "Did you remember the -1 for Curse?" or "Can't you use (name totally different move)?" on top and . . . the game stops until we check. I get it when someone literally does a totally new thing we haven't had come up . . . but it comes up for always-used things like Evasion and grappling and weapons Getting Stuck, too.
So, in theory I'd like to get back to this but 9/10 times my players recollection of how the rule works isn't complete, generally people dont seem inclined to just let me rule and go, and so then what? Better to look it up.
Mapless Combat
No.
With a VTT, I've found that I need to keep tokens down on the screen to run a fight. Any tokens on a screen will result in people trying to move tactically. Any mapless aspect of the combat disappears into map-like combat without actual assigned hexes and facing . . . so it's the worst of mapped (slow!) and mapless (imprecise!) instead of either fully implemented. It's just easier to make everything mapped.
Sunday, January 19, 2025
Do DF Felltower foes play by the rules?
This is expanding on Rules & Rulings for Session 203.
Do DF Felltower foes play by the rules?
Yes.
Why not cheat?
I'm the GM. I define the parameters of the world.
I literally have unlimited bad guys.
I have unlimited points in my budget.
I have unlimited access to equipment in the game world.
I can impose any limitations I want on the PCs up to what the players will tolerate and still come back to the next game session.
So why would I need to cheat?
All Felltower NPCs aren't built with a point budget. Basically, only PCs are hirelings are, although occasionally I'll build an NPC and see what the total is. That's really just so I don't have an idea of a Worthy rough peer to the PCs only to hand out so much extra stuff that they're now a near-Boss. I do it sometimes as an exercise to see if what I'm doing matches what I thought it would cost up as. But I almost never set a budget and build unless it's a bunch of mooks, and then only once for a repeat-use type foe that is meant to hit a very specific power niche.
Why do I play by the rules?
I find I benefit a lot from playing things as straight as I can.
The players can judge their abilities and limitations based on what they know of the rules, and what they observe. They benefit from in-game knowledge and knowledge about the game. If I, in a word, cheat, the players can depend on what's on their sheet for their own characters and nothing else at all. Even there, there will be doubt. Will my spell work? Who knows. If the enemy displays an ability that I also have, does it work like mine? Will my resistances work? I've played in a game like that. The GM was a hoot to play with, but honestly, it was hard to do anything but concentrate on story because your paper man sure as hell wasn't playing on a level playing field.
It means I can largely rely on my players to help the game run smoothly* without needing a second set of rules for the foes. I can let them Charm foes and order them around and have their powers work as expected. I can look the answers up in the rules instead of just making stuff up as I go. And there can be a consistent set of rules instead of a hodge-podge of exceptions and individual rules for each and every power and bad guy. Petrifaction works the same way for everyone. Paralysis works the same way. Death checks work the same. The works.
None of this means I'm constrained from what I can do, but I am constrained in how I do it. Constraints lead to creativity, in my opinion. I'm able to make exceptions that make sense, and have unique powers and unique foes that do things that - by the book - might not work. But I don't let them casually violate the rules and basic operations of the system in a way that doesn't let the players figure out what they're up against.
In the end, that makes the game run more smoothly for me, more enjoyably for the players, and more understandable for people reading along at home. And I find it easy enough.
* Except for Vic. No helping, Vic!
Do DF Felltower foes play by the rules?
Yes.
Why not cheat?
I'm the GM. I define the parameters of the world.
I literally have unlimited bad guys.
I have unlimited points in my budget.
I have unlimited access to equipment in the game world.
I can impose any limitations I want on the PCs up to what the players will tolerate and still come back to the next game session.
So why would I need to cheat?
All Felltower NPCs aren't built with a point budget. Basically, only PCs are hirelings are, although occasionally I'll build an NPC and see what the total is. That's really just so I don't have an idea of a Worthy rough peer to the PCs only to hand out so much extra stuff that they're now a near-Boss. I do it sometimes as an exercise to see if what I'm doing matches what I thought it would cost up as. But I almost never set a budget and build unless it's a bunch of mooks, and then only once for a repeat-use type foe that is meant to hit a very specific power niche.
Why do I play by the rules?
I find I benefit a lot from playing things as straight as I can.
The players can judge their abilities and limitations based on what they know of the rules, and what they observe. They benefit from in-game knowledge and knowledge about the game. If I, in a word, cheat, the players can depend on what's on their sheet for their own characters and nothing else at all. Even there, there will be doubt. Will my spell work? Who knows. If the enemy displays an ability that I also have, does it work like mine? Will my resistances work? I've played in a game like that. The GM was a hoot to play with, but honestly, it was hard to do anything but concentrate on story because your paper man sure as hell wasn't playing on a level playing field.
It means I can largely rely on my players to help the game run smoothly* without needing a second set of rules for the foes. I can let them Charm foes and order them around and have their powers work as expected. I can look the answers up in the rules instead of just making stuff up as I go. And there can be a consistent set of rules instead of a hodge-podge of exceptions and individual rules for each and every power and bad guy. Petrifaction works the same way for everyone. Paralysis works the same way. Death checks work the same. The works.
None of this means I'm constrained from what I can do, but I am constrained in how I do it. Constraints lead to creativity, in my opinion. I'm able to make exceptions that make sense, and have unique powers and unique foes that do things that - by the book - might not work. But I don't let them casually violate the rules and basic operations of the system in a way that doesn't let the players figure out what they're up against.
In the end, that makes the game run more smoothly for me, more enjoyably for the players, and more understandable for people reading along at home. And I find it easy enough.
* Except for Vic. No helping, Vic!
Monday, January 13, 2025
Rules & Rulings from Session 203
Rules & Rulings from last session!
Can you Wait until someone else's turn ends? Essentially, can you hold your turn until later in the sequence, usually to ensure you get to surpress defenses before someone (or after someone else has done so)? Yes, but the trigger needs to be concrete - after so-and-so attacks is okay, but not "after so-and-so goes" or "just before so-and-so goes." It is also subject to the same rules for Wait as written.
I don't have any real issue with essentially changing your initiative order permanently to later, but GURPS doesn't allow that, and I'm not willing to change that rule just to change it. I'd have to put a lot of thought into NPC turn order to optimize it, and the players would put a lot of time into optimizing their order, too. I don't see an upside to that right now.
Can I shoot down a Missile spell?
Our Scout wants to use Wait and aim at a wizard's held missile spell, to shoot it as soon as it's thrown to either set it off or deflect it off course.
There might be a place for a rule like this, but it feels too much Marvel Comics and not enough DF, especially DF Felltower. Plus I feel like it creates too many edge cases - what kind of missile, does damage matter, can you use missiles to disrupt other attacks, can you throw grenades as an attack to harm a weapon on the way to you, etc.? So I said no.
Like I said, I can see a rule for this - maybe even a Power Up that allows you to do this kind of thing. But as a standard ability with ranged attacks . . . eh, no. Do I really want people hurling meteoric knives at Lightning spells and then claiming this somehow should disrupt the magic or block it or something, or toss Alchemist's Fire at a Fireball to shower an otherwise shielded wizard? No, no I don't want to deal with that. Again, nice idea, but not a DF Felltower kind of idea. Feel free to develop this one yourself for your own games but you won't see it here.
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose - spotted!
The martial artist used Judo to throw opponents for the first time today. So naturally, this question came up - if I Judo Parry and then can throw, does that mean if I attack with Judo and they parry unarmed, I can throw them next turn?
No! There are no "heads I win, tails you lose" effects like that for Judo. That was specifically written up to avoid that.
I was amused how quickly Doug Cole stepped in to say that this was a specifically-blocked case. He's right. Nothing is worse than a system where HIWTYL is in place, especially for the "You" in this equation. Imagine having to fight someone where your attacks lead to bad things for you if you fail, and your defenses lead to the exact same bad things whether you succeed or fail. No one wants to fight where the 4 possible quadrants of results are 3:1 against you - 1:1 on the attack and 2:0 on defense.
This isn't to say that circumstances can't create HIWTYL - unarmed guys punching at armored folks can have this happen, damage to unarmed on parries can make this happen, the Flaming Armor spell is designed to make this happen - but it's not a basic assumption of grappling rules, that's for certain.
Does the Iron Witch cheat?
DF is a game where the monsters might be totally unfair. I always play by the same rules, even if I find ways to give monsters exceptions or powers that PCs couldn't have.
The Iron Witch, well, maybe. She's thrown, that the PCs know of, Shield 6 (base cost 12), Missile Shield (base cost 5), two Explosive Stone Missile spells, at 12 (base cost 24) and 18d (base cost 36), and two Flesh to Stone spells (base cost 10 each). Assuming skill 20 (they know she has Magery 6, and IQ 16 isn't crazy since wizards start with a 15), and my rules for energy reductions on missile spells, this works out to 10, 3, 18, 30, and 16 points of energy. 77 energy. That's a lot.
A standard DF wizard can have ER 20, FP 26, and a power item. Give her a 35 point power item ($18,001 item), and she has 5 energy left. So even without "cheating," and nothing special, she'd be okay if low on FP. Given higher skills on some of the spells, or a larger Power Item, and she's fine even with a lower base FP. Skill 25 on the spells would net back 11 points; it would net back 6 if it's just Stone Missile. That's a lot of money and character points to get there, but you don't always need to bend the rules to get the results. That said, maybe she's just a Cheater McCheaterson and has scads of energy or free spell-like powers. That's possible, too. It's just not the only answer on the table.
And for comparison, Chop has Major Healing-25 and has expended IIRC close to 30 power. He spams out 0-cost spells like Curse a lot, but he's belted out a lot of healing. Duncan has probably spent a bit less but still a lot.
We didn't try Dispel Magic on the golems! No, it hasn't been tried. It won't work. You cannot disrupt an enchantment with Dispel Magic. Only a No Mana Zone or the Suspend Enchantment spell - not available in DF - can do that. You can't "turn off" enchantments in DF Felltower with spells. It makes logical sense to consider it, but the wording of the spells and the underlying assumptions of enchantment vs. temporary magic are very much different than the logic assumes.
Can you Wait until someone else's turn ends? Essentially, can you hold your turn until later in the sequence, usually to ensure you get to surpress defenses before someone (or after someone else has done so)? Yes, but the trigger needs to be concrete - after so-and-so attacks is okay, but not "after so-and-so goes" or "just before so-and-so goes." It is also subject to the same rules for Wait as written.
I don't have any real issue with essentially changing your initiative order permanently to later, but GURPS doesn't allow that, and I'm not willing to change that rule just to change it. I'd have to put a lot of thought into NPC turn order to optimize it, and the players would put a lot of time into optimizing their order, too. I don't see an upside to that right now.
Can I shoot down a Missile spell?
Our Scout wants to use Wait and aim at a wizard's held missile spell, to shoot it as soon as it's thrown to either set it off or deflect it off course.
There might be a place for a rule like this, but it feels too much Marvel Comics and not enough DF, especially DF Felltower. Plus I feel like it creates too many edge cases - what kind of missile, does damage matter, can you use missiles to disrupt other attacks, can you throw grenades as an attack to harm a weapon on the way to you, etc.? So I said no.
Like I said, I can see a rule for this - maybe even a Power Up that allows you to do this kind of thing. But as a standard ability with ranged attacks . . . eh, no. Do I really want people hurling meteoric knives at Lightning spells and then claiming this somehow should disrupt the magic or block it or something, or toss Alchemist's Fire at a Fireball to shower an otherwise shielded wizard? No, no I don't want to deal with that. Again, nice idea, but not a DF Felltower kind of idea. Feel free to develop this one yourself for your own games but you won't see it here.
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose - spotted!
The martial artist used Judo to throw opponents for the first time today. So naturally, this question came up - if I Judo Parry and then can throw, does that mean if I attack with Judo and they parry unarmed, I can throw them next turn?
No! There are no "heads I win, tails you lose" effects like that for Judo. That was specifically written up to avoid that.
I was amused how quickly Doug Cole stepped in to say that this was a specifically-blocked case. He's right. Nothing is worse than a system where HIWTYL is in place, especially for the "You" in this equation. Imagine having to fight someone where your attacks lead to bad things for you if you fail, and your defenses lead to the exact same bad things whether you succeed or fail. No one wants to fight where the 4 possible quadrants of results are 3:1 against you - 1:1 on the attack and 2:0 on defense.
This isn't to say that circumstances can't create HIWTYL - unarmed guys punching at armored folks can have this happen, damage to unarmed on parries can make this happen, the Flaming Armor spell is designed to make this happen - but it's not a basic assumption of grappling rules, that's for certain.
Does the Iron Witch cheat?
DF is a game where the monsters might be totally unfair. I always play by the same rules, even if I find ways to give monsters exceptions or powers that PCs couldn't have.
The Iron Witch, well, maybe. She's thrown, that the PCs know of, Shield 6 (base cost 12), Missile Shield (base cost 5), two Explosive Stone Missile spells, at 12 (base cost 24) and 18d (base cost 36), and two Flesh to Stone spells (base cost 10 each). Assuming skill 20 (they know she has Magery 6, and IQ 16 isn't crazy since wizards start with a 15), and my rules for energy reductions on missile spells, this works out to 10, 3, 18, 30, and 16 points of energy. 77 energy. That's a lot.
A standard DF wizard can have ER 20, FP 26, and a power item. Give her a 35 point power item ($18,001 item), and she has 5 energy left. So even without "cheating," and nothing special, she'd be okay if low on FP. Given higher skills on some of the spells, or a larger Power Item, and she's fine even with a lower base FP. Skill 25 on the spells would net back 11 points; it would net back 6 if it's just Stone Missile. That's a lot of money and character points to get there, but you don't always need to bend the rules to get the results. That said, maybe she's just a Cheater McCheaterson and has scads of energy or free spell-like powers. That's possible, too. It's just not the only answer on the table.
And for comparison, Chop has Major Healing-25 and has expended IIRC close to 30 power. He spams out 0-cost spells like Curse a lot, but he's belted out a lot of healing. Duncan has probably spent a bit less but still a lot.
We didn't try Dispel Magic on the golems! No, it hasn't been tried. It won't work. You cannot disrupt an enchantment with Dispel Magic. Only a No Mana Zone or the Suspend Enchantment spell - not available in DF - can do that. You can't "turn off" enchantments in DF Felltower with spells. It makes logical sense to consider it, but the wording of the spells and the underlying assumptions of enchantment vs. temporary magic are very much different than the logic assumes.
Thursday, January 9, 2025
I Wouldn't Miss "Miss By 1 Hits Torso"
One rule that I find annoys me the longer I play GURPS is entries on the hit location table that say "[1] Miss by 1 hits torso instead."
Why?
- it slows play, even if only because everyone says, "Does a miss by 1 hit torso?" No one can seem to remember (it's eye, skull, face, groin, neck, vitals, and that's it.)
- it causes edge cases, like rolling a 17 to hit the vitals (a 17 always misses) when you have a 16 to hit. Does that miss? A 17 always misses. Does it hit the torso? It's a miss by 1, and a miss by 1 hits torso. What about Chinks in Armor? Does that count as the underlying location? I think yes, but it's not stated clearly.
- it complicates rolling in a VTT, because it will show "miss" and it'll still be a hit, just not to the location auto-selected for damage by a player's macro. That adds an additional step.
- some of the sitations feel wonky. A miss by 1 with a swinging attack to the skull hitting body? Sure, the upward sweep clips the torso instead of the skull, or a downward cut misses the head narrowly and hits the body. But a miss by 1 to the eye with an arrow hits the body? A thrust to the groin hits body instead . . . okay. A thrust to the face also hits torso, not skull or neck? They're both closer. Why do the limbs never get hit on a "miss" to a central location?
With all of those things in mind, I'd love to delete Note [1] off of the Hit Location Table and just let a miss be a miss.
This admittedly messes with PCs - who aim for vitals and eyes and neck and skull more often than their NPC companions and foes. But it's also the case that it comes up less than you might think. And I've ruled a 17 is still a complete miss, but it's still an edge case people want to argue when it comes up. It would just speed things up and get rid of what's essentially a freebie +1 to hit overall when going for a better location.
Unless my players really revolt over this . . . it's probably gone as soon as I can reasonably ditch it.
Why?
- it slows play, even if only because everyone says, "Does a miss by 1 hit torso?" No one can seem to remember (it's eye, skull, face, groin, neck, vitals, and that's it.)
- it causes edge cases, like rolling a 17 to hit the vitals (a 17 always misses) when you have a 16 to hit. Does that miss? A 17 always misses. Does it hit the torso? It's a miss by 1, and a miss by 1 hits torso. What about Chinks in Armor? Does that count as the underlying location? I think yes, but it's not stated clearly.
- it complicates rolling in a VTT, because it will show "miss" and it'll still be a hit, just not to the location auto-selected for damage by a player's macro. That adds an additional step.
- some of the sitations feel wonky. A miss by 1 with a swinging attack to the skull hitting body? Sure, the upward sweep clips the torso instead of the skull, or a downward cut misses the head narrowly and hits the body. But a miss by 1 to the eye with an arrow hits the body? A thrust to the groin hits body instead . . . okay. A thrust to the face also hits torso, not skull or neck? They're both closer. Why do the limbs never get hit on a "miss" to a central location?
With all of those things in mind, I'd love to delete Note [1] off of the Hit Location Table and just let a miss be a miss.
This admittedly messes with PCs - who aim for vitals and eyes and neck and skull more often than their NPC companions and foes. But it's also the case that it comes up less than you might think. And I've ruled a 17 is still a complete miss, but it's still an edge case people want to argue when it comes up. It would just speed things up and get rid of what's essentially a freebie +1 to hit overall when going for a better location.
Unless my players really revolt over this . . . it's probably gone as soon as I can reasonably ditch it.
Thursday, January 2, 2025
GURPS & the clunkiness of Chinks in Armor
First off, I think the name is clunky. "Chinks in Armor?" We don't say "Eyeslits of Helm" or "Vital Parts of Torso." I'd go with Armor Gaps. Sure, that implies a lack of armor, not reduced armor, but chinks doesn't imply reduced armor, either. So, Armor Gaps for me.
Second, while I can appreciate the symmetry of -8 for Torso, -10 for elsewhere, my players generally stumble over the lack of penalties for a hit location. One idea I've toyed with is -8 plus half the location penalty rounded down. So torso -8, neck -10, arms and legs -9, hands and feet -10 . . of course, that makes eyeslits of a helm -12, not -10 . . . but hey, it's DF, I don't care, people start with a 20 in combat skills.
Third, I think there needs to be additional specific exemptions:
- doesn't affect Fine armor
- some locations/armors may lack gaps (I'm thinking invisible bucket helms, say, or the vitals in general)
- I don't allow this on eyeslits or vitals at all with swing/impaling or swing/piercing weapons. I just don't buy it due to the angles involved.
Second, while I can appreciate the symmetry of -8 for Torso, -10 for elsewhere, my players generally stumble over the lack of penalties for a hit location. One idea I've toyed with is -8 plus half the location penalty rounded down. So torso -8, neck -10, arms and legs -9, hands and feet -10 . . of course, that makes eyeslits of a helm -12, not -10 . . . but hey, it's DF, I don't care, people start with a 20 in combat skills.
Third, I think there needs to be additional specific exemptions:
- doesn't affect Fine armor
- some locations/armors may lack gaps (I'm thinking invisible bucket helms, say, or the vitals in general)
- I don't allow this on eyeslits or vitals at all with swing/impaling or swing/piercing weapons. I just don't buy it due to the angles involved.
Monday, December 30, 2024
GURPS Session 202 - More Notes & Rulings
Just a few rulings from last session.
Can you do a swing/impaling attack to the eyes? Probably yes according to the rules, but no, we've long ruled that you can't. The angle required is just too specific to make that work and it breaks my suspension of disbelief badly - especially because it's likely going to be spammed out turn after turn.
How do armor divisors stack? We take the highest level, and then stack from there. So [2] and [2] become [3]. [5] and [2] become [10]. Those are the two you'll mostly see - bodkins vs. chinks in armor, or our version of Lightning vs. chinks in armor. By the way, I don't love the clunky way the Chinks in Armor rules work, and the name is clunky, too. I'll post some ideas on Thursday.
Can Knights learn Fast-Draw on the fly, even mid-combat? No. Per DF11, p. 29, Knights have access to "Melee Weapon skill improvement whenever points are available – even in battle!" That's not the same as "new combat and combat-related skills even in combat." We've (generously) interpreted "improvement" to include learning something, but it has to be a Melee Weapon skill.
Can you do a swing/impaling attack to the eyes? Probably yes according to the rules, but no, we've long ruled that you can't. The angle required is just too specific to make that work and it breaks my suspension of disbelief badly - especially because it's likely going to be spammed out turn after turn.
How do armor divisors stack? We take the highest level, and then stack from there. So [2] and [2] become [3]. [5] and [2] become [10]. Those are the two you'll mostly see - bodkins vs. chinks in armor, or our version of Lightning vs. chinks in armor. By the way, I don't love the clunky way the Chinks in Armor rules work, and the name is clunky, too. I'll post some ideas on Thursday.
Can Knights learn Fast-Draw on the fly, even mid-combat? No. Per DF11, p. 29, Knights have access to "Melee Weapon skill improvement whenever points are available – even in battle!" That's not the same as "new combat and combat-related skills even in combat." We've (generously) interpreted "improvement" to include learning something, but it has to be a Melee Weapon skill.
Monday, December 9, 2024
More rulings & notes from session 201
Yesterday was session 201.
More notes!
Mocking their best option. At one point, Thor moved up into the guards vs. cultists fray, and a cultist stepped up from 2 hexes away to adjacent to Thor. Thor's player said, "Are you seriously stepping close to the human Quisinart?" and I said, "Yes." I mean, what an idiot. This fool was stepping from 2 hexes away from Thor, who has a 2-hex sword, into 1-hex range, where the cultist's club can hit. Thor's player instantly retracted it, but it was a funny moment - the cultist literally did the most combat-effective move he could do in the situation - stepped into a gap in a line, closed in on a fighter with a longer reach weapon than him, and attacked.
The fact that he was totally doomed was a whole different manner, but hey, with cultists resisting intruders, "Surrender because I'm probably overmatched" was about as much of an option for him as "Go home empty handed" was for Thor.
So if throw with both hands . . . Yes, I allow Dual-Weapon Attack with thrown weapons. It's about as silly as can be (just picture it), but I allow it. You must target the same or adjacent hexes unless you have Enhanced Tracking, which allows seperately aimed ranged attacks. There was a suggestion that cone rules could be applied to determine an appropriate spread of potential targets, but that'll be complex and I don't think any better from a play perspective. It'll be even harder to rationalize, and harder to actually implement. Same with "one automatically scatters." That's easier but I'm not sure it's really more believable that one always misses by 1 at a minimum.
More VTT notes. It would be nice if the character in a hex that is "up" on the turn order would be automatically selected. It would be nice if I could put names on tokens Always on Top. It would be nice if I could apprend a random 3-digit number in () after each name of duplicated characters so I can tell them apart. It would be nice if I could drag-and-drop damage onto the characters on the turn tracker. Also, it would be nice if status was a drop-down menu unconnected to a token - drag and drop status effects would vastly speed up dealing with mooks.
Hirelings cost how much? The PCs spent around $4K on 8 guards, 2 laborers, and 4 125-point hirelings. That's 14 people, some with substantial pay asks. Also, they promised higher pay in order to help find them (see, "Where did you find these guys?" in DF15) - and that adds up. It would have be a lot less if they'd offered normal rates.
Do we get a bonus to find known guys? No. If you took a -3 to get an elf with broadsword and Fireball it's -3 to find that same guy again. It's not -0 because it's a known person. It's just pure luck and GM laziness that makes it the same character next time, not because it's easier to find the guy the next time. Maybe realistically it would be, but it's a game and I don't want to reward gaming the system by jacking up the bonuses to find a specific type of character and then not needing those bonuses net time for that same character. No thanks.
Ho, Ho, Ho? Next game is likely 12/22, and/or 12/29. We'll see.
More notes!
Mocking their best option. At one point, Thor moved up into the guards vs. cultists fray, and a cultist stepped up from 2 hexes away to adjacent to Thor. Thor's player said, "Are you seriously stepping close to the human Quisinart?" and I said, "Yes." I mean, what an idiot. This fool was stepping from 2 hexes away from Thor, who has a 2-hex sword, into 1-hex range, where the cultist's club can hit. Thor's player instantly retracted it, but it was a funny moment - the cultist literally did the most combat-effective move he could do in the situation - stepped into a gap in a line, closed in on a fighter with a longer reach weapon than him, and attacked.
The fact that he was totally doomed was a whole different manner, but hey, with cultists resisting intruders, "Surrender because I'm probably overmatched" was about as much of an option for him as "Go home empty handed" was for Thor.
So if throw with both hands . . . Yes, I allow Dual-Weapon Attack with thrown weapons. It's about as silly as can be (just picture it), but I allow it. You must target the same or adjacent hexes unless you have Enhanced Tracking, which allows seperately aimed ranged attacks. There was a suggestion that cone rules could be applied to determine an appropriate spread of potential targets, but that'll be complex and I don't think any better from a play perspective. It'll be even harder to rationalize, and harder to actually implement. Same with "one automatically scatters." That's easier but I'm not sure it's really more believable that one always misses by 1 at a minimum.
More VTT notes. It would be nice if the character in a hex that is "up" on the turn order would be automatically selected. It would be nice if I could put names on tokens Always on Top. It would be nice if I could apprend a random 3-digit number in () after each name of duplicated characters so I can tell them apart. It would be nice if I could drag-and-drop damage onto the characters on the turn tracker. Also, it would be nice if status was a drop-down menu unconnected to a token - drag and drop status effects would vastly speed up dealing with mooks.
Hirelings cost how much? The PCs spent around $4K on 8 guards, 2 laborers, and 4 125-point hirelings. That's 14 people, some with substantial pay asks. Also, they promised higher pay in order to help find them (see, "Where did you find these guys?" in DF15) - and that adds up. It would have be a lot less if they'd offered normal rates.
Do we get a bonus to find known guys? No. If you took a -3 to get an elf with broadsword and Fireball it's -3 to find that same guy again. It's not -0 because it's a known person. It's just pure luck and GM laziness that makes it the same character next time, not because it's easier to find the guy the next time. Maybe realistically it would be, but it's a game and I don't want to reward gaming the system by jacking up the bonuses to find a specific type of character and then not needing those bonuses net time for that same character. No thanks.
Ho, Ho, Ho? Next game is likely 12/22, and/or 12/29. We'll see.
Thursday, November 21, 2024
GURPS House Rule: You're A Natural
I've been using this rule, or close to it, since my 3rd edition GURPS games. I remember my friend Fred's brother Dave benefiting from this in his very first session, which would have been 1992-3, maybe?
It came up in our most recent DF session, Session 200. It also came up in Total Party Teleport II, as well. Here is the proper writeup for 4th edition GURPS.
You're A Natural! The first time you default a skill, if you roll a 3 or a 4, you may instantly buy the skill. You may invest any number of saved points in it at that time, or, if you lack any saved points, spend 1 point from future XP earnings. If margin of success matters, calculate it from final skill after points are spent. This represents a natural talent, previously undisclosed learning, or just an aptitude for a particular skill. If the 3 or 4 was achieved as the result of a Wish or Lesser Wish spell, or any form of the Luck advantage, this does not apply - you're just lucky, not gifted.
Optionally, this can apply on any default roll, even if it's not the first time. In this case, you must have a point in hand to spend, and the maximum point investment is one point. You've just learned as you go, but you don't know much more than a beginner at the skill would have.
I can attest to this rule being popular, a source of a lot of fun, and a really satisfying way to get rewarded for a lucky 3 or 4.
It came up in our most recent DF session, Session 200. It also came up in Total Party Teleport II, as well. Here is the proper writeup for 4th edition GURPS.
You're A Natural! The first time you default a skill, if you roll a 3 or a 4, you may instantly buy the skill. You may invest any number of saved points in it at that time, or, if you lack any saved points, spend 1 point from future XP earnings. If margin of success matters, calculate it from final skill after points are spent. This represents a natural talent, previously undisclosed learning, or just an aptitude for a particular skill. If the 3 or 4 was achieved as the result of a Wish or Lesser Wish spell, or any form of the Luck advantage, this does not apply - you're just lucky, not gifted.
Optionally, this can apply on any default roll, even if it's not the first time. In this case, you must have a point in hand to spend, and the maximum point investment is one point. You've just learned as you go, but you don't know much more than a beginner at the skill would have.
I can attest to this rule being popular, a source of a lot of fun, and a really satisfying way to get rewarded for a lucky 3 or 4.
Wednesday, November 20, 2024
More DF Felltower Rules Questions - 11+ Move
One of the PCs is on the verge of Move 9, which is a Haste spellstone away from Move 11. Per DFRPG Exploits, p. 33, this means he can get a two-hex step.
A few questions arose related to it and indirectly connected to it.
Does this net a two-hex Retreat?
No. My ruling is no. Although Retreat says "one step (p. 33)" and "normally one hex," I don't agree that it therefore gives you two hexes when you have Move 11+, nor that it gives you two, one-hex Retreat options. I understand the logic and the reading there, but I think allowing a 2-hex retreat (or worse, two one-hex retreats) doesn't play nice with Felltower's approach or the pricing of Great Void (DF Denizens: Swashbucklers, p. 27), which costs 10 points to get +1 hex on a single retreat. Also, there is precedent - the PCs have fought a number of monsters with Move 11-20 which did only a one-hex Retreat but had a two-hex Step, and for a brief while Galen was running around with Move 11 (thanks to Haste spells) and didn't get a two-hex retreat. It's just how we've played it and will continue to play it.
Can I buy Great Void?
No, not unless you're a swashbuckler. I agree it might make a really nice advantage for some Martial Artist types, but I'm not willing to just put it out there at this point.
So can I (list a million things here not described in the box)?
No, not unless it explictly says so in the box on p. 33 of Exploits. No, you don't double the size of all of your steps and get 4 with Committed Attack. No, you don't get to save steps between turns. No, you can't turn some of your steps into Retreat. No, no, no. Only what it says there in that box.
DF Felltower is a weird blend of DFRPG and DF, with its own flavor, so the above might be "wrong" by official standards, but I'm happier with that result.
A few questions arose related to it and indirectly connected to it.
Does this net a two-hex Retreat?
No. My ruling is no. Although Retreat says "one step (p. 33)" and "normally one hex," I don't agree that it therefore gives you two hexes when you have Move 11+, nor that it gives you two, one-hex Retreat options. I understand the logic and the reading there, but I think allowing a 2-hex retreat (or worse, two one-hex retreats) doesn't play nice with Felltower's approach or the pricing of Great Void (DF Denizens: Swashbucklers, p. 27), which costs 10 points to get +1 hex on a single retreat. Also, there is precedent - the PCs have fought a number of monsters with Move 11-20 which did only a one-hex Retreat but had a two-hex Step, and for a brief while Galen was running around with Move 11 (thanks to Haste spells) and didn't get a two-hex retreat. It's just how we've played it and will continue to play it.
Can I buy Great Void?
No, not unless you're a swashbuckler. I agree it might make a really nice advantage for some Martial Artist types, but I'm not willing to just put it out there at this point.
So can I (list a million things here not described in the box)?
No, not unless it explictly says so in the box on p. 33 of Exploits. No, you don't double the size of all of your steps and get 4 with Committed Attack. No, you don't get to save steps between turns. No, you can't turn some of your steps into Retreat. No, no, no. Only what it says there in that box.
DF Felltower is a weird blend of DFRPG and DF, with its own flavor, so the above might be "wrong" by official standards, but I'm happier with that result.
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Acrobatic Dodge & Criticals?
In our last game, one of the PCs attempted an Acrobatic Dodge (Exploints, p. 48, and Campaigns, p. B375). He rolled an 18 on his Acrobatics roll.
What happens?
The player agued, nothing except a -2. An 18 is a failure, and a failure is a -2 to Dodge. It says that explicitly in both referenced rules.
I allowed that, but I'm still not convinced.
The argument in favor of the player's position is that the rule doesn't specify anything about a critical success or critical failure, so therefore they don't have any special effect.
But does the lack of a specific result for a critical failure overrule this basic, underlying rule for making skill rolls? Success Rolls (Exploits, p. 5-7, Campaigns p. B343-348) calls out what constitutes a critical success or critical failure. Does the lack of a specific result for critcial success or failure mean there are no critical successes or critical failures?
For my game, I am willing but not terribly happy to have Acrobatics rolls for Acrobatic Dodge insert the concept of "only skill rolls with specified critical results have criticals" into the game. I would restrict it only to rolls in this case. Largely, though, I'm not sure I like the implications . . . but for DF Felltower, I'll go with it and say it's only for this case and the related case of Aerobatics.
What happens?
The player agued, nothing except a -2. An 18 is a failure, and a failure is a -2 to Dodge. It says that explicitly in both referenced rules.
I allowed that, but I'm still not convinced.
The argument in favor of the player's position is that the rule doesn't specify anything about a critical success or critical failure, so therefore they don't have any special effect.
But does the lack of a specific result for a critical failure overrule this basic, underlying rule for making skill rolls? Success Rolls (Exploits, p. 5-7, Campaigns p. B343-348) calls out what constitutes a critical success or critical failure. Does the lack of a specific result for critcial success or failure mean there are no critical successes or critical failures?
For my game, I am willing but not terribly happy to have Acrobatics rolls for Acrobatic Dodge insert the concept of "only skill rolls with specified critical results have criticals" into the game. I would restrict it only to rolls in this case. Largely, though, I'm not sure I like the implications . . . but for DF Felltower, I'll go with it and say it's only for this case and the related case of Aerobatics.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
