Further Thoughts On Combat

Recently I looked into an alternative way of handling combat in Tunnels and
Trolls, which involved using saving rolls as the combat mechanic and, not just as a mechanic within combat.

Since then Dan over at The Lone Delver has really taken the idea (which was inspired by an earlier post of his) and, run with it. It's looking great too. So setting my original idea to one side (as too many cooks spoil the broth) I have been thinking about what else I can do with combat system to take it to new and interesting places, and I have a couple of ideas.

The first has sprung from the Talents conversation that I sparked over at the Tunnels and Trolls Google+ group, and seeks to address what I consider the dual-wield issue, where it is almost mandatory for a starting character to take two daggers as their initial weaponry.

It kind of bugs me if I'm honest but I can't deny the logic of it. On average two daggers are cheaper to buy and, more effective in combat than nearly any other weapon that a new character can realistically afford. Tunnels and Trolls doesn't penalise you for fighting with an off-hand weapon either, so why wouldn't you invest in a pair of daggers?

Maybe if there was an incentive not to. Notice I say incentive and not penalty, as the easy option would be simply cut down the dice and adds granted by your off-hand weapon.

My solution is to open up the option of weapon Talents, something that was also discussed in during the Talents conversation over at the Google+ group. Instead of rolling a dice for the bonus though, I would simply set the value of the bonus granted by the Talent to the number of character levels that the weapon has been continually wielded for plus one.

Example: Bobby the Barbarian takes a Weapon Talent in "Clubs" as he loves to bash things over the head and take their stuff. As Bobby is new to adventuring his bonus is +1, meaning that he'll roll an extra dice when wielding any sort of club in combat. The bonus only applies to one weapon, so even if he were wielding two clubs, he'd still only roll one extra dice.

For every level of his career that Bobby from the previous example uses a club predominantly as a weapon, he can boost his Clubs Talent by one as he increases in level (going from 2 to 3, 3 to 4 etc), in addition he still gets to pick a new Talent.

Whilst this may not seem to do a lot to offset the benefits of duel-wielding daggers from the word go, it does open up an interesting alternative. Now if a character instead chooses to invest in say your average Short Sword and a Short Sword Talent to go with it, they could be wielding the four dice normally granted by duel-daggers whilst leaving a hand free to take a shield into combat with them. Given that Warriors get to double the hits absorbed by armor that they are wearing, and a shield counts as armor, this is a good deal!

My second idea does away with Combat Adds completely (but not Missile Adds as of yet), replacing them with a more tangible alternative.

Whilst I like the simplicity of the Tunnels and Trolls combat system as it stands, I feel that Personal Adds could be so much more if you break them down, or as I have replace them completely with the following:

Strength Adds: Each point of STR beyond 12 adds +1 to your combat total.
Dexterity Adds: Roll 1 extra dice in combat for every point of DEX you have beyond 12, and then drop that many.
Speed Adds: Each point of SPD beyond 12 grants you one hit of "natural armor".
Luck Adds: Re-roll up to 1 dice for every point of LK you have beyond 12, once per combat round. You must accept the second result.

Personally I feel that this better represents the effects of the various attributes than the catch all, Personal Adds. Strength inflicts greater wounds, Dexterity allows you aim your blows with greater accuracy, Speed lets you dodge out of the way and, if you're going to rely on Luck, you'd better be lucky!

Both are just works in progress at the moment but I do think they show promise, if I do say so myself.

Swordplay You Say? The Debate Continues

Following up on my recent post, the debate continues over at the Tunnels and Trolls Google+ group with much division on the subject.

Check out the latest update below or, if you've only just come across this blog you can catch up with the debate to date here, along with the original question, here:

Mat Fowler: My game is all about story telling, and anything that helps nudge that along is a bonus. Talents are meant to be ambiguous to give your imagination wiggle room to use them. Some talent examples from my players are 'breaking things', 'magical detective', 'golden tongue', 'annoying', 'distraction' and 'nine lives'. They have been used for a wide variety of situations, all requiring some skill to convince me that they would work. They havebeen used in combat but normally as a way to create a situation or escape route rather than to kill. I try not have sessions become long periods of hit damage attrition, but find it more fun to solve interactions in a fresh way each time - when possible. If it sounds good I go with it. If you want balance then T&T may make that difficult as people 10 times stronger than others is common place - how do you explain that other than 'its a magical world'? That works for me. Scrawny young farm hands can become muscle bound heros, given enough Adventure Points.

Geoff Sears: I feel that Talents offer a few avenues for exploration. I am ambivalent about improving combat since the example provided to me violates that notion, and in the long run the +1-6 benefit does not equate to a huge benefit, especially combined with a 1 in 12 change of a talent test coming up "3" and automatically failing, with I would assume some significant downside for the attempting PC.

I think the main intention of talents is to provide for some backstory, and a way to distinguish one Warrior, Rogue, Wizard from another. When I asked one of my kids what did they want their "Vampire Wizard" to be talented at doing, she surprisingly said something which got boiled down into Carpentry. She wanted him to be able to make boxes I think was the gist. When she and her sister started talking about Vampires turning into mist, it dawned on me that talents were a way to capture special abilities as well, so... "Turns to Mist" came up as a Talent based in her case on WIZ.

The other imagined utility of Talents was to make sense of the Saving roll mechanic which was left intentionally ambiguous from previous editions. Everyone I have read seems to use SR's differently in combat, and by having specified Talents, you are in effect predefining those mechanics for your character, and throwing a benny their way. Is your trademark move tumbling behind your opponent to strike from behind, then Tumbing (Dex) is your friend, and if I was running it, I would give them a one turn bonus based on how much they made the test by on their Hit Point Total for that round. I'd set the difficulty based on either the level of their opponent, or perceived difficulty in getting past them, etc...

I am hot/cold on the changes made in 7th edition. When I flirt with running a T&T game again, I waver between the streamlined effectiveness of 5th edition, and the more pragmatic advancement scheme of 7th edition. I think the original rules through 5th edition were responding to a different set of expectations on the part of players, than 7th edition is. While I can relate to those expectations, I think there is some benefit to changes like Talents. 

Me: I think that works quite well in group play but my view point is more that of a solitaire player. I do like the idea that a Talent can be just about anything you like but, I would like to see them become more functional in respect of their application when it comes to the lone player.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that combat is the begin all and, end all of solitaire play (or play in general) but, it is certainly a BIG part of the game (just look how much of the rulebook contains rules on combat, weapons, armor, combat magic etc). Instead of just looking at +X adds in combat though, maybe some spell-like abilities as Talents would help.

Nothing beyond low-level magic, and nothing that causes direct-damage (so no TTYF!).

So as well as Talents within combat, how do we feel about spell-like abilities as Talents?

Mat Fowler: For no other reason other than I worked out our in my session yesterday, i want to mention that the chance of getting a 1 and a 2 on two d6 is 1:18, or just over 5 percent.

Geoff Sears: stand corrected. I had transposed numbers in my head incorrectly. They point is that the change of fumble is there, and for something used with great regularity, there is a consequent chance of "bad things" happening such as not contributing at all to rounds HPT, (just like the chance a spell doesn't get off)

Chris Palmer: On the topic of solo adventures, I do wonder if having a list of 'standard' talents would help with some of this.  I know that one author has done this (used the same list of talents for a couple of solo's and provided that list at the front) and I liked it a lot.  Unfortunately I just flipped through a bunch of solo adventures and can't remember or locate that author.

Talents are so free-form right now that's unlikely you'll see the same one used in two different solo adventures so they end up mostly being background narrative for solo gamers.  It's not uncommon for solo authors to add in combat stunts to their games, and I could see talents coming into play pretty well there.

I could put together another page and let authors collaborate on common talents there, I suppose.  But my experience has been that not many authors would use it.

Me: I believe that the author you are referring to is Stuart Lloyd, and I have to agree that having a standard list of solos at the  beginning of an adventure does help you. It gives your character more of a sporting chance. There is of course the downfall that as not all solos are using the same list, some of the Talents you pick may not be the most useful later in play.. That could be said of any Talent though.

Chris Palmer: Yes!  You're right, it's Lloyd.  I do think a more standard list of some core talents would help alleviate their uselessness in solos and make their lack of direct combat influence less of an issue.  But I also don't have an issue with someone taking Archery as a talent and having that be applicable to their to-hit SR's.  That seems perfectly reasonable, especially if missile adds aren't being used.

Me: I got to thinking about standardised Talents last night after reading your post Chris and remembered that someone had done just what you proposed. Well sort of. Thinking about the matter at hand I recalled a pre 7.x web page that converted the MS&PE Skill list for Tunnels & Trolls use. It's pretty good and, can be found here:

http://aramis.hostman.us/tandt/tandt_whr5.html

However in Googling for that page I also came across these two which set out to much of the same but, look as if they have been written since the advent of 7.x:

http://www.geocities.com/~athorne/trolls/talents.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/co3/talonfire/docs/T_TSkills.htm

Swordplay You Say?: The Feedback So Far

When I threw this question out there yesterday, it wasn't just here that I Tunnels & Trolls Google+ group that I joined a few months ago. I haven't been too active in the group since joining but, wanting to get more involved I have been posting there more frequently and, the more viewpoints that I can get regarding the question at hand, the better.

decided to ask. I also shared the exact same post over at the

So here's the feedback from the group. It's not vast but there are some good points raised, both for and against Talents having a direct bearing on combat:

Tiefling Swashbuckler by D MAC

Andreas Davour: I think that there are problems, bigger and smaller, with most of the rules introduced as new in 7th ed. I have some hopes that Liz can iron out those oddities with her significant skills latest shown in 5th ed. Talents have potential, but like you write, some questions marks are left.

I actually let it be said in my game that Talents were all different from magic and combat, since we already had rules for that, and Talents were everything else.

If that feels like a cop out, which I can see why you would feel, maybe use the character level for something? Add that much as a bonus to one roll per adventure/session or something along those lines? Then it could get applied to combat/magic if you wanted.

Me: That's an interesting take. As you can guess, I had considered using Talents for combat and, more recently, even Talents as spell-like abilities (with limitations) but, I hadn't considered working level into it, which is an interesting idea.

The only problem that I can see there is that a Talent gained later will get bigger bonus instantly if I allow character level to be added instantly to certain Talents. So less experience but being just as good seems a little wonky. As I say though, I still think it's a good idea.

I think maybe that I'd say upon every level increase you add +1 to all Talents you already have in addition to aquiring a new one. It'd also offer an incentive for players not to hold back on their Talents.

Joshua Macy: I like Talents as a catch-all for things that aren't relevant to combat; there are enough ways to get combat adds, I don't see anything gained by having an arms-race of Talents... and I do foresee pressure not to "waste" Talents on things that can't help in combat. 

Andreas Davour: I'll confess that I'm mostly channelling Ken here, throwing odd ideas out there and see what happens. :)

That being said, I think levels, as far as they should be there in the first place, should be used for something. I have never had any problem with getting a big bonus from the get go if you pick up a Talent at high level. But, your suggestion +Tom Grimshaw with the +1 sounds workable. 

Me: I am inclined to agree that I wouldn't want to see all Talents going into combat abilities but, by the same token I don't think that they should be excluded. Being a predominantly a solitaire player and, with most solos being geared towards Warriors, it seems a little off that Warriors wouldn't have at least one or two combat abilities. Especially when you see the arsenal of spells Wizards get with 7.x.

Andreas Davour: Good points all. The question as I see it, is how to make it something more than just a +2 extra adds, which feels kind of bland an effect.

Naturally, special effects like disarms and suchlike (which feels like something you do a SR for, and a Talent could help with) are notoriously hard to handle in a solitaire situation. I'll have to think a bit, for once.