After many attempts, our TOR campaign is finally getting going. One of my players has sunk his first 4XP into boosting his Wisdom, so...

Now I am faced with the issue of what Virtues and Rewards to allow and how to avoid any pitfalls, so any advice from those further along would be much appreciated.

In particular, what balance issues are there? I hear that the Hobbit Reward, King's Blade, is overpowered. Are there other, similar issues and what fixes are there for them?

What about the balance between Virtues and Rewards more generally (if Corruption is a bigger threat than Fear, should Rewards be better than Virtues for the sake of balance?) or between the cultural ones on the one hand and Masteries/Qualities on the other (are players getting more for their XPs if they get Masteries rather than Cultural Virtues, for example, or vice versa; and what about Qualities over Cultural Rewards)?

How do you explain the acquisition of new Virtues and Rewards? Theoretically the player in question could acquire Twice-Baked Honey Cakes for his Beorning, but the company is in Lake-Town, so I'm thinking of vetoing that until he gets somewhere where someone might be able to actually teach him. Do you use similar restrictions, or how do you manage Virtue and Rewards in-narrative generally?

Thanks in advance for any tips on these or any similar issues you've experienced!

My players prefer Virtues over Rewards, and Cultural Virtues over Masteries. AIn general, rewards and virtues seem balanced to me, but of course something like Twice Baked Honey Cakes, that benefit everyone, might be considered overpowered compared to, for example, slightly increasing your maximum endurance.

Speaking of that virtue, how do you deal with two Beornings with it? I assume the effect is not cumulative, but that seems a bit unfair to Beornings.

With regards to roleplay, I let my players increase the stats anywhere, but they have to wait until the reward/virtue is introduced in the adventure. The Beorning character had to go back home before he could learn how to cook honey cakes, for example. Another character had to wait for a full session before he learnt the new advantage of his shield, so that it made sense.

I think you are justified with your veto in that case ... unless the player-hero has been roleplaying practising cooking attempts during the course of play - in which case you may adjudicate that they finally perfect a batch after a marathon baking session in Laketown (with the last of that superb honey they've been lugging around since ??? Did they need to befriend a local baker?)

I think in many cases players will have an idea of which Virtues & Rewards they yearn for next. Good roleplayers often tend to weave their heroes' attempts 'to learn new tricks' or strive for a particular goal into the narrative.
As LM it is worth encouraging your players to do this so it doesn't seem so contrived when they suddenly gain a new Virtue/Reward. I go a little easier on players who integrate their hero-developments into our shared story in creative and entertaining ways. It makes for a richer tale IMO

I don't have the system mastery to be an authority on the issue, but it seems that many of the Hobbit virtues and rewards are quite strong.

* King's Blade - This is one that gets more powerful the higher your skill with Short Sword. Two dice with a King's Blade is not overpowered...but five or six dice will get you Piercing Blows about half the time.

* Lucky Armour - This is a dramatic increase in protection. The chance of an automatic success nearly doubles, and your average roll will be significantly higher. Plus, you'll almost never get a Sauron (as it requires rolling one on both dice).

* Small Folk - Considering most foes in TOR are larger than a hobbit, this is up to a +3 bonus to Parry almost all the time. However, the Loremaster can always introduce more small foes when the player is getting too much use out of the Virtue.

* Fair Shot - Roll the feat die twice on any ranged attack means a dramatic increase in Piercing Blows, and reduces the chance of a Sauron result to once in a blue moon. It makes the closest equivalent for Elves (Deadly Archery) look like a joke...

Compare the above to Brave In A Pinch - it requires a point of Hope to use, and cancels Weary penalties...but is unclear on how long. If it's just for the roll, the feat is nearly useless. If it's for the combat, then it's useful if you can spare the Hope. Personally, I think the feats based on spending Hope need to be stronger, or there needs to be a better economy for Hope points.

Bow of the North is another situational gain. It effectively gives you a +1 to +3 bonus to hit if and only if your opponent has a shield. Fair Shot is a much, much better deal.


Overall, it looks like flavor trumps game balance with most of the Virtues and Rewards - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but will rankle those who place a high value on keeping characters balanced with each other.

I personally would not restrict my players from simply "having" their virtue or reward when they select them.

The system already makes players wait by having very specific time periods that they can advance or level (ie, only during their fellowship phases). The game also goes on to say that a typical fellowship phase of a couple months is enough time to travel to any place in Wilderland (including home) and spend time recovering there.

If your fellowship phases are happening more frequently or for shorter durations than that, then you're probably not quite playing as intended by the designer. And that's ok, it just means you're going off script in making up ways to introduce virtues and rewards for your players.

I think I'd want to make the acquisition of Virtues and Rewards narratively plausible. Actually, that's one reason I don't like the idea that companions can simply bounce back and forth between their homes during a Fellowship Phase: the journey rules etc. put a lot of emphasis on the dangers of travel. It's seems odd to me that those are hand-waved for the purpose of character advancement.

As for whether you can have Twice-Baked Honey Cakes twice, I'd say no, but if the player can come up with some sort of equivalent virtue with the same or similar mechanical effect (e.g. Sheltered in the Wild - the companion can easily find good shelter wherever in the wild he is), I might allow that.

I'm tempted to require a Hope expenditure here (instead of for an Attribute Bonus). Would that be an appropriate restriction?

I'm less bothered by this because it's defensive and seems appropriate to Hobbits. It also still allows the opponent to succeed on a really good roll, unlike Lucky Armour.

Maybe require a Hope point again? Hobbits get a lot of Hope - might as well give them something to spend it on.

I think it's just for the roll, isn't it? The idea is that the Hobbit can turn a disastrous roll (with lots of 1-3 results on the skill dice) into a success (counting those towards the total and adding the Attribute bonus). If it needs changing, maybe let the Hobbit reroll the low dice and add the Attribute bonus?

Yeah. Not sure how to boost that one without making it like other Rewards.

Honestly, I think requiring Hope for a Virtue or Reward should be a rare thing. It's a very limited resource, which means you hardly ever get to see your special ability in play. Plus, I get the sense that Virtue and Rewards are supposed to make your character significantly more awesome. Most races have choices that make you say "Wow" when they are used in the right situation. I'm more inclined to buff up the weaker ones than nerf the strong ones.

Also, while Hobbits may start with more Hope, once the game begins everyone has the same economy of Hope use. So while the Hobbit may have an extra 5 or 6 points, adding something that makes the Hobbit use Hope faster will quickly eat through those extra points and leave the Hobbit worse off than other characters.

Cultural Rewards, Qualities and Masteries all function without a Hope cost.There are a number of examples of Cultural Virtues, though, that do require the expenditure of Hope.
The precedent is certainly there for Hope expenditure on new Virtues but, I would hesitate before adjusting any of the existing ones.

My thought, upon reading the initial comment, was to provide Hobbits with an Adversary who is also of small stature and would have no reason to like them. Initially focusing on the Goblins of Goblin-town, I remembered that LotRO used the goblins of Mount Gundabad - and with similar impetus and reason.

While Tolkien states that Goblins are a smaller, less effective and intelligent, as well as a less lethal version of orcs, the argument can be made that they are sufficiently different to be considered a distinct creature variant. They would also have to be relatively small if they're riding wargs. I cannot recall a size comparison by Tolkien ATM, but it's likely goblins are approximately the same size as Hobbits or Dwarfs. This would represent a marked difference between Goblins and Orcs, which are generally thought to be Man sized.

Other opponents will have to be added, particularly in a Hobbit-centric campaign, to ameliorate the benefit to some degree or it will become overpowering. (But this is true of any Reward/Virtue that cannot be counteracted.)