FF Rules Questions

[nathanh]

I couldn't find a thread with specific rules discussions. These days I like to play FF adventures completely by the rules, and so ambiguities bother me and I like to fix them. I have various notes about rules questions scattered over my maps, so I'll ask them from time to time and see what opinions people have. Here are two current matters that have my attention.

1) Can SKILL and LUCK go below zero? I've never seen this ruled one way or the other. I say that they can go below zero because you are not specifically told they cannot. SKILL pretty much never does, but LUCK might.

2) How do you deal with those really annoying SKILL bonuses on items that really ought to be Attack Strength bonuses? Five possibilities present themselves:

1. Treat them as Attack Strength bonuses where it is obvious they ought to be. For weapons it seems to make sense in almost all cases. For apparel it seems more dubious, because it could really be that the item ought to increase your SKILL not just combat ability.
   
2. Allow them to increase your SKILL above the Initial level while you've got them. I disagree strongly with this interpretation.
   
3. When you acquire them, your SKILL increases by the given value (up to Initial) and if you then lose the item you don't lose SKILL unless specifically told to. This seems quite reasonable.
   
4. When you acquire them, your SKILL increases by the given value (up to Initial) and if you then lose the item you lose the same amount of SKILL. I dislike this strongly because it means that if you get an item, it adds SKILL but you're at the maximum, and then you lose the item, you end up with less SKILL than you started with.
   
5. When you acquire them, your SKILL increases by the given value (up to Initial). Any excess points above Initial are stored and can be used to mitigate future SKILL loss. If you lose the item, your SKILL decreases by the given value (but the excess points stored can be used to protect against this loss). This removes the unpleasant behaviour of d).
   

I prefer e) but consider c) perfectly acceptable. a) is dubious but defensible. b) and d) seem wrong to me. Anyone have any thoughts?

[deadshadowrunner]

For question 2 normally I follow (c),although it really ought to be (a).I think in depends on the item.If it's a weapon then it should be AS,because why would a wielding a weapon improve your combat skill?Whereas for Potions of Skill Restoration or Ring of Dexterity etc. it could be Skill or AS.

[thealmightymudworm]

1) As you say, there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to deny negative scores. It would seem unnecessarily depressing to be in a situation where you had to roll two dice and then subtract points for your Attack Strength though.

You could argue that there must be a point at which someone has no control of their movements at all - whether paralysed or just randomly spasming - and it would seem more natural to define this as Skill=0 than Skill=-5 or something.

It occurred to me before that Skill=1 (such as you might start TCT with, for example) is the point at which it becomes actually impossible to pass a standard Test of Skill since you can't roll lower than 2.

2) It is tricky. Part of the problem is that the system of *gaining and losing points but not usually exceeding your Initial score* is at its shakiest for Skill points IMO. It's almost an immersion breaker.

-Hey, try this on!
-What is it?
-It's a Magic Skill Ring.
-Yeah right.
-Seriously, try it on! You're pretty malcoordinated (like, Skill 5 or something dude).
-OK [pause] yeah, it's doing sod all.
-Oh, that's because you're healthy. But if your hand ever gets stung by a scorpion or something you might want to have that in your pocket…

It just reduces magical items to the status of something like a hearing aid which should be made available to the elderly but have no place in a macho adventurer's backpack.

Anyway, I'd be inclined to interpret magic swords etc as Attack Strength bonuses, as there seems no reason to think they'd help you with Skill tests. Helmets which promote clear thinking and magically light armour are tricky though. I think the honest answer is that I'd probably take them as Skill bonuses if they can exceed Initial Skill, and AS bonuses otherwise. But that reflects a lack of respect for the rules.

As for the rest of your question I think:
If you have Initial Skill 11 and current Skill 11, then it makes no difference whether you have a +1 Ring of Skill or not. Gaining it adds nothing; losing it loses nothing, unless/until you lose a Skill point in which case it compensates.

If you have Initial Skill 11 and current Skill 10, then gaining and losing it takes you from 10 to 11 and back.

So I suppose I think a), shading to b) whenever there's the slightest justification but otherwise e).

[torallion]

I might be wrong but I'm sure in one of the books there was either a rule or an event where if your SKILL was reduced to 0, you were effectively dead or incapable of movement and your adventure would be over. I don't know if this should apply in all cases though.

Maybe if your LUCK is reduced to 0 you can assume that you're so unfortunate that you fall over and break your neck, or get struck by lightning or something

I use a} where it's obviously a combat-related item (generally weapons or armour). Another approach could be to use a) but always to cap combat skill at 12. It may seem a bit cheaty if you treat a magic sword's bonus as an attack strength bonus (thereby effectively going above initial SKILL) but by the same token I try to be sensible where it comes to accepting SKILL bonuses. For instance, if I cripple an arm and lose 2 SKILL points, putting on a shiny helmet is not going to fix that, and I'd ignore the SKILL bonus unless it was explicitly a shiny helmet of healing-ness. On the other hand, a potion of SKILL or other magical remedy can be assumed to heal the injury.

[thealmightymudworm]

Feb 8, 2014 17:41:17 GMT torallion said:

I might be wrong but I'm sure in one of the books there was either a rule or an event where if your SKILL was reduced to 0, you were effectively dead or incapable of movement and your adventure would be over. I don't know if this should apply in all cases though.

Now you mention it I'm wondering if that applied to petrification spells. I think that might have been something in AFF:Dungeoneer (I don't own most of the AFF books) - a Skill of 0 meaning that all of you from your feet up to your head was stone and the spell was now irreversible ...not sure.

Maybe if your LUCK is reduced to 0 you can assume that you're so unfortunate that you fall over and break your neck, or get struck by lightning or something

I like that idea. "YOU have become terminally accident-prone and meet a bizarre end within the hour. Y.A.E.H."

[sylas]

i think its safe to say that is exactly what happens when your Luck literally runs out.

[philsadler]

Feb 8, 2014 17:41:17 GMT torallion said:

I might be wrong but I'm sure in one of the books there was either a rule or an event where if your SKILL was reduced to 0, you were effectively dead or incapable of movement and your adventure would be over. I don't know if this should apply in all cases though.

There's a monster in Out of the Pit called a Mist Vampire. It's description says that it reduces your skill by 1 when it hits you. It also says that it will kill you if your skill reaches 0.

[lordomnibok]

Regarding question 2, I always follow (c). I don't think this is the most logical thing to do, but I believe that it is in closest accordance with the written rule, so that's why i do it.
Regarding skill, any adventurer with zero skill would have a life expectancy of about a second; they wouldn't have the skill to kill themselves intentionally, let alone anything else, so I'm certain that they would quickly meet their doom at the hands of a savage gnat or something. Zero skill = death by default, unless you're a toddler with an overprotective barbarian as a dad.
Luck is tricky, I guess I would begrudgingly let it go into the minus.

[linflas]

Regarding question 2) I've been following (a) for quite some years now. Before that, i was following (c) as everyone.

For any item i would use for combat, adding bonus to AS sounds logical to me. A magic sword shouldn't give me ease me to jump over a chasm but should improve fight against anything that even maximum Skill couldn't handle.

Also, my habit is not to roll dice for Skill. I systematically start any gamebook with Skill 10 except if I know that more is mandatory to be able to win (hello Mr Green).

[a moderator]

That's not how you spell 'Livingstone'.

[kieran]

1. I keep 0 as a minimum for Luck and it's definitely happened to me a few times. Skill almost never gets that low, but in Temple of Terror an enemy can reduce your Skill and you are explicitly told you will die when your Skill reaches that point so 0 seems to be a fatal minimum for Skill. Just saw philsadler mentioned there's a similar enemy in Out of the Pit that would seem to confirm this.

2. I generally go with C, but sometimes I'll let myself away with applying E ad-hoc and I don't think it cheating even if it is a more creative interpretation of the rules. A and B would certainly help with Livingstone books but they're not really following the letter of the rules (or even the spirit of the rules in B's case). I think only a complete masochist would implement D - doesn't make logical sense and makes things harder though technically it wouldn't be breaking any rules I guess so maybe better than A or B.

[daredevil123]

1. I allow SKILL and LUCK to go below 0 simply because the rules don't forbid it. Monsters that can reduce your SKILL to below 0 generally kill you anyway.

2. I usually go with C but sometimes E depending on the item. I do very occasionally use A if it's a near certainty that the weapon is intended to increase Attack Strength - for example, the Kris knife in House of Hell or the venom sword in The Port of Peril. I would never use B or D.

[kieran]

Oct 30, 2018 11:25:16 GMT daredevil123 said:

1. I allow SKILL and LUCK to go below 0 simply because the rules don't forbid it. Monsters that can reduce your SKILL to below 0 generally kill you anyway.

2. I usually go with C but sometimes E depending on the item. I do very occasionally use A if it's a near certainty that the weapon is intended to increase Attack Strength - for example, the Kris knife in House of Hell or the venom sword in The Port of Peril. I would never use B or D.

Fair point about the Kris Knife - I do A there too.

[thealmightymudworm]

Leaving aside the Attack Strength question, I'm wondering if I'm understanding the distinction between c) and e) as I'm a bit surprised that people are going for the first one.

Let's say we have an adventure with locations A, B, C, D and E.

At A you can pick up a Ring of Skill which increases your SKILL by 1 point (but the text reminds you this cannot take you past your initial SKILL)
At B there is a risk (LUCK test) you could suffer a burn which reduces your SKILL by 1 point. But you need to visit B for strategic reasons.

You can visit A and B in either order before the remaining locations

C is an optional location on the way to E. At C, the villainous Johnny Onnestguv will steal the Skill Ring if you have it (it's the only thing he goes for).
However you can confront him at his home D and fight him to get your ring back. He is a mediocre fighter (say Sk 7 St 6).

E is a final showdown with a high SKILL opponent.

---

So, let's say my SKILL is at its initial score of 10...
1. I visit B and get burnt (SKILL down to 9) but then pick up the ring at A (SKILL back to 10). It would be better for me to avoid Onnestguv, but I do visit C and lose the ring (SKILL down to 9) so it's worth heading to D to win it back as it will restore my SKILL to 10 ready for E.
[Anyone take issue with any of that? This is definitely how I understand e) but maybe on c) you don't lose the point at C and going to D is pointless...?]

2. I visit B but do not get burnt (SKILL remains 10). I visit A and get the ring, but it is not powerful enough to increase my SKILL further (SKILL remains 10). I visit C and lose the ring but my SKILL remains 10 so there is no point in visiting D [surely this is the only interpretation which makes any sense and I think is consistent with c) and e)...? d) is just mad.]

3. I visit A and pick up the ring, but it is not powerful enough to increase my SKILL further (SKILL remains 10). Then I visit B and get burnt. I would say that at this point the ring's influence asserts itself (SKILL remains 10) which is what I understand you get from e) with the 'stored points'. But maybe on c) your SKILL does go down to 9 as you only apply the SKILL increase when it's first mentioned? Would you wish you'd planned to visit B before A?

If you are now stuck on SKILL 9 but know about C, does it make sense for you (on c)-rules) to make a tactical detour there to get your ring stolen, assuming you get told about the SKILL bonus afresh after you've defeated Onnestguv at D?

[johnbrawn1972]

This seems to create a tension between the way skill and luck points are treated. Luck seems to be absorbed and then very quickly spent so there is no issue but maybe there should be.

The issue with skill is whether the skill is absorbed or is it inherent in a shield so not absorbed. There seems to be no easy answer.

The example I am thinking of is the shield in Night of The Necromancer. In one of my routes you acquire the Shield to boost your skill to 12 then the Host is restored leaving you with your 8 skill(+1 skill, +1 attack strength) The reason I say this is because it shows the skill is inherent in the object as the Host, it is implied, loses the skill and then your 8 skill acquires the benefit.

Comparing it to attack strength is a bit helpful because if you lose the Amethyst Blade then you cannot have the +1 attack strength bonus. The counter argument is if you gain a +1 skill shield does this restore your confidence and skill so the boost is counted as inherent.

One daft argument would be the possibility of picking up a sword with +1 skill bonus and then dropping it immediately because you know someone will steal it with a consequent luck penalty. This seems ludicrous.

[kieran]

Oct 31, 2018 14:24:22 GMT thealmightymudworm said:

Leaving aside the Attack Strength question, I'm wondering if I'm understanding the distinction between c) and e) as I'm a bit surprised that people are going for the first one.

Let's say we have an adventure with locations A, B, C, D and E.

At A you can pick up a Ring of Skill which increases your SKILL by 1 point (but the text reminds you this cannot take you past your initial SKILL)
At B there is a risk (LUCK test) you could suffer a burn which reduces your SKILL by 1 point. But you need to visit B for strategic reasons.

You can visit A and B in either order before the remaining locations

C is an optional location on the way to E. At C, the villainous Johnny Onnestguv will steal the Skill Ring if you have it (it's the only thing he goes for).
However you can confront him at his home D and fight him to get your ring back. He is a mediocre fighter (say Sk 7 St 6).

E is a final showdown with a high SKILL opponent.

---

So, let's say my SKILL is at its initial score of 10...
1. I visit B and get burnt (SKILL down to 9) but then pick up the ring at A (SKILL back to 10). It would be better for me to avoid Onnestguv, but I do visit C and lose the ring (SKILL down to 9) so it's worth heading to D to win it back as it will restore my SKILL to 10 ready for E.
[Anyone take issue with any of that? This is definitely how I understand e) but maybe on c) you don't lose the point at C and going to D is pointless...?]

2. I visit B but do not get burnt (SKILL remains 10). I visit A and get the ring, but it is not powerful enough to increase my SKILL further (SKILL remains 10). I visit C and lose the ring but my SKILL remains 10 so there is no point in visiting D [surely this is the only interpretation which makes any sense and I think is consistent with c) and e)...? d) is just mad.]

3. I visit A and pick up the ring, but it is not powerful enough to increase my SKILL further (SKILL remains 10). Then I visit B and get burnt. I would say that at this point the ring's influence asserts itself (SKILL remains 10) which is what I understand you get from e) with the 'stored points'. But maybe on c) your SKILL does go down to 9 as you only apply the SKILL increase when it's first mentioned? Would you wish you'd planned to visit B before A?

If you are now stuck on SKILL 9 but know about C, does it make sense for you (on c)-rules) to make a tactical detour there to get your ring stolen, assuming you get told about the SKILL bonus afresh after you've defeated Onnestguv at D?

Of your three scenarios:

1. If you were specifically told you lose 1 point of Skill upon losing the ring, then you would lose that point with c) and e), if it didn't specify you wouldn't with c) but would with e)
2. There would be no difference between c) and e) here
3. Yes using c) you wouldn't be able to activate the Skill bonus unless you picked up the ring again and it mentioned the bonus. With e) you would avoid that silliness. Although the whole concept of Initial Skill is silly in the first place - why would a magic ring boost a wounded person's fighting prowess but do nothing for someone at peak fitness?