if you are using the "Defend Companion" special task in combat, do you sacrifice your attack action to do this?

I have ruled that the player gets his/her normal attack in addition to the "defending" action. I feel this makes sense, as the defending character has the negative of potentially taking damage AND has to spend a point of Hope.

It seems fair.

O

I agree that the person choosing that stance and maneuver gets appropriate penalties already (and is also forced to spend a point of Hope). I think if the intention was for them not to be able to attack then this would have been spelled out in the description.

I'm in agreement with both of your interpretations. Just wanted to see if others were like-minded.

Also, does the defending companions endeavor protect against just one attack or all attacks in that round? A careful reading suggests to me that he can do it any number of times in that combat round. with each attempt requiring the use of 1 hope point.

I don't have my books with me, but Defend Companion is a combat task. Tasks are usually performed in lieu of an attack. Defend Companion is also unique insofar as it doesn't happen on your turn, suggesting that you would have to anticipate that your companion will be the target of an attack...

Then again, similar mechanics often allow the player to make an extra action/change its action by spending a point of hope, which this task demands already.

Anyone can quote the relevant section from the book?

Relevant Text in Entirety:

"TASKS IN COMBAT
Described below are a number of special tasks commonly
employed by adventurers involved in combat. In general,
these tasks require a hero to be fighting in a specific
stance, and as usual require a skill roll. Difficulties are
usually set at TN 14."

Defensive stance: Protect Companion

"A character fighting in a defensive stance may strive
to protect another hero fighting in an open or forward
stance. He must announce the name of the character he
wants to protect right after choosing his stance for the
coming turn.

When the protected character is attacked, the protecting
hero may choose to spend a point of Hope and become
the target of the attack in his place. The attack is resolved
normally, as if the attack was originally aimed at the
defending character."

That's how I always understood it too, and both Intimidate and Rally Comrades mention forgoing attacks. Protect Companion doesn't, though, except that you have to announce which companion you're defending when you announce your stance. I understood that as meaning you were spending your entire round defending.

For what it's worth, I'd also decided that a player performing "Protect Companion" still got an attack because of the Hope expenditure that's required. As Ormazd has already said, it seems overly costly otherwise.

Not wanting to confuse the issue or hijack the thread but I have two other questions related to this:

1. When does the Hero doing the Protect Companion choose to become the target of an attack? Presumably it has to be before the attack roll? Not after?

2. I've just noticed the RaW say you can protect another character fighting in "open or forward stance". Can anyone think of a reason why you shouldn't be able to protect someone in defensive stance?

I feel that it ought to be decided on before the attack roll. at least that is how we have always done it. Since you already declared who you are attacking, if that character is attacked the LM asks the defender if he or she is going to take this hit before the roll is made.

I see no reason why you should not be able to defend a character who is in any stance, intercepting arrows aimed at rearward stance even seems okay to me. i think they list open and forward because typically it makes more sense to defend someone who is easier to hit.... but yah if one hero wanted to cover a character who was already wounded I would allow it no matter the stance chosen.

I agree that teh character in the defensive stance should be able to attack. If they were not allowed to attack then it would have been specified like in the other tasks.

Hey guys! Your question about Protect Companion has been discussed before several times. At least one of those times, Francesco was available to give us clarity.

You can find his answer here in a topic called "Engagement - Rules Question." The entire thread is very interesting to read if you have the time. As I recall, it cleared up some misunderstandings about engagements as well as Combat tasks.

Thanks for the link, James. It really needs to be added to the stickied Rules Clarifications. Much as I enjoy TOR, the books needed another pass under a fresh set of eyes before the text was finished - these sorts of clarifications are needed way too often.

@JamesRBrown - Thanks James. Great link. That makes it entirely clear that you don't forfeit your attack when doing Protect Companion. And is also a really interesting discussion to read.

@Cynan - I agree. I would certainly go with this approach. It makes the most sense to me. It was a source of debate within my group, I think arising from the Hope expenditure, as this is similar to Hope expenditure for skill tests (which is done after the roll), and I could see that perspective. Hence my interest in what others thought about it.

@Cynan - Again, I concur. FWIW I'm pretty keen to stick to playing TOR by the rules as written (or should I say "rules as intended") because I think they are very good, cleverly thought out by Francesco and sometimes have nuances that aren't readily apparent, however there are various places (of which I think this is one) where reading the rules as written too rigidly can lead to misunderstanding of what was intended IMHO. It's not always easy to figure out where this is happening though (i.e. Was the distinction intentional or not? - In this case we think "not").

Many thanks for responding on this. It's always really helpful to hear what other's thoughts are on such things.

Hi James. As the thread author, let me just say, thanks for the link. I always prefer and love to get the designer's 1st hand feedback if possible.

I will also protest my innocence and say I *did* try to search before starting a new thread. Unfortunately, I got some kind of Google Search Error Message :-(

There's a link pinned to the TOR resources thread explaining how to search the forums. The actual search function seems to have been broken since the beginning of time but apparently it's nice and comfy where it is, thank you very much, and won't be vacating the premises any time soon

Thanks for the link, James. I just read through all five pages, and it's an excellent discussion delving into the intracacies of combat and stances.

You are all entirely welcome! Enjoy the read.

Beleg, that search link is a real lifesaver! I used it myself to find the 'Engagement - Rules Question' topic.