Just for clarity,
NOTHING ON THIS PAGE WILL BE IN THE AGM UNLESS IT IS EMAILED IN BY THE DEADLINE WITH A PROPOSER AND A SECONDER. That is all, sorry for shouting.
Clarify: Whether [MODIFIER] NOTHING breaks halt SUBMITTED BY DRAC 201104280031
Proposer: Drac
Seconder: Tea
Clarify this by changing the wording of the HALT call in the system calls page to:
- You must stop moving immediately, for N seconds. If an effect, or any damage call apart from NOTHING strikes you while you are under the effect, this effect is broken. This is very strict, so a RED NOTHING will break HALT on anyone, even a pyrokin, as it is not a "NOTHING". This includes calls such as STRIKEDOWN or REPEL that may do no damage, but are not NOTHING. {Rest of halt wording from You retain the ability.... onwards}
Or
- You must stop moving immediately, for N seconds. If an effect, or any damage call apart from [MODIFIER] NOTHING strikes you while you are under the effect, this effect is broken. This is very strict, so a [COLOUR/MAGIC/SPIRIT/SUBDUE etc...] NOTHING will not break halt unless you are vulnerable to that modifier (and thus the damage is upgaded to HALF, which is not nothing). This includes calls such as STRIKEDOWN or REPEL that may do no damage, but are not NOTHING. {Rest of halt wording from You retain the ability.... onwards}
source for this: the original wording and the madrid of clarifications on the clarifications page, with a further clarification about vulnerable to damage type to explicitly stop people murdering elemental elves with halt 10 + flameblade in the latter case. I personally have no preferance as to which, just that we pick 1!
Given the debate this has caused on irc the current Ref team would prefer this is clarified at AGM.
Original text: You must stop moving immediately, for N seconds. If struck by any damage call apart from NOTHING, this effect is broken. You retain the ability to keep...
Proposal: Unify breaking HALT and interrupting casting rules. SUBMITTED BY DRAC 201104280031
Proposer: Drac
Seconder: Tea
The mechanics of what breaks HALT and what interrupts spell/miracle casting imply that they are the same: e.g. any call that is not NOTHING. However they have had separate clarifications noted on the website, leading to them possibly being interpreted differently. I propose explicitly unifying what breaks halt and what interupts spell/miracle casting to whichever outcome is voted on in the "Clarify: Whether [MODIFIER] NOTHING breaks halt" motion above.
Proposal: Replace DETECT DISEASE at FA 3 with RECOGNISE DISEASE, that or grant REC DISEASE to a higher level of first aid. SUBMITTED BY LOCKSMITH
Proposer: Locksmith
Seconder: Chevron
This is silly as it stands on the website. For one thing, every time I have ever seen this skill used in practice, it's been with the result that the person using the skill gets info about the disease in question - for all practical purposes the call is already REC DISEASE. For another thing, it implies that nobody else is ever able to tell that another character or NPC is ill, even if they're green and oozing gunk from the entirety of their face. There's an argument for restricting access to DETECT on the grounds that it will not always be obvious, and that an inexperienced medic should be able to tell *something* is wrong but not what. However, I think that a) REC basically has DETECT folded into it b) there are few enough of us who are actually interested in this part of the system/setting that making it more complex seems pointless to most of the society.
- Would letting FA1 call DETECT DISEASE in addition to REC WOUNDS and have FA3 upgrade that to REC DISEASE work? That would boost FA1 as a triage skill which a trainee could use to help the healers prioritise. --Andrew
- FA1 is already a really awesome skill. I think I'd prefer to limit it to people who are playing medicy enough types to have FA3. Submitting it as it stands. --Locksmith
Proposal: Introduce Brawling into the Wilderness tree, with the prereq of Weapon Competency I SUBMITTED BY LOCKSMITH
Proposer: Locksmith
Seconder: Porange
It makes no sense that Wilderness characters can't buy Brawling. Like Subterfuge and Warrior, it's a tree that grants combat skills, and both Subterfuge and Warrior get Brawling. If anything it makes more sense for Wilderness to have brawling - surely someone who's good at sneaking through trees should be good at using improvised weaponry? It doesn't break anything, and would make Wilderness more fun. Having to multiclass just in order to be able to punch someone when you can already hit people with a big stick seems silly.
- Have you considered prerecs? Brawling curently hangs off streetfighter1 and melee1 so I assume you mean to add weapon competency 1 to that list?--Malselene
- Cheers for the heads-up - prereq of Weapon Comp I added. --Locksmith
SystemReset/BrawlingLong
Proposal: Brawling to become a General Skill SUBMITTED BY MALSELENE
Brawling becomes a general skill with no prerequisites. It is by corollary removed as a skill from the Warrior and Subterfuge Skill Trees
- Proposer: Rowena
- Seconder: Chevron
Proposal: New Wilderness skill: Take Cover (edited to once per encounter) SUBMITTED BY LOCKSMITH
Proposer: Locksmith
Seconder: Canashir
I think this skill would give scouts something fun and cinematic that's a combat advantage, while preserving the flavour of the class and not muscling in on Warrior or Subterfuge. Given the issues with bows, I think casters can stand to lose some of their advantage over scouts, and as it imposes a disadvantage int he strikedown, I don't think it would tread on the toes of alchemists. Have altered to once per encounter rather than once per day on comparison with blindfighting and DAC. I suggest it should work on MASS and WIDE calls, as taking a strikedown is a significant combat disadvantage where simply negating the ranged call isn't.
This skill would permit a Wilderness character to choose to take a durationless STRIKEDOWN instead of a single ranged damage call, including arrows and thrown weapons, once per encounter for every four levels bought, a la skills like Agility. This works on MASS and WIDE calls as well as targetted ones.
Proposal: New Wilderness Skill: Surefootedness SUBMITTED BY LOCKSMITH
Proposer: Locksmith
Seconder: Canashir
Scouts are used to rough terrain and have good balance, so it stands to reason that they should be more difficult to knock over than most people. This would be very useful in some situations, and not useful the rest of the time, which I think makes for fun tactical decisions deciding whether to use it or not. It doesn't muscle in on Warrior or Subterfuge while making WIlderness more combat-capable in a way unique to the class, which I think is an advantage. Given the prereqs, I don't think it would muscle in on alchemical buffs, and casters could stand to lose some of their advantage over scouts.
This skill would allow a Wilderness character to choose to call NEGATE or TAKEN, as appropriate, to a single STRIKEDOWN call of any duration, once per encounter. The skill would have three ranks, requiring Wilderness II for Surefootedness I, Wilderness IV for Surefootedness II, and Wilderness VI for Surefootedness III. Each level would be 5xp, given the prereqs will prevent double-buying. These effects explicitly do NOT stack with each other: with Surefootedness III, should a WIDE, a MASS and a targetted STRIKEDOWN all occur in the same encounter, I may only choose to call TAKEN (or NEGATE, as appropriate) to one of them.
Surefootedness I: Once per encounter, you may call TAKEN to one call of WIDE STRIKEDOWN, of any duration.
Surefootedness II: Once per encounter, you may call TAKEN to one call of MASS STRIKEDOWN, of any duration.
Surefootedness III: Once per encounter, you may call either NEGATE or TAKEN, as appropriate, to one targetted call of STRIKEDOWN, of any duration. This includes STRIKEDOWNs delivered by arrow, thrown weapon, weapon blow or casting.
Should the call of STRIKEDOWN be combined with any other system call to which you are not immune, you may call TAKEN to the strikedown, but should take the other effects of the call as appropriate. eg. with Surefootedness II, should the call "MASS SPIRIT HEX THROUGH STRIKEDOWN" be called when I am in range, I may choose to call TAKEN to the STRIKEDOWN, but my character must still take the SPIRIT HEX THROUGH.
SUBSIDIARY MOTION
Should the above fail, vote on the same motion but with the ranks reversed, ie with targetted negation at rank 1, MASS at rank 2 and WIDE at rank 3.
SUBSIDIARY MOTION
Should either of the above pass, vote on the following:
Surefootedness IV, prereq Wilderness VIII, 5xp: You are immune to strikedown. Call TAKEN or NEGATE as appropriate. Should the call of STRIKEDOWN be combined with any other system call to which you are not immune, you may call TAKEN to the strikedown, but should take the other effects of the call as appropriate.
- If you're only making it once per combat rather than an imunity (as I understood chess's suggestion to be) then why bother with the complicated wide, mass, targettedness. Woudln't call negate/taken as appropriate to one strikedown per encounter, then two then three at increasing levels just be simpler? --Malselene
- Mostly because you objected to this on the grounds that it isn't any easier to remember and gives you yet another number to keep track of in combat, both of which I think are valid reasons not to do it. Also, having more than one per encounter would *really* screw low level casters, because while you might have time to complete a second vocal when your first bounces, there's no way on earth you're likely to manage three. Basically if they can negate once, the caster is greatly disadvantaged (and probably screwed in an interactive); if they have more than one negate per encounter, the caster is totally screwed on a linear or 3ygb as well. I quite like the way that wide/mass/targetted is in a way "This scales by becoming usable more often" without requiring more number-tracking. Also, Strikedown isn't exactly a ubiquitous call; YMMV, but IME it's fairly uncommon for it to occur more than once per encounter, so the increase in utility at higher levels would probably be very small if it were more-negates-per-encounter, which IMO isn't a good thing given Wilderness is underpowered atm. --Locksmith
- Once per day (which I was previously objecting to) and once per encounter are very different time scales. My main problem in remembering things is recalling what I did in encounter one when I'm fighting encounter fifteen rather than remembering things over the length of a fight. Having both a number and a range to remeber seems far more complicated than just having one. Yes more than one negate a fight may make it harder on casters but exploding rituals frequently do many strikedown effects in a short length of time so it's not worthless. I also still hold with the fix for not nerfing low lever casters is that the scout still takes a durationless strikedown rather than negating the whole thing and I'm fairly sure everyone can count fall over and then get up again properly. --Malselene
---
- What xp cost are you proposing --Malselene
- My initial thought was 6xp per rank, total cost of 24xp for each full level of the skill, but that's more because that's what Agility and Health are than for any deeply-considered balance reason. --Locksmith
- Ermm, that seems a little expensive when say compared to warrior getting total immunity to blindness for 15xp total. I'm currently leaning towards something like surefootedness I, II and III (at same levels and cost as blindfighting I, II and III) which at each level gives you an increasing length which you can reduce durational strikedowns you take for (but always having to take at least an instantaneous one) as my preferred skill set up to use. Yes it's possibly complicated but it is things that only characters who've bought the skill need to care and think about. --Malselene
- So make it 4xp, 16xp total cost? I note that Strikedown is *vastly* more common than Blind as a status effect. Then again, blindfighting is not limited to a single call, so it balances that way. I don't much like the idea of reducing strikedown durations - I fear it would be just one more calculation to have to make during combat, and TT combat is already full of numbers to track. An altenative way of scaling would be either trageted/mass/wide, or increasing the number of negates per day. Thoughts? --Locksmith
- How about doing it target / mass / wide, but in the other direction? So Surefootedness I can let you resist WIDE STRIKEDOWNs (you can keep your footing in an earthquake type situation, which happens much more rarely than the other two and is often an 'environmental effect' rather than targetted magic), Surefootedness II can let you resist MASS STRIKEDOWNs (you can keep your footing even during more localised disruption) and Surefootedness III lets you resist even targetted STRIKEDOWNs (even when magic is deliberately trying to trip you up, you can still keep your balance). This retains Malselene's 'avoid nerfing lower-level casters immediately' function whilst still not making you do more maths in combat. --ChessyPig
- ^This. It works similarly to Blindfighting (but could possibly be cheaper due to the lesser utility of the lower levels) --Andrew
- I think this is scaling it the wrong way around, tbh. A low-level skill should be able to resist other low-level skills, and high level skills should be able to resist ones of comparable level. If it goes WIDE --> MASS --> TARGETTED, then a low-level scout can ignore powerful effects that casters don't get til late on (eg mass strikedown at level 5 Smite Soul), but they can't ignore level 2 stuff til, say, level 6. Not such a problem for WIDE, more for MASS. This seems kind of silly to me. OTOH, that would perhaps go some way to addressing the power imbalance between starting characters and longterm ones, which is probably not a bad thing, and it's not like casters with status effects need buffing. So that might be a feature rather than a bug. Thoughts on this? --Locksmith
- I like this for the fact it is a scaling thing without additional maths and the flavour. My only problem would be it ending up being another all or nothing thing with the lower levels not being bothered with except to get the top level. --Malselene
- My current preference would go (Surefootedness 1: longest duration you must ever fall over from a Strikedown call is 30 seconds, Surefootedness 2: longest duration you must ever fall over from a strikedown call is 10 seconds, Surefootedness 3: take an instantanous strikedown in the place of every durational strikedown call and possibly surefootedness 4: immunity to strikedown). Is this too complicated? All you need to do is remember what your maximum fall over duration is and then only fall over that long if the call duration is longer. --Malselene
- Not too complex, but people are *rubbish* at counting durations as it is, without confusing the issue by having some people getting up much earlier. Makes the "TAKEN" call a little odd as well, given they will appear to be taking it entirely normally. What do you think about scaling it with increasing number-of-times-a-day negates/takens?' --Locksmith
- Personally I think that scaling like that is at least as bad to remember. I already have enough trouble keeping track of things like mana and spirit over long periods however this may just be me. I also don't particularly like per day things as they are amazing in interactives, alright on liners and then suck on 3ygbs which I don't think is the best way to have things. (Again may just be me) --Malselene
- Agreed. To stop it mattering how many fights you have over the course of the day, how about being unaffected by one strikedown per combat, for each rank? And then totally immune at top level? --Canashir
- Mmm, all good points. I shall have a ponder. --Locksmith
Unifying DAC (more a topic for discussion than an actual proposal as yet -- Malselene)
There are three types of DAC in the system (racial, combat awareness and agility) without counting stuff granted by spells. Two work in heavy armour, one doesn't. This seems to me at least to be overly complicated. Ideas to simplify this
- 1) Remove the armour restriction on agility DAC. I can't see how this breaks anythings (I'm mean it's not like subterfuge and wilderness are overpowered).
- 2) Make it possible to get a point of DAC from any four levels of combat awareness and agility(like health, fortitude and fitness get you hits) as this just simplifies things
Possibly this could be extended by
- 3) Add combat awareness to Subterfuge and/or Wilderness as part of the make them slightly more combat capable drive. Warrior currently gets all the Armour and the best DAC. This would shift the balance to Warrior gets the best armour, Subterfuge + Wilderness get the best DAC.
- I like the idea of scouts and subterfugers getting more bites at the DAC apple than warriors. It's flavourful and fits with the sneaking-stabbing-light-armour thing. Wilderness needs the buff more than Subterfuge, but I'd support both getting it anyway. Tasty. --Locksmith
- I'm similarly happy to buff Subterfuge/Wilderness, but am not convinced we need to actually change this part of the system. It is not one that anyone seems to actually get confused by (I've never seen or known of anyone getting it wrong) and I'd prefer to have as few AGM motions as possible. This one comes under my view of 'insufficiently broken as to require fixing'. --TimB
- *shrug* I tend to lean in the direction of anything that reduces the task of explaining the system to a new player is a good improvement. --Malselene
- I would prefer to go for putting Combat Awareness in Wilderness (in addition to Agility), allowing Agility and CA to mix (like health etc) and removing the limits on Agility (so it can mix with CA). However I do think that some other skill (eg camouflage) should limit metal armour to keep fur & leather hardening around and worthwhile. --Andrew
SystemReset/DisguiseAndAlias
Wilderness Doubles
This has been submitted
Wilderness is often considered a powerful tree, in the same way that the Victorian era is considered a shining light of gender equality.
One idea which was raised before but which I think we just forgot to actually propose at the relevant AGM is to create a new Wilderness skill allowing melee doubles at mid-high levels.
I would suggest that something like 'Weapon Competence 5' could be introduced as a Level 6 skill, allowing the character to call double with weapons of between 24" and 36", at a cost of 10 XP. The reasoning is largely to allow a more limited version of Warrior doubles (and at a slightly higher level, still within the 360 margin) for the same cost as Two Handed. I'd like a better name for it though, to make it clearer it is not just a progression of Weapon Competence picked up at level 5. --TimB
Seconded. --Thomas
- Improved Weapon Competency? advanced Weapon Competency (okay I am just stealing prefixes from maesltrom here). Whatever name works I'd be happy to second. --Malselene
- Strength of the bear? Something like that maybe for flavour --Delvy
Broaden Staff Use for Wilderness characters - Submitted
Proposer: Andy
Seconder: Tea
Well hunters should be able to use spears. Makes sense to me. Some people on IRC seemed to want even broader definitions. Therefore one of:
- 1) Broaden "Staff" to "Polearm"
- 2) Broaden "Staff" to a limited range of 2h weapons (Staff, Spear, Greataxe, ?- not sure how big the list should be)
- 3) Broaden "Staff" to "2H Weapon"
I'm not sure if I like (3) though
NB this would still be for SINGLE
- Will second any flavour, but would ideally like "2h weapon". There are plenty of fun characters I can think of who work well statted in wilderness for most things, and having to have a two-level melee splash to get the right weapon for the concept is would be rather annoying. --Tea
- '''I firmly support 3). It seems pointless to restrict wildeness characters as to what two handed weapons they can use when I can immediately think of valid tropes for use of greataxes, two-handed swords, and all manner of stuff in ranger or wilderness stereotypes - and it seems best to let the player decide what is coolest. Also, it makes it easier to play scouts while borrowing weapons, as you can use whatever anyone has to lend. -TheKremlin
Submitted as:
a) Broaden "Staff" to "2H Weapon" in Weapon Competency 2
if a) fails then
b) Broaden "Staff" to "thematically appropriate 2H weapons" (ref call)
Brawling: Less Dangerous, More Fun
Serenity has this lovely unarmed combat system, designed so that bar brawls can happen. Our interactives are in a bar. Can we steal their mechanics? I'm not actually proposing this yet as I know I don't have enough experience to balance it with points costs and the like.
I would like to see this trialled at a weapons practice before voting, but don't know if that's viable.
The basics are you need to touch someone on the upper arm to succeed in your unarmed attack, there is less wild swinging and less OC danger.
Basic calls they have in the system are:
- Strike - deal 1 damage
- Throw - push opponent 5 feet back
There are some advanced calls some of which could be introduced via more brawling-type skills (hopefully in general skills - warriors shouldn't have a monopoly.)
- Grapple - place hand on upper arm / shoulder - opponent cannot do anything unless they can break the grapple
- Break - breaks a grapple (limited number)
- Disarm - steal opponent's weapon (they hand it to you)
- I would be inclined to make 'strike' the equivalent of the current brawling skill, subject to the various above discussions on making brawling more available. Any combat tree probably gets Break, and then Throw, Grapple and Disarm given out specifically - it feels fine that combatants can do a better job of unarmed fighting than people who can just casually hit others. I'll think about and play with a proposed set of unarmed combat trees when I'm not trying to write 3ygb stuff for tonight. --Tea
- This could also include dirty fighting type stuff to make subterfugers viable in (non-standard) combat - eg Blind 5 (eye-gouging), Halt 5 (pod shot). --Andrew
- I do not think the entire Serenity unarmed system (beautiful though it is) fits in with the rest of the CUTT system. In particular it would be rather broken for pvp. I'd far rather see a minor tweak such that rather than aiming blows somewhere in the vicinity of your opponent, a hit was scored by an open hand, controlled touch to the upper arm, causing Subdue Single or Subdue Half to the torso. Throw might be OC dangerous in a crowded bar and grapple is potentially lethal in pvp. --TimB
- Grapple is something I do not think has any place at TT because it would become an absolutete nightmare to codify what you can and can't do in it (can you ultimate faith? What happens if you take a repel call/a strikedown call/ a disarm call?... extra). It's also a pvp nightmare as TimB said. I very much hate the current brawling system for several reasons and hence I would love to see mimed punch replaced with placing an open hand on the upper arm. Partially because I did karate for several years I'm aware at how easy it is for someone to not pull a punch (and especially at TT with so many of the fake punches going at peoples heads) --Malselene
This probably needs an actual proposal: SUBMITTED
Proposed: Andy
Change the OC mechanism for brawling from its current form (punches ending 6 inches from target) to "touch upper arm" subject to testing at a weapon practice, note that improvised weapons would not be affected by this
Bleeding On Zero
There is no real difference between stabbing someone in the guts and smacking them upside the head with a truncheon, except they get better from the truncheon faster. Bleeding is also very fast, leading to really stupid player deaths. Maybe we can do something about this.
Maybe-
- Start bleeding at 0 - 5? mins until bleed out
- Bleed heavier at "-1" - 2? mins until bleed out (ie if you are stabbed on the ground and have more than 2 minutes of bleed count left you drop to 2 mins)
Thoughts? --Andrew
- Oh I completely forgot to put in that Subdual (like now) can't start bleeding. Otherwise this makes no sense. --Andrew
I like this. Makes healing III actually useful. Makes subdual a more worthwhile skill. --Chevron
- Oh wait, weren't you suggesting something about starting bleeding when you take non-subdual damage, but with a high deathcount? Sorry I skimmed it first time and though that's what it was about. --Chevron
- I know I was thinking that previously but that would probably unbalance linear strength towards warriors even more due to the reliance on armour. So yeah I'd be interested if more experienced hands looked at it. --Andrew
- 2 minute bleed is fast? Erm, okay. --I
- It's much faster than in either of the other two systems I play. --Chevron
- I put it as middling. It needs to be shorter than fest-types because in the small system things happen much faster (in 5 minutes the combat is over and the party are halfway healed in the vast majority of cases). However CUTT attempts not to be a high lethality system so I doubt you want my personal favourite of bleed on 0, 30 seconds later you are dead. 2 minutes is actually a good compromise between "nobody dies without a TPK" and "if the party/healers make a mistake, somebody will die". Generally the Party/Healers? have to be paying attention to what is going on, but there is a reasonable margin for error. --Drac
- I always had 2 minutes figured as the longest bleed time we could have, but in which people could still plausibly bleed out. I've heard suggestions of lower before, but never before (I think) higher. The 'combat over by then' factor isn't small, to my mind. --I
- As a note merely considering the length of time it takes someone to bleed out isn't the entirity of the situation. Maelstrom bleed is 5 mins however the average time to stop someone bleeding at maelstrom is 2.5 mins so in general you have about 2.5 mins leeway in getting to a downed person (and yes it's far more complicated than that with more variables). CUTT bleeding is 2mins but with only a 10 second bandaging time (or instantaneous by miraculous healing) so your leeway to get to a downed person is almost two minutes. So in leeway terms you're not talking that much faster. --Malselene
- Hadn't thought of it that way. Good point. I dunno about shortening bleedtime - maybe the "-1" could be 1min or so with expectation that this wouldn't be used regularly by monsters and the "0" state could be shorter too? --Andrew
- An idea, spend a term monitoring what happens with people on the floor etc so see if this idea would actually work or would become very, very difficult very quickly -Porange
Another approach would be to make your bleed-count increase with your number of body hits (i.e. number when uninjured). --Canashir
Proposal: Fix the wording of undead creation 7
Proposer: Porange
Seconder:
Assuming this is a bug rather than a feature: The text of the 7th level miracle says "You invite an angel of Vivamort to take possession of a suitable vessel" Balance also grants undead creation and doesn't have the whole hierarchy thing to the same level. This miracle is brilliant for Vivamortians and i wouldn't want to change it, but it needs alternative text as it applies to Balance, because if you summon an angel of Vivamort as a Balance priest you are probably Doing it Wrong
- Hilariously so. --Drac
- Proposed Change: change wording from "You invite an angel of Vivamort to..." to "You invite an angel of of your God to..." Replicate this change for any other Undead Creation Miracle that explicitly refers to Vivamort.
- I would rather see this split into two miracle descriptions as the current Vivamort wording is full of a lot of flavour relating to the religion. --Porange
- I've just looked at the undead tree and the entire thing refers to Vivamort, I am not in favour of different miracle descriptions in the main text for different Gods, so shall withdraw my seconding? (My backing is explicitly for it being adjust the rules so as stated on the website they work for any God that does, or will in future grant undead creation) --Drac
- See comment below.
Proposal: Adjust the wording of undead creation
Proposer: Chevron
Seconder: Drac
Change the wording of the Undead Creation miracles to be Deity neutral. Vivamortian-specific information to be presented in the Vivamortian playerguide.
- This has been clarified by the Ref team as something that should have been done when Balance got undead creation at the start of the year. So does not need an AGM Motion.
Proposal: Remove the doubling of hits on the torso.
(I am unsure as to who the initial idea generator was but this was stuck up here by Malselene)
Seconder: Canashir (subject to getting associated changes sorted out acceptably)
It has been noted by several people that one of the main reasons that warrior quickly outstrips the other classes is that the gain in torso hits with level goes up far faster than the ability of other classes to do damage to it (via backstab, bows or other). The proposed fix may be dropping the number of hits on the torso to be the same as the limbs.
The average person on the street becomes 2/2, with level 5 warriors being 5/5 going up to 8/8 at level 8.
Every 4 buys of health, fitness and fortitude gives one extra hit to every location.
Elves and frail people remain on 2/1 then gain in hits as 3/2 then 4/3
This may require some further balancing of direct damage spells and miracles and may or may not want the backstab progression to be a degree less than it currently is.
- It was me who started this. Sorry.
- For consideration:
- It makes Direct Damage better, I don't think this is a bad thing since it's currently pretty poor. We'd need to tweak the Blue Through Damage a bit since it's already very good. It also means that DD isn't overtaken as easily by buying hits.
- It makes a starting subterfuger able to backstab a character with no HP skills and take them down, this seems fine to me.
- It will probably mean less limb sniping.
- I'm not too worried about it encouraging head hits since we currently allow them and I think TT as a society seems to generally have pretty good fighting and sensible members. If there are serious concerns about this, we could put in something like unifying them into a 'vitals' location and allowing body armour to count for the head too or whatever.
- I don't think healing would need rebalancing.
- It's marginally simpler than hit doubling. Simple is good.
- We could make dwarves start on 3/2 if we thought it would fit nicely with the new plan.
- --davidp
Change the armour physrep rules to unify so that specifically:
1-2 point armour can have the same physrep - predominantly leather/fur/padding (anything that shows you're making an effort)
3-4 point armour can have the same physrep - predominantly metal: either plate, chain or ringmail.
This does not change the fact that 2 point armour is considered to have enough metal to be a suit of studded leather and have the usual effects on casting, etc.
Rationale: people don't want to have to buy different physreps when they go up a point of armour. There have been various refcalls over the years about whether chain over padding can count as 4 rather than 3 etc. and what makes a suit of studded leather studded...
Let's take the burden off the refs to decide on edge cases and off the players to have to bother them and make everything easier.
prop: davidp
seconded: Malselene
Put buckler-use into the Subterfuge and Wilderness trees
Proposer: Canashir (yes, I've emailed it in)
Seconder: Tea
Details: define a buckler as any small shield; let's say a choice of square 14" or round 16" or equivalent. (Maybe an inch or two less.)
Buckler use could be added into the Subterfuge Streetfighter skill and Wilderness Weapon Competency skill, or could be a separate skill with Streetfighter-I or Weapon-Competency-I as prereqs (in which case it should cost 6pts for Wilderness, less for Subterfuge since Streetfighter allows an offhand cosh already).
- It has been suggested on IRC that this should perhaps be a little larger, due to finding very small shields being tricky. If no-one objects, I'll email in an update taking it to 20" or so? --Tea
Instread of removing doubling of hits, increase the number of times health etc must be bought to go up a round of hits
Proposer: Porange
Removes the need to fiddle with direct damage.
There is now an AGM nigh. I will thus email in all the motions I am seconding if no-one else has put a note for having sent them in by 2359 today. --Tea
As a hopefully constructive comment please try to send in things which are fully drafted out proposals so that they can either be voted on Yes or No and do not requre discussion at the AGM --Malselene