Hello all,

1) When NPCs outnumber PCs, the LM distributes the NPCs among the PCs following the rule:
"When the opposition outnumbers the company, the Loremaster first assigns an opponent of his choice to every companion in a close combat stance (heroes in rearward cannot be engaged).

When all such heroes have been paired with one opponent, there will be a number of enemies left.

The Loremaster must determine what the enemies in excess do, choosing among a) engage a hero who is already engaged, or stand back, possibly to attack using a ranged weapon."

Q1) My question is, is this process done every round? i.e. each round where NPCs > PCs the LM distributes the NPCs among the PCs as he/she sees fit? or is this only done at the beginning of the combat, and only when a PC /NPC is free of opponent can he/she be redistributed to face a new opponent?

2) The opposite, if the PCs outnumber the NPCs, they choose their opponent, following the rule:
"When the companions outnumber their foes or match them in number, each player chooses an adversary for his hero in a close combat stance among those introduced by the loremaster as eligible targets.

When all heroes in a forward, open or defensive stance have been paired with one opponent, there might still be companions in close combat left without an adversary.

When this happens, the players may assign them to attack a creature already engaged by another companion."

Q2) Does it mean that contrary to NPCs, PCs can choose to attack whomever they like? i.e. for example outnumbering NPCs 3 to 1?


Q3) Additionally, as I have read in the LM book, this is done (in both of the above situations) after the PCs have chosen their stance. Is this correct?


Cheers,
Yepes

In answer to your first question, and I'm assuming in this case by NPC you mean adversaries, you can't just move them around each round, so once you've assigned an enemy to each PC, and worked out what the 'free' enemies are doing, the enemies engaged in close combat have to stay in combat or roll an Athletics (I think) check to escape combat, unless there are multiple enemies engaging the PC, in which case I believe that as long as one enemy stays, the others can move.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'PCs can attack whomever they like'
Enemies can attack whomever as well, so long as they obey the combat rules. If you mean each turn PCs can attack whomever, then no. It is not possible to merely switch you target if you are fighting in a close stance, unless you first disengage.

Finally, stances are chosen by players at the beginning of each round

I will use and example.

Q1)
In a combat 2 PCs (PC1 and PC2) face 3 adversaries (from A1 to A5). The PCs are defending (they hold the initiative) and for the first round they stay in Forward stance.

The GM pairs the adversaries as follows:
PC1(froward) engaged with: A1 & A2
PC2 (forward) engaged with: A3

At the beginning of Round 2, PC1 decides to change to Defensive stance while PC2 decides to stay in Forward.

Can the GM move his adversaries for example in the following way?
PC1 (defensive) engaged with: A1
PC2 (forward) engaged with: A2 & A3

That would be my first question.

Q2)
Now we have a combat with PC1, PC2 and PC3 against A1 and A2. The PCs decide to start the combat in Forward stance, and to distribute themselves as follow:
A1 (forward) engaged with: PC1, PC2 and PC3
A2 (forward) engaged with:

Can at the beginning of Round 2, the PCs redistribute themselves say for example like this?
A1 (forward) engaged with: PC1
A2 (forward) engaged with: PC2 and PC3

That was my second question

With the examples above, Q3 becomes more clear I think.
Q3) Additionally, as I have read in the LM book, this is done after the PCs have chosen their stance. Is this correct?

Thanks
Yepes

Ok, that makes more sense now. In answer to your first question, yes, but why would the adversary move? Would it not make more sense to continue attacking the same player?

For your second question, it's possible, so long as there's a reason they aren't engaging the other adversary. Usually all enemies will be in combat if they are outnumbered unless there is a particular reason, such as a ranged enemy being out of reach to all melee characters.

And third, stance is done first, yes.

Hope that helps

Thank you for the clarifications.

The LM may be interested in redistributing Adversaries because (like in the example) a PC can change stance and become a much harder target to hit (TN 6 in forward vs TN 12 in defensive). There can be othet reasons though.

Similarly PC may prefer to focus on a given opponent because he is more dangerous than the rest.

Cheers
Yepes

Hmm, I hadn't thought about that. Regarding PCs 'ganging up' on one enemy, I think it says somewhere that all enemies must be engaged unless some are out of reach. Though I may be making this up, I don't have the books to hand

personally I don't think 3 PCs should be allowed to attack one adversary and ignore another.

In an open area of engagement if one adversary was ignored, he could go around the heroes and attack them either attack from the rear (which is devastating), or else charge those in rearward stance someone needs to keep an eye on him and keep him from getting into the heroes back field.

I don't know, it is all a matter of how you interpret /imagine the combat.

TOR has a very abstract combat mechanic, and you can represent in different ways what does it mean that 3 PCs are attacking adversary 1 while adversary 2 does not receive any blows but he attacks one of these 3 PCS.

I think we are going to stick to the rules, and if the rules allow it, there should be a reason.

So far, TOR is one of the few games (together with TBW may be) that we have not had the need to house rule anything.

Cheers,
Yepes

I'm not going to comment on the wording of the rukles since you have that in front of you. I feel the interpreation is unclear (so I made a call on the issue) but if you feel that the rules are clear go with what you feel the rules are saying.

The rules in the Loremaster's Book are pretty clear about engagements (pp. 44-46):

1. All player-heroes choose a stance first. For every character fighting in rearward, there must be two others in a close combat stance. No heroes can choose rearward if the enemies outnumber the heroes by more than twice.

2. After stances are chosen, engagements are chosen by following the rules given. If there are more enemies than companions, the Loremaster will pair at least one enemy with every hero in a close combat stance. Extra enemies can join an engagement circle or stand back and attack from rearward. If there are more or the same number of companions as enemies, then each player-hero in a close combat stance must choose an available enemy to engage. Extra heroes in close combat can choose to join an engagement circle of their choice.

Now to answer your original question.

Stances are chosen at the top of every round of combat. However, the rules assume that if a player-hero is engaged in close combat with an enemy, he cannot then automatically disengage from that enemy at the top of a round by declaring a rearward stance. He must continue to fight engaged at close combat until the enemy or enemies he is engaged with either flee or are defeated. He may freely change between forward, open, or rearward stances during the fight, however.

If any hero becomes unengaged during a fight, the Loremaster should follow the rules above when deciding how to proceed.

Thanks James.

Yes, the rules are clear, I just wanted to be sure that it was possible to move adversaries /PCs each round or that it is possible to gang up against adversaries. Probably my questions are a bit redundant, but since we are new to the game (only 4 sessions), I just wanted to be sure we are doing it the right way.

Cheers,
Yepes

The way I understand the rules and Loremaster the game is that I do NOT allow the player-heroes to gang up on a particular enemy while ignoring eligible targets. Each hero in a close combat stance must be paired with an eligible target so that all those enemies are engaged.

Also, my player-heroes do NOT change engagements each round. They stay engaged with the adversary they were paired with until the enemy either flees or is defeated.

Now, let's say there are 5 companions and 3 adversaries. Only 1 hero can choose rearward and 4 of them must choose a close combat stance. So, that's what they do. Then, the player-heroes choose engagements in close combat by pairing off with the adversaries. The first three player-heroes must cover all three adversaries. The fourth player-hero is extra and can choose to join one of the engagement circles.

What happens in the engagement circle that has 2 heroes and 1 adversary if the adversary is killed by the first hero before the second one takes his turn?

The core rules do not explicitly cover this situation, but I think common sense does. Since the player-heroes outnumber the enemy, the player-hero who has not taken his turn and is now unengaged must choose another engagement when his turn comes up following all the normal rules. So, since the companions outnumber the enemy (now 5 to 2), he can either choose rearward and make a ranged attack, or he can choose a close combat stance and join one of the other engagement circles to make his attack. The other player hero who already took his turn, but is now unengaged, will choose a stance and a new engagement at the top of the next combat round.

@OP - To perhaps muddy the water, I DO allow both PCs and adversaries to gang-up on their opponents.

Yes, I know what RAW has to say about this but, it stretches my suspension of disbelief to pair-off PC and enemies, one-to-one. Especially, against enemies as aggressive, devious, dishonorable, cunning, and cowardly as goblins, orcs, wargs, etc.

Clearly, I don't enforce that PCs must gang-up - it is entirely up to them to decide with whom to engage. If they want to pair-off themselves, fighting on a 1:1 basis, that's obviously fine and as intended.

As Cynan indicates upthread, this could possibly expose a PC to a side or rear attack and uncover any PCs in rearward stance. I actually like how this adds a new, extra element to their group's battlefield tactics. To support this, I either drop shield Parry bonuses or apply +/- to attacks or defensive TNs, as and when I feel they apply.

Additionally, I find much of this to be situational and increases player agency - do we try and take out their archers first? Do we gang-up on the Orc Chieftain in hopes that he might tuck-tail and run, destroying the morale of his minions? If we do, will his supporting goblins flank us or rush in to attack our archer with a 1 in Spear/Dagger and a leather shirt (1d)?

Take for instance, JamesR's example - 5 PCs vs. 3 adversaries. What is the make-up of the enemy party? Can any PC discern more about their opponent through a Shadow-lore roll, e.g. craven, seize, bewilder? Why simply have PCs mechanically pair-off against those enemies? I know if I were in the fight, I would make a decision based on need - do we take on the weakest and force them out? Do we gang-up on the toughest because we need to? I find mixed enemy parties also help with increasing these kinds of tactical decisions.

With regard to enemies, I generally tend to assign them randomly (assuming they are either not already engaged or are attacking with Initiative). Once in melee, I don't let either PCs or adversaries easily switch targets (except in a 2+:1 situation, e.g. Enemy 1 may be attacking PC1. PC2 may move to engage Enemy 1 as well. On its turn I would then determine randomly whether Enemy 1 switches target to PC2) PCs and adversaries in Rearward stance can choose each round who their target is.

Obviously, YMMV and all that. I will say though, rules as written are simply exactly that - after you've played RAW, feel free to change rules to best suit you and your group's style of play. As long as you explain to your players that they may unbalance the combat encounter, giving bonuses to their enemies and/or penalties to themselves, let 'em go and see what happens.

Actually, this is how I understood it at the beginning, but then I realized that the rules state that only the adversaries must be paired 1:1 with PCs until all PCs are engaged with one adversary. On the other hand, the rules do not say that the PCs must be paired 1:1, then my doubt was if this was intended to give PCs more freedom, or it was just that the designers involuntarily omitted it in the book.

Cheers,
Yepes

Maybe I am misunderstanding the passage in the rulebook. Here is what it says on page 45 of the Loremaster's Book in the section More Heroes Than Enemies (or sides equally matched):

"When the companions outnumber their foes or match them in number, each player chooses an adversary for his hero in a close combat stance among those introduced by the loremaster as eligible targets.

When all heroes in a forward, open or defensive stance have been paired with one opponent, there might still be companions in close combat left without an adversary.

When this happens, the players may assign them to attack a creature already engaged by another companion."

I took this to mean that each player must choose a different eligible adversary until all the adversaries are paired with at least one hero. However, see my next comments...

Evocatus, I do like your creativity and solution for allowing a diversion from the RAW in order to give players more freedom and provide interesting choices in combat in general. I think applying modifiers to TNs is a good way to go when player-heroes request actions that are outside the default rules.

I also think the section called, Non-combat Actions on page 47 brings good insight into the intention of flexibility on the part of Francesco Nepitello in the spirit of allowing players to have an enjoyable experience.

During my last session about a week ago, I told one of my players that during our next session I would allow pretty much anything they could come up with (which I suspect will be absolutely crazy!). I should be a fun session, but I will be using modifiers and creative tests. When I have done things like that in the past, players usually don't mind trying things, even if the TN is very high. In fact, they get more satisfaction out of the proposed action if they do succeed. Everyone has a great time!

But do you see the nuance between the two descriptions? In contrast to the "Adversary outnumbering the PCs" description, in this instance of the rules it does not say it explicitly. That is what bothers me!

PCs > Adversaries:
"When all heroes in a forward, open or defensive stance have been paired with one opponent, there might still be companions in close combat left without an adversary."

There might be or might be not depending if they ganged up or not?


Adversaries > PCs
"When the opposition outnumbers the company, the Loremaster first assigns an opponent of his choice to every companion in a close combat stance (heroes in rearward cannot be engaged)."

Here the rules specifically state that they have to be paired 1:1

Anyway, does anybody know if there is a formal way to submit a rules question to the designers team?

Cheers,
Yepes

Depending on whether there are more companions than adversaries or an equal number.

Those rules aren't for "PCs > Adversaries", but PCs > Adversaries.

Good point!

The written rules follow a logical path. If there are more or an equal amount of player-heroes compared to adversaries, this means there could be less enemies than the number of companions in close combat. Simply put, after the player-heroes pair up with targets, there may be companions left without an adversary because there were more companions than adversaries in the first place. All the adversaries have been paired with a hero and now there are leftover heroes in a close combat stance. They can then join an ally in his engagement circle. This could not be referring to an original ganging up situation, because if there were more or an equal number of companions and a few of them ganged up on one adversary, the leftover heroes would still have targets available and it would not be saying there might be companions in close combat left without an adversary (to choose from).

The only time I see that the rules allow ganging up is precisely when there are more companions in a close combat stance than the total number of adversaries. After all adversaries have been engaged, the leftover companions can join an engagement circle of their choice and gang up on that adversary if they wish (within the limits set by the rules).

So, if there were 5 companions that chose a close combat stance and 3 adversaries (all human-sized), the first three companions pair with each adversary and the remaining two can choose which engagement circle they want to join. They could both choose the same enemy, making it a gang of 3 companions versus 1 adversary. Remember, there is a limit of 3 heroes who can be engaged to 1 human-sized opponent or up to 5 companions on a large opponent.

(When players equal or greater than enemy).....

Since players are expected to engage all enemy combatants; though it doesn't indicate this explicitly, we have the players dictate engagements in order of their stance aggressiveness.

The idea is that "Forward" is more aggressive - possibly charging into the fray. They would most likely be the first to clash swords with the enemy. So those in forward select their engagement target first, then Open, then Defensive.