I have not actually read the Loremasters book (I have a tendency to powergame/metagame, so the less I know about things like monster statistics, the better).

However, I do know that our GM asks us to point at a map (like the one in the adventuers book) and show him our route. He then counts up the number of grid squares (on the private GM map), applies a scalar based on terrain, applies a scalar based on whether there's a road or something, applies some other scalar or subtract-er if we are familiar with the route, and tells us how many travel checks to make. I believe Beorn's to Laketown is three, for instance (via the old road and the swampy river, which is the way we always go, even though its apparently a really foolish thing to do).

This, of course, assumes that we don't all decide to make (and fail) lore checks, thus adding 3-4 additional days (which is what happened the first session). This also assumes that we "stay on the path" and don't go running off into the forest to hunt goblins or spiders or other such foolishness (which we do far more than is entirely healthy).

All in all, I don't think the number of travel checks rolled is excessive when traveling on familiar roads. It's things like "distance (far) * terrain (bad) * road (none) * familiar (not) - 1 for lore check (failed) = 6, 7, or 8 travel checks". Which we then have to roll one at a time, in order, passing the dice around after each roll, because we might get a hazard or a really bad corruption roll or something that would invalidate accumulated rolls (and because we only had one set of dice until recently). This is pretty much what we do every single session. We route through roads and rivers when we can, but it's not always an option, and it only lessens the problem.

And this doesn't address the other half of the travel problem, which is the general pointlessness of the checks in the first place. If the travel rolls mattered, it wouldn't be so bad, but right now the mechanic feels like a dressed-up Random Encounter Generator and Advancement Point Granter.

Indeed. There's much more incentive to stay at home and let the evil come to you. By the time it gets to you, they'll be the tired ones and you're much more likely to succeed.

Beginning characters should not be attempting long journeys like that, anymore than they should be fighting dragons.

I admit, this was not clear to me when I first ran the game. Luckily, I hand-waved the entire "go to lake-town" issue, which I think is the right thing to do at the start if you're going with the beginning adventure.

-Jeff

Actually, that's part the problem for me.

Firstly, there's no real guide as to what is and isn't appropriate for starting characters to attempt. Monsters have a rank, which is a decent rough guide; there's a fair amount of 'noise' within a given rank (a rank 5 orc is nastier than a rank 5 spider, but the rank 4 spider is nastier than the rank 4 goblin), but from what I've seen there is a much larger difference between each rank (one rank 6 seems to be worth two or three rank 5s).

However, there's no similar guide for travel; how (besides making the attempt and learning the hard way) are characters supposed to know that taking the river down through the corrupted swamp to the old forest road is a bad idea? For that matter, how are players and GMs supposed to know that, if they've never played?

Secondly, there's not a whole lot of difference between a starting character and one that's been around a dozen sessions. The main difference is having a respectable Valour and Wisdom (which does help); common skills, however, don't seem to improve much at all.

The Lore master, should actually know, and the players can roleplay and ask around in the city, try to meet someone who actually took that road, ask around what people think of that road, if anyone every takes that road and if anyone ever lived to tell about taking that road.

tons of clues a Lorekeeper can give his players if they bother to ask around.

If they bother to ask around... BobChuck has a penchant for pointing in a direction and declaring "We're going this way!" even when the other players are saying "Whoa! Let's give this some thought first!".

We've been handling all the Fatigue Tests by the book and he brings up a really valid opinion: he perceives the Travel Tests as pointless because they become a random hazard generator and AP generator. But, that is exactly WHY I like them! Many of Tolkien's stories focus on Travels and you can see how the characters gain experience through their travels. And, as an LM, the random Hazards help to progress the story and give the Travel time something interesting to point out and do along the way. Without them, it would become a hand wave "ok, it took you 8 weeks but you get there", which is DEFINITELY not how any of the Travels in Tolkien's works are described as.

If anything, my complaint would be that there are not enough Hazard examples. I'd LOVE to see a list of 100+ Travel Hazards. That could help to, again, keep Travels interesting.

An idea, though, for limiting Travel tests would be to completely remove Fatigue tests and replace them with automatic hazards during that time, one hazard for every Fatigue Test. That would keep it interesting.

Usually travelling is a transition between scenes or episodes of a game. So he would be right to say it's pointless having a random generator for it.

Random events or encounters isn't something i would consider in any other game other than TOR unless it had an important event for the story.

But in TOR, it's the mix of all those aspects, hazards, fatigue, eye of sauron that makes it enjoyable. And as you very well point out, it's not tolkien if we skip travel.

The topic is, balancing body. I agree that body isn't the most useful of the characters attributes. But changing travel skills so that everyone is the same... i don't know.

I also don't see where the issue is with travelling. You have no points in travel?
ok fine, don't wear chainmail and great shield... travel light, get a pony and instead of adding 10 fatigue you'll add 5. Now if you want to enter Mirkwood, especially if you stray off the old road, it won't matter that much anymore if you have 3 or 0 points in travel. You'll fail most tests anyway and your pony will probably not want to share your route.

What is the worst that could happen ? Be weary? I mean yes it sucks being weary, but it's not the end of the world either. You'll have to be more carefull about the fights you'll get yourself into.

I'm trying to put together a big table of example hazards by role and terrain type, with 6 examples for each category (i.e., 6 examples of possible hazards for the Scout in Forest terrain, 6 examples for the Hunter in Hills, etc.), so you could randomize if you want to. I haven't gotten very far with the project.

John

You set up a post for it?

I'll post any hazard i'll come up with during my games.

Same here. I would love to see what you have.

The problem is "every aspect of a character that relies on vigour or physical well being is represented in the game by Body."

That statement is a lie.

So when someone plays a Beorning character that wants to be the frontliner, and selects a high body, and carries chain, a helm, a shield and a sword, he has actually completely gimped himself. After one hit, he's weary, and he can't perform his role that the player intended.

Interestingly, in this game, by RAW, it's impossible to be a fully armored knight. Mail Hauberk (20) + Great Shield (6) + Helm (6) + Sword (2) stacks up to 34, more encumbrance than a human can ever carry (29). And while there were no knights in the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings had plenty.


Travel is one aspect of this problem, but it's not my main issue.
"Changing travel skill so everyone is the same" means that you kinda missed the point. The reason I would rule for an extra skill to be used on fatigue checks only (Travel is still useful on actual travel checks), is precisely so that everyone can be different. Because otherwise, there's a strong incentive to build a character towards the mechanics and not towards the story you have in mind for your character.
Most of the mechanics are already "the same" within a culture. There's a small number of things you can customize, but it's a narrow range, and I don't think that having less of that because one skill will come up more than the others is fun.

I don't have the rulebook with me but aren't Beornings immune to weary in battle?

Edit: Maybe only when wounded?

Only after being wounded.

That is a point that I agree with.

I'm also in agreement here; personally, I think they should have put five-ish less points into the base set of common skills each culture gets (say, dwarves start with 2 travel base, for instance, and something else removed) and added an extra 5 customization XP - with an additional cap of three to a characters starting skill rank.

I'll start a new thread rather than keep sidetracking this one.

John

Sidetracking?

You mean the "Balencing Body" thread isn't for discussing issues with character creation limitations, potential travel hazards, and problems with the travel skill?

The rule is to add your travelling gear if you fail a travel roll, I believe, not your combat gear. So 1 or 2, depending on season.

I don't see the fuss on the travel side - you can travel 50 miles, gain a couple of points, and over time raise your travel to 3 to compensate. Meanwhile, like you say, get out of the chainmail, and like I said, stop treating this like every other fantasy game. Travel in Tolkien is as big a deal as combat, so don't take long journeys until you are ready.

YES. My major arguments flow from this. Like you, I picture someone trying to fullfil the role of frontline fighter...and advising them to prioritize wit and heart while ditching body. The only real problem with that is spending hope to resist wounds, but that balances against a higher parry score and the endurance to wear more armor and take more hits.

-Jeff

You can be a knight if you want with all the armor and great shield and longsword and even with swordmaster skill and you'll be able to fulfill your role perfectly.
You will have high protection against wounds and attacks, you'll be able to protect other characters in defensive stance, inspire in open stance and be able to hit in forward stance.

So what's the issue? Because you'll be weary?
So the 1 2 and 3 will count for 0. I see that as a trade off and not a major issue. You're are trading off a little bit of success chances against almost invulnerability.

Go forward stance and hitting with 3 skill points won't be a major issue even if you're weary.

If on top you have high body, the few times you wont be able to save against a wound, you can add your high body to the armor check.

what more do you want as a front-line tank?

I see a lot of options and choices available in this game.

You are missing the point about travel, i understand very well that travel also serves when you play the guide.
The point is that being weary isn't like your character is dying. If you don't want to be weary because you want to be able to pass your skill checks, travel light, use a pony a boat plan your route so you can rest a few days somewhere or spend points in travel.

"While certainly the product of experience, the use of Travel benefits mostly from a hero’s strength of spirit."

By giving it another skill like athletics, you are making everyone the same. everyone will have 3 skill points to make travel rolls.

If you build your character according to the mechanics, it's because you see being weary too much as an issue. There are a lot of workarounds when it comes to avoiding being fatigued. And these workarounds are actually fun as they give the group a reason to roleplay, discuss and plan.

Of course everyone is free to change the rules however he wants. For me that won't be the case as the games offers a lot of flavor and choices through it's mechanics.

If you want to balance body though, i agree that it should somehow affect your physical prowess to wear armor and take a beating.
The only reasonable thing i could think of is having impact on your endurance points. It would indirectly address the travel issue as you would have more endurance points. Something like using heart or body to calculate endurance, whichever is the highest.

As stated in prior posts, I believe the issue here is fatigue rolls not travel rolls. It would only be using athletics for the former. Also the game already has examples of different skills used for similar tasks also mentioned in prior post such as song, riddle, and lore.

Mechanically they may be similar, but character or role-playwise they are not.

Yes, you are correct that you can put the equipment on. But you are better served, all things being equal, to raise heart and wits over body. Wits will increase your parry, heart will increase your endurance, and body will only increase damage on good+ successes.

THIS. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone with a tough-guy image, reading the in-book description, to build someone with a high body. But it won’t work in practice, once they have an understanding of the mechanics.

-Jeff

I think the thing to do is change endurance so it goes by the higher of Body or Heart.

Adding Athletics as an alternative skill for fatigue tests (so there are two different skills to choose from, like most other tests) is also an option.

Going farther than this, doing something like "reduce fatigue by your body rating", results in craziness; for instance, a dwarf (Penetrating Gaze background and favored heart of three) can carry a Mattock, a pair of daggers, and the heaviest armor around (5d, +20 fatigue) and have a final base fatigue score of 10. Dwarves are hardcore, but they aren't that hardcore.

Ok, here's a thought, and it's not hard to implement:

Under normal conditions when your endurance falls to or below your fatigue rating, you become weary.

Now, when your endurance falls to your fatigue rating, you become tired, which means 1s don't count. Only when your endurance falls to fatigue-body do you become fully weary.

Some more thoughts:

- Maybe 1 & 2, if this mod is considered too powerful?

- Maybe "tired" is more easily rested from, if this is considered too weak?


-Jeff

seems too complicated to me.

Letting Endurance be "cultural base plus either Body or Heart" instead of just "plus Heart" means that warrior-types end up with more Endurance, which is actually better than reducing fatigue. There is no need to additionally reduce fatigue on top of the bonus Endurance. At least not without some extensive playtesting or mathematical analysis.

I like the idea of Fatigue checks being done against Athletics or Travel (possibly in addition to something else to help Body). I even feel like it fits the lore. I don't think it would break anything, or minimize the journey either.

The elves and dwarves would both start with 3's when they journey, but for different reasons (based on different scores). They would have (according to the percentages thread) a 70% chance of success. I don't find that too high, there's still plenty of possibility of failure there.

The humans would all start with 2's, whether in Athletics or Travel. This means they start with a 42% chance for success. For me that's just fine for a starting adventurer, and the option to spend points to bring it up to three (and a much higher chance of success) is there during character creation.

Hobbits would start with a 1 for journeys. That's a 17% chance of success, and of course there's the opportunity to raise it during character creation. To me this fits hobbits, who in my mind are local travelers rather than cross-country.

Also note that the races that have the scores in Travel rather than in Athletics have an advantage in some situations where a follow up roll is needed to determine a journey's encounter.

I think all of this balances nicely. Two races to choose from if you want to spend most or all of your points on things other than Journey Skills (what I call Athletics and Travel). Those two are non-human though, and so might appeal to a more narrow range of character concepts and players (that's good IMO). The wider range of concepts falls under the humans who are solidly in the middle of the Journey skills. Lastly are the hobbits who again are more narrow range conceptually but bring advantages to the party as a whole and thus should remain desirable despite possibly having to add some points to Journey skills in character creation.

---------------------------------------------

I think someone mentioned it earlier, but is there somewhere in the books that it specifies what to use for Fatigue checks? I looked at at least one Fatigue check section in each book and neither said Travel what was you check against. The only place I found Travel referenced was in the description of Travel.

New poster, here.

I'm not sure how I feel about that idea. I've thought of the athletics skill as more of a "short-term" type of skill. Ie, someone who can run a sprint very well won't necessarily be able to tough it out through a long journey. I guess that's also a matter of what type of training you've gone through, but I don't think Athletics is intended to represent the type of training necessary for long-term journeys.

In certain instances, I'd allow Athletics to be substituted, such as when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli pursue the Orcs through Rohan. It's more a matter of speed, then. But in general? No, not in my opinion. However, whatever works for your group.

absolutely.

If i would change anything it would be this.

It indirectly addresses fatigue. Those characters will lack either hope (heart) or parry (wits), but they'll still be able to sustain fatigue a little bit better and it will reflect their high body.

there is no need for anything else.

In The LotR, he who had the greatest endurance came from a people numbered among the least mighty (in TOR we might call that least in Body). Even in The Silmarillion, the crossing of the Grinding ice by the host of Fingolfin is attributed to the fire of their spirits, and their youth having not been weighed down by the weight of their exile and the passing ages.

In Tolkien's Middle-earth, physique, body, or might factors very little into what a person can endure. The fact that TOR's designers chose Heart to calculate Endurance fits precisely with the sources. Granted, this is counter-intuitive to almost every other fantasy roleplaying system, but not Middle-earth.

That said, what worked for Tolkien didn't always work for his contemporaries when he wrote The LotR. Nor does it work for a lot of modern gamers though they love his Middle-earth. Tolkien turned a number of conventions upside down when he put the fate of Middle-earth in the hands of the smallest of its people's. He was doubly routed when Frodo turns out to be a complete and utter failure at the very end of the story. Add insult to injury, Tolkien really baffled his critics when he wrote the fate of Middle-earth not into a heroic deed but an act of pity: Frodo's failure is redeemed by his choice to spare Gollum; and, thereby, Middle-earth is saved.

Body has little to do with Endurance just as mighty deeds weighs small compared to the power of free choice in Middle-earth.

As a gamer and not just a LM, I really like the mechanics being developed in this post, but sometimes it good to remember the context for the TOR mechanics. I don't want to lose sight of that either, especially as we sub-create new and ingenious ways to play the game differently.

As I've already said I've played only two sessions, but it seems to me that Body is beign by someone over-rated or maybe mis-rated.
Or at least that's my two cents on it.
Explain: have someone seen a picture of Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay? Two of the bravest travellers ever! Does they seem to have (TOR-rules-wise) a high Body? To me they seems to have a really big Heart!
I know that other games rely much more than TOR on the muscular factor, but this is the point: this game isn't those games. Here the Heart is mightier than anything else (yes, even Wits)!

I think the concern isn't so much justifying that Heart is important, it certainly is. However right now there are three scores in the game that represent a character, and one (Body) is significantly less important than the other two, to the point where it can be bad to take it. If the game has three scores, then those scores should be balanced and of as close to equal in importance as they can be. That's just good game design.

There are many examples in real life of people whose "hearts" helped them travel, and in the books as well. But I'm sure it would pretty easy to find places in both real life and in the books where physicality is mentioned as a boon to travel.

Body is treated oddly. Though in description it has to do with fitness and the other things you would expect it to be associated with through common sense, it doesn't seem to actually have any effect on those things in the game rules.

Having now run the game, I feel that Body is fine as it stands. It is the combat attribute, as Heart is the attribute used when travelling. All of the weapon skills use Body as the attribute and damage is calculated on the Body attribute. Yes, I know Endurance is Heart .. that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Damage received is more about having the will to stay on your feet, so Heart is appropriate.

In my opinion, the suggested adjustments to Body would imbalance the game in favour of Body rather than redress any perceived imbalance already there.

I agree with you 100%.

Wits is the combat attribute, +defense against every attack roll. Actually, the effect is more subtle, as you can risk an open or forward stance more readily if your wits is high, making your own attack roll easier.

Heart is great for everything. Nobody's going to argue against more hope & endurance, the twin cores of the game system.

Body? +Dmg on great and extraordinary hits. Useful? Sure. The same as the other two, I'm not sure how you get there.


But once again, I'll reiterate the real reason:

"Every aspect of a character that relies on vigour or physical well-being is represented by Body."

This I do not see in the game, and that's what really troubles me. Seriously, read that sentence and tell me that it describes the mechanical impact of Body. It's a bit of damage, which is good, but not (edit: that big of a deal in) the game.

-Jeff

edit: sorry, that's what I get for typing while my wife is talking to me. :-)

You know, a thought occurred to me. There are 3 major systems in the game - combat, travel, and encounters. Maybe the best way to handle body is:

In an encounter with common folk - those who value neither valor nor wisdom - the tolerance level is set to body-2 before other modifiers.

In other words, if you're asking the fisherman to take you across the river in his boat, and all he wants to do is to get back for supper, it helps to be a hot elf chick rather than a dumpy hobbit.

-Jeff

Hmm, bit of uncertainty here about what Body really mean. Is it big, strong, fit, good-looking? Plenty of people are one of these without being any of the others!

I tend to take it simply as being big and strong. Which to my mind is why it doesn't get that much weight, as in Tolkien being big and strong doesn't generally get you very far.

I looked back over the rules when I had the idea of restricting Great Spear and Great Axe to PCs of (say) Body 5 or more. And found that it wouldn't change things much except for the wimpiest of Elves, as all Beornings have 5+ Body anyway.

So maybe this is an kind of "invisible" Body bonus written into the game - that the cultures with higher Body are also (to some extent) given starting ranks in weapons that do more damage?

Per the rules (not in front of me at the moment), body encompasses all aspects of physical being - strength, agility, being good-looking, and so on. If i understood correctly, it's not that you're all that in one package, it's that the game abstracts it all into one number and let's the player interpret as they wish.

As for body and tolkien, as a counterpoint I offer Merry and Pippen, who gained in body in fangorn and put it to good use in the Shire.

Actually, if you read the books I think you'll find that everybody (frodo and sam excluded) is physically impressive to a degree, it's just that heart and wits (to use the game's terms) are just as important.

-Jeff

I think Body is supposed to represent pretty much all physical aspects, not just size and brawn. To use the D&D terms, Strength, Dexterity and Constitution are all rolled in to Body. So one person's high Body score is large, bulky muscle, and when he gets a great success on his attack roll he smashes his foe brutally. Another person's Body is his smaller, but toned frame and pinpoint coordination. When he gets a great success on his attack he thrusts his blade deep into a weak point in his foe's armour. Yet another is lean and wiry, and just never, ever tires.

As far as attractiveness, I would say it sort of constitutes a certain type of charisma, again varying on how you picture your character. Your wealthy woman of Dale might be beautiful, but the Woodman chief might be tall, stern and commanding, with an oft-broken nose and a long red scar down his cheek. Both are capable of projecting the image of power, how you flavor it is up to you.

Acknowledging this feeling being discussed that Body is not represented enough in game mechanics, here is again another perspective.

It seems that more traditional gaming notions of Body as an attribute might be dominating. That is, Body represents a measurement of sheer physique, strength, agility, constitution, etc.

What if Body captures all of these as well as the ability to use the potential strength, dexterity, and other physical qualities represented by the attribute?

Let us say a character has a high Body score. Is it because of an impressive physique or because of how the character can use what he or she has? I would suggest either depending upon how a person wants to roleplay their character.

Given the way the designers structured the game and also considering all the skills that are supported by Body, a player could read his or her Body score in a number of ways. For example, a lean wiry character who has impressive command over his or her physicality can be small descriptively (in the roleplaying) and have a high Body score considered from the mechanics. Not everyone endowed with a massive physique is also graced with the competency to use it affectively. However, a really high Body score might just represent this convergence of physical potential and ability to harness.

Another one of my favorite possibilities deals with ancestry. A player invokes Body to influence the outcome of an Awe task. Is the character threatening with a massive physique (if they have a high Body score let us say)? Or, is the character calling on something else? Maybe a certain ancestry or bloodline that he or she embodies...? This is preceisely how Tolkien represents Aragorn in those moments where he "unveils" himself. Read The LotR closely and you never really get a sense precisely of Aragorn's physique. And, in these moments of Awe (to cast these episodes in TOR) Aragorn is not physically imposing, but it is his Numenorean ancestry and the purity with which he em-Bodies this descent that Awes those around. Here the Body score might represent nothing to do with strength or dexterity, etc., but with something embodied like a bloodline or a power (here I think of Gandalf, but I won't belabor the example to detail). How many characters does Tolkien really devote time to developing a physically impressive picture? Not many.

All of this points to the narrative and roleplaying. I can understand the frustration if Body is limited to how it manipulates the outcome of the game mechanics. But there's some much more potential than that given a good story and some imagination mixed in with creative Loremastering and roleplaying.

For what it's worth, Body as a game influencer on every aspect of a character that relies on vigor or physical well-being is captured in the way the game is designed.

One of the most important aspects of the game lies precisely in invoking an attribute to insure the outcome of a Test or Task. (This is the best way to think of invoking attributes with Hope. Drawing on spiritual reserves and the underlying attribute that supports a skill, a player can insure they succeed. But a character can only push him or herself this way before burn out sets in and they become miserable. Not soo much to change the outcome, invoking attributes seems more like a situation where a character "gives everything you got" and leaves nothing untapped to succeed. That is how I read invoking attributes.) The skills aligned to Body present all the aspects (in a Tolkien flavored game) where vigor and physicality, and other embodied traits influence the story. But this requires games sessions made up of more than journeys and combat.

When the game was first released via PDF, there were a number of posts that ran into questions of min-maxing your way to the "best" character. Early on it was observed, the way the game stands a min-maxing mentality can easily be frustrated because the game seems based on asymmetrical mechanics. If you look at the game as attempting to offer a means for the best possible and closest to a Tolkien-style story, then it is really satisfying as designed.

I wonder how much it would break the system to un-link the attributes and their specific skills when spending hope?

By this is mean, if you spend a hope point on a skill roll, you can add any attribute that you (and the GM) can justify.

For example AWE.

Awe + Wits because you KNOW something that will help you Awe the target.
Awe + Heart because you really believe in what you are saying.
Awe + Body because you can use your physicality to be effective. (Bullying could lead to being tainted by the dark)

Mitch

I don't think it would "break" the system so much as change the way the game plays. But, if you build your rule in such a way that the storytelling element provides a check as your suggesting, then I believe you're working in the spirit of the game designers.

In a number of s, the designers stress that a person's playing of his or her player-hero should strive to leverage such things as Traits and which skills to use for a task through the creativity of their narrative. Tasks have a similar emphasis such that the player makes the case for which skill to use and bases it on the imaginative story woven around the use of the skill. If it satisfies the audience, I.e., the other players, then the LM allows the proposed skill to define the task roll.

What you're proposing sounds very much like this on the level of mechanics. Underneath the level of mechanics and next in consideration, how does Middle-earth work as presented in The Hobbit and The LotR? The dynamics of Tolkien's Middle-earth rank among the most unique settings of the genre. And, while it is based on our own world in the way mythic stories from different cultures reflect fundamentals about that culture, Tolkien was writing in a decidedly different period from our own with different sensibilities. This underlies many of the dynamics that govern his storytelling in Middle-earth. As an example and using baseball (though this is an Americannize dexample and I'm not much of a sports fan, I believe this is illustrative), homerun records from the 1920's as opposed to present times were accomplished by considerably different physical aptitudes. In fact, the kind of built strength the powers most current athletics was not something in the cultural imagination of the 20's. That is, a heroic figure conceived in the 20's would not look like some of our modern representations in sports today. The comparison here is Babe Ruth to mark McGuire lets say. All of that to say the dynamics that gowerned the world of the 20's are quite different from today. And, this is true of how Middle-earth works in relation to modern fantasy and RPG games. This might seem pointless and on one level I imagine it is; but, for some, trying to remain within the world of Middle-earth is important and, if so, it's worth considering when devising house rules. This provides another layer to the question of "breaking." For what it's worth, I believe as far as a possible a LM should consider this when tweaking TORs rules. The game designers went to a great extent to capture the dynamics of Middle-earth faithfully while developing a playable game.

The last level of consideration would be the players themselves. Does the change you propose make sense to them and enhance their experience of Middle-earth? Does the change increase the level of enjoyment in the game? All of these can be ways of approaching house ruling something as it pertains to TOR.

Some will rank the last first in importance, while others will consider the second as inviolable because of "canon." Those who really like rules and systems might approach it from the first consideration. All in all there are a number of ways to approach answering the question of breaking the system.

In my own campaign, we haven't hit that brick wall where people are frustrated with the rules or think they can be improved upon. And, believe me, we push the rules with our storytelling. But then again our brand of storytelling might work uncommonly well with the rules. Only the Wise can say...

Regards,
E

Ps I must be feeling footnote-ish in a Tolkien kind of way because all that could have been placed after the immediate response. My apologies for what might amount to a pointless ramble. But, yeah, I do think it diminishes the system though I would not say out of hand that it breaks it...