Thanks. It's actually a monster-based feat I created and added to my game for my 3rd edition D&D gaming (Pathfinder); which allows critters to apply the benefits of flanking (+2 to hit) even when not flanking so long as two or more are attacking the same target.

*Wording it that way ("provides the bonus of flanking") thus prevents those who can't be flanked from being victim of the tactics - such as elementals, oozes, or those w/ Uncanny Dodge. But it's the narrative descriptive nature of way the attacks are made that make it interesting as well, in imagining the types of creatures and the way they cunningly gang up on a foe.

I added it (or swapped it in) with wolves (and dire version), wargs, barghests, displacer beasts, sharks, ghouls, wights, sometimes assigned it to goblins and kobolds as well.

To me, the key for allowing exceptions and variants is in the development of new and creative Combat Tasks. Otherwise, one would need to restructure the entire Combat system and Combat round sequence to move toward a more traditional initiative-based system like d20.

TOR is very different and that is why I love it. There is so much room for flexibility and expansion, but I think you have to start with a solid understanding of the foundational mechanics. I don't think everything is abstract.

I have run so many different roleplaying systems, from D&D to Star Wars (d6, d20, and my favorite, Saga Edition), Savage Worlds (multiple settings), Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG, King Arthur Pendragon, Smallville RPG, Gamma World (D&D 4.0), Traveller (Mongoose), and others. They are all good and unique in their own ways, but TOR stands out and is very, very special to me.

Yes, it may feel restrictive at first, that if your opponents outnumber you, you will not get to choose who you attack in a particular combat round. But, this should feel no more restrictive than the fact that sides hold initiative rather than individual characters.

Rather than giving unassigned targets an automatic hit (as I suggested earlier), how about a new Combat Task that allows players to re-direct their attack, regardless of their engagement assignment. For example, Any close combat stance: Re-direct Attack. A hero may change the target of his attack by adding +2 to his attack TN.

This would not penalize the hero for defending himself, but it would make it harder to hit his new target (modifying his attack for being moderately hindered). He would still be engaged with his original assignment (whether he chose it or the Loremaster did) for defending purposes. This might bring in some new interesting choices by the company.

So, if the Loremaster assigns an Attercop to engage Player 1, but the heroes hold the initiative, Player 1 will attack before the Attercop. He can choose to Re-direct Attack to attack another opponent. But during the same Combat round, the Attercop will still attack him.

If the players choose engagements, Player 1 may be forced to choose the Attercop if he is an eligible target, but he can Re-direct Attack when his turn comes up. Since there is no rule governing the order that players choose their engagements, the entire company can decide strategically which of them should Re-direct Attack.

I like putting this ideas as a combat option - so as to fit the square peg into the square hole. The system is designed to make way for options that circumvent the usual - so use it - so kudos for creatively coming up with that.

That being said - while I agree with how to do it, I disagree with it's actual disadvantage. I feel that penalty to a character who is refocusing should be on his ability to parry an attack - not a hindrance to his own accuracy.

Re-focusing is similar to creating and "attack of opportunity". Resolving that in effect means the character may be hit more often. Instead of an extra attack as D&D gives it, give the attackers a bonus to hit that character that round.

I know originally I was stating that such a character should apply a Defensive Stance (making them harder to hit and harder to hit others), but by making it a combat option and seeing the rules you layed out earlier in regards to the order of tasks in a combat round - the Stance is already declared so stating the now has to have a specific stance may prove wonky - depending on what has tried to him him that round.


In light of all that, and the analogy with the QB having to move focus from one receiver or tackler to another, it's my take that re-focusing means losing just enough focus off the original attack to let it hit you easier - but that QB has just as much accuracy on his throw to receiver number two as he would have to receiver number one all things equal - he's just exposing himself to being hit.

So, maybe...

Any close combat stance: Re-direct Attack. A hero may change the target of his attack by modifying his defense TN -2. He must announce a re-direct right after engagement assignments are completed for the coming turn.

This should cover all possible situations. If the enemy side holds initiative, they will be attacking first. This will allow the defense TN of the hero intending to re-direct to already be adjusted.

This post has been edited by JamesRBrown on Feb 28 2012, 06:40 PM

Another possibility would be to allow for either option under the same Combat Task.

So, one more time...

Any close combat stance: Re-direct Attack. A hero may choose one of the following options, depending on his strategy for defending himself during the re-direct:
A. Guarded: A hero may change the target of his attack by adding +2 to his attack TN.
B. Wide-open: A hero may change the target of his attack by modifying his defense TN -2. He must announce a re-direct right after engagement assignments are completed for the coming turn.

This post has been edited by JamesRBrown on Feb 28 2012, 06:41 PM

I like this. Not only is it similar enough to a hypothetical houserule that ignores the engagement rules as written to be indistinguishable in practice, but it opens up the possibility for this to be printed as an official option, which is more elegant than an official errata.

That said, I would make one minor tweak, and that is instead of declaring your intent at the top of the combat round (which could get messy if an ally kills your intended target before your turn comes up), that the penalty would apply to the next combat round if the monsters held initiative, and this combat round if the players held initiative. The bookkeeping would be the same in practice; after the action is chosen the penalty is in effect for the monster's next round of actions. At the same time, it would preserve the ability of the players to decide whom to attack when it's their turn to act. For some reason the players in my second group don't even like the fact that stances are all chosen at the beginning of each turn, despite the obvious fact that everything that happens during that turn depends on stance.

This version is preferable (as opposed to your second post offering two different options); no need to offer options that may be "min/maxed" IMO, but YMMV. By imposing a negative on an attack roll that the player makes it's potentially making it a penalty that the player could avoid instituting - perhaps due to choosing a different option than attacking on his turn (using the Open Stance and choosing to inspire or heal or something). But by imposing the penalty by way of something happening to the player as reactionary, it's less in the hands of player choice and more in the hands of luck and fate in way of the LM dice.

The only concern I have with how your worded this is:

I see the option of re-directing to be something that is more spontaneous - usually as a result of things that had affected the combat just moments before the character gets to act.

Before actually concocting a hard-fast rule and implementation within the Combat Options mechanic, the time in which one would typically see this type of action or maneuver was right after one side or the other made their attack that prompted the character (player) to choose another option than what was originally stated.

For instance:
Fellowship Focus (Tom) is on the Defensive due to being harried by two orcs, his fellow in arms (Bob) is being harrowed by only one (due to him dropping a second one in the previous round) and is confident that he will drop his current foe in one swipe of his blade so he opts for Forward stance throwing himself headlong into the attack, pressing the orc hard. Tom's luck runs out, one of the orcs makes a lucky attack getting through even Tom's defensive stance. The hit is a nasty vicious one, and leaves Tom Weary and Wounded. Fearing for his fellowship focus's life, on Bob's turn in the action, Bob announces a change of plans - he ducks under his current opponents blade tumbles past him, and lunges forward at one of the orcs bearing down on Tom - splitting the orcs skull and possibly saving Tom's life. Bob's previous opponent who was caught off guard for a moment now spins around and takes advantage of Bob's new focus and lunges for him while Bob's blade is still wedged in what was the now-dead orc's thick skull that was its ally (depicted by a -2 to his already paltry 6 TN to be hit due to his Forward Stance)


Now - by mandating as you have that you must announce a change in focus action Right after Engagement Assignments are meted out - it eliminates actions and narration of heroism and such that are adlibbed due to ever-changing circumstances.

I've been running combats all along that mirror this pattern - i just didn't realize there was suppose to be more structure to the combat round that may have interrupted these notions. The structure is not bad design at all - but not as much fun as it could be IMO.

I don't think this would be an issue, specifically because by choosing the "Re-direct Attack" action you are making an attack on an unengaged enemy by default, and so that attack will always come with the +2 TN penalty.

FWIW, here is the wording that I'm considering using for my games:

The key fact for the second option is that a Combat Round is divided into a Player Turn and a Loremaster turn, and obviously who goes first depends on who holds initiative. By using this wording, it doesn't matter whether the players hold initiative or not; the "next Loremaster Turn" will either be during this combat round (if the players hold initiative) or next combat round (if the enemy holds initiative), but either way the defense penalty will get applied for the next round of enemy attacks.

I definitely agree that there needs to be clear understanding the penalty remains in effect until after LM's turn against that player.

FWIW, D&D/Pathfinder words it thusly:

"....until the characters next turn."


Since once combat begins, initiative order and rounds are circular (meaning they just repeat), by the time it is the same players turn again everyone else would have feasibly had their turn to act.

Yes, perhaps "until the start of the next player turn" would sound better. Given that my primary game for the last few years has been D&D 4E (which uses that type of language) I'm surprised that wasn't my first thought!


So the revised language would look like this:

Any Close-Combat Stance: Re-direct Attack
A Hero may change the target of his attack to any opponent in a close-combat stance that he is not currently engaging by choosing one of the following:
+2 TN to attack until the start of the next player turn.
-2 TN to defense until the start of the next player turn.

First of all - great conversation guys! I am really enjoying this.

The reason I wrote announcing a re-direct right after engagement assignments was primarily because of the structure of the combat round. I was trying to keep the results of the re-direct within the same combat round, rather than having it carried forward. But, I like the new proposal of applying the defense modifier to the next sequence of enemy attacks following the re-direct. Alien270, I would change "until the start of the next player's turn." First, it is unnecessary when choosing the attack modifier, since you will be finalizing the action right away. Second, it is needed when choosing the defense modifier, but it should probably be clarified by saying, "A hero may change the target of his attack by modifying his defense TN -2 during the next sequence of enemy attacks."

This brings up a further issue with rules clarification, however. If all engagements are chosen at the beginning of a combat round, what do you do when a character's turn comes and their assigned target has been eliminated as an eligible target? For example, Players 1 and 2 are engaged to a Giant Spider, while Player 3 is engaged to an Orc. The heroes hold the initiative and attack first. Player 1, being in Forward stance, attacks first and drops the Giant Spider! What will Player 2 do when his turn comes up? I cannot find anywhere where the rules address this. What I have done is to allow Player 2 to choose a new engagement for free when his turn comes, if he wishes. Otherwise, he can drop back to Rearward or perform a Combat Task. The same goes for Loremaster characters that are left without an engagement when their turn comes. This is the only time an engagement assignment happens during a combat round sequence.

I have another suggestion to meet SirKicley's needs, but I'll come back later with it...

Not to be nitpicky but just for the sake of being 100% accurate with RAW and RAI -

"+2TN to attack rolls until the players next turn."

(not the "next players turn" - which could imply the player sitting to his left)


I've done quite a bit of rules development for games, so I tend to have a knack for wording them well - mostly to avoid players abusing the rules or finding loopholes. :-)

And again...

Any close combat stance: Re-direct Attack
A hero may change the target of his attack to any opponent in a close combat stance by choosing one of the following options, depending on his strategy for defending himself during the re-direct:
A) Guarded: Add +2 to his attack TN.
B) Wide-open: Modify his defense TN by -2 during the next sequence of enemy attacks.

SirKicley, you have expressed the need for more flexibility and player-choice during combat, rather than the mechanics RAW. Well, it seems the RAW encourages creativity by players and Loremasters, allowing them to bend the fundamentals if that makes for a more enjoyable experience.

On page 47 of the Loremaster's Book, under the title 'Non-combat Actions,' it says,

"...players will always surprise their Loremaster by proposing unusual or unexpected tasks.

This is a good sign that the players are enjoying the game, and should be encouraged wherever possible. The factors to consider when resolving these actions are time, difficulty and consequences[.]"

Then, under 'Consequences,' it gives an example:

"[A]s with any task, success or failure should have consequences. For example, a player who describes his character as leaping from a boulder to reach an Orc-chieftain issuing orders from the rear of battle could be allowed an Athletics roll (TN 14). As a consequence of success, the character should be able to engage the commander in the following round unless one of the foul creature’s companions can intervene (or might even attack immediately if he scored a great or extraordinary success). If the character fails, he should lose his next action as he picks himself up from the ground and is immediately engaged by opponents as if fighting in a forward stance."

This example shows how a hero can utilize a non-combat task to possibly break the rules of engagement. Just maybe, instead of creating new Combat Tasks, you could just listen to each player's ideas when their turn comes up. If what they propose can be done in one round, encourage them to invent a logical task (adjusting the difficulty of the TN accordingly). Before the roll, let them know the consequences of success or failure.

So, in your "ganging up" idea, why not encourage the players to make up a non-combat task (which requires a skill roll) to allow for this. A player could say, "I want to re-direct my attack away from my current engagement to gang-up on that Cave-troll with my companions. Can I do that if I make a Battle roll?" The Loremaster can determine whether it is possible and what TN to use. He may decide that failure means the hero cannot attack at all this round, and he takes a -2 penalty on his defense TN during the next sequence of enemy attacks. If the hero's current engagement is a particularly cunning one, maybe the TN is higher to re-direct or maybe the consequence of failure is more severe. Also, failing and rolling an EYE result could lead to disaster - like losing a point of Hope or something.

This is all up to the Loremaster to decide and is within the RAW.

That passage from the LMB was exactly why I initially called for an Athletics test in-game during the incident that sparked this thread. I'd already established that the two players were at least several yards apart, meaning that one would have to make a quick dash to attack an enemy engaged by the other (or at least that was my logic at the time). I could definitely see Battle being logical as well.

Unfortunately, what happened after that was the player decided not to bother because he didn't have very many ranks in Athletics. This is why I really like the Re-direct Attack combat task, because I don't want to skew the balance between skills, and even moreso to "punish" players that happen to have low ranks in the relevant skills. After all, I can see this being a frequently used choice in my group. I feel like Athletics is probably already disproportionately valuable because it's used to escape combat, in addition to being the solution for pretty much any physical challenge (and these tend to be very common while adventuring). I don't want it to become a catch-all for unique combat maneuvers as well. My feelings about Battle are somewhat similar, though it's probably a less "important" skill than Athletics and so would be more appropriate.

Ultimately I think the Re-direct Attack (or similar) task is the most balanced solution. If there's already an established option for attempting the task it becomes more accessible and is cleaner to adjudicate in-play. That said, there's a lot to be said about invoking the "unexpected tasks" passage, namely that it doesn't require a house rule, using only the RAW.

In any case, that passage jumped out at me when I first read the LMB, and I always try to keep it in the back of my mind because players never fail to surprise you.

This is a little late in the conversation, but has anyone thought through this question in light of the Combat Task: Protect Companaion?

With this task, TOR provides a precedent on dealing with a player-hero moving from one engagement to another. And, the way the designers describe the task mechanics make sense to me.

A player-hero is fighting defensively, not committing to an attack to be ready if needed to help defend elsewhere. The movement from the player-hero's current engagement to another engagement (as a defensive intervention) requires an expenditure of Hope. That's pretty consistent with TOR mechanics in general. Using this as an example, a player-hero fights defensively to keep open options. Given the abstract combat mechanics, narrative is used to explain the movement from one engagement to another.

With this in mind, I would imagine a Re-direct Attack combat task or something similar should operate with the same assumption: the player-hero is in a defensive stance keeping his or her options open; and, with an expenditure of Hope to account for the strain and danger of shifting attention form one deadly threat to another, the player-hero has the possibility to do something like an offensive intervention or re-engagement.

Regards.
E

I agree with what you're saying alien270. I really like combat tasks and I am hoping that more of them are presented in future materials. I was thinking about this last night; if I were editing the rulebooks, I would probably rework the 'Non-combat Actions' section and organize it all under Combat Tasks. The example given is a 'combat' example anyway, so it doesn't quite fit as a non-combat action. What I would do is have someone write up suggestions for how players can create their own combat tasks spontaneously.

The rules should include guidelines for what to do when a common skill roll is involved versus when a common skill roll is not involved in a task (such as our Re-direct Attack option). I think the key would be if there is no common skill roll involved, there should be a penalty automatically associated with the task. A task requiring a common skill roll might have better benefits for success than one that doesn't use one, but it could also have worse consequences for failure. Called Shots could be considered combat tasks for any combat stance.

Concerning Athletics and Battle, they will likely be the most used skills during any combat if players create their own combat tasks. That's okay, but a good explanation of the differences between them in the Combat Tasks section would be excellent.

Sorry Eluadin, I posted and then saw you had posted. Didn't mean to ignore you.

Yeah, the conversation has been about the heroes that are in any combat stance who would like to attack an enemy they are not currently 'engaged' with. This can happen especially if the Loremaster chooses engagements because the heroes were outnumbered at the top of the round. The hero could be assigned a weak enemy, when he wants to attack a stronger one. Or, sometimes the way a combat develops, the hero may just change his mind about the engagement he chose at the top of the round.

A hero can take a Forward stance to show aggression, hold the initiative, and still be assigned a meager Goblin because the Loremaster characters outnumber the company. The player says that his character lets out a war-cry, runs past the Goblin and swings his sword at the threatening Black Uruk instead. This would require a special combat task that bends the fundamentals of the engagement rules (but it makes sense). The Goblin is still 'engaged' to the hero, however, and would attack him when its turn came up. The Re-direct Attack task would impose a penalty on either the hero's attack roll (if he is guarded) or his defense TN for the next sequence of enemy attacks (if he leaves himself wide-open), depending on his choice.

If you make the Re-direct Attack a Defensive stance only task and require a point of Hope, you really limit the spontaneity desire that came out in some of the discussion here. You also make it so that anyone re-directing an attack has the highest possible defense TN while having the worst attack TN. The argument here has been weightier toward an aggressive attack with a penalty to defense. So, one could argue for making it a Forward stance task that costs a point of Hope. Instead, I worked it out to apply to any stance without costing Hope.

Hey JRB, no problem.

I understand the rationale being discussed, I was just wondering how the mechanic already provided by TOR influences (if at all) this discussion seeing as it deals with the same issue.

Reagrds,
E

The mechanics that were pertinent to our discussion were Combat Tasks and Non-combat Actions in general, and we definitely covered those subjects. When you say, "...the mechanic already provided by TOR," do you mean specifically the Protect Companion combat task?

First, let me say that the existing RAW mechanics are extremely important to me. Reading back through the thread you'll see that we cleared up a major issue with the misunderstanding of the engagement rules and the combat round sequence. I tried very hard to lay a strong foundation of understanding about the RAW mechanics before beginning any discussion about bending the rules. Once we accomplished that, I think we were successful in coming up with ideas that fit within the parameters of the RAW (which allow for bending rules), without house-ruling anything.

As to the Protect Companion combat task in particular, I would say it adds more engagements than normally allowed in a round. For example, at the top of a round, Player 1 chooses Defensive stance and declares Protect Companion to protect Player 2 from attacks this round. Unlike other combat tasks, it does not force him to give up his attack, but it makes him spend a point of Hope each time he wants to be the target for his companion this round.

The heroes' enemies outnumber them, so the Loremaster assigns engagements, putting 3 Orcs against Player 1 and 2 Orcs against Player 2. The heroes hold the initiative and go first. Player 2 is in Open stance and attacks one of the Orcs he is engaged with, dropping him. Then, Player 1 attacks one of the Orcs he's engaged with, but misses. Now the enemies attack. Player 2 is attacked by the remaining Orc, but Player 1 spends a point of Hope to defend him by becoming the target. Player 1 is hit and takes some damage (good thing he used the combat task!). The 3 Orcs engaged with Player 1 now attack him, using his Defensive stance TN 12 as the base for their attack TN.

In summary, the Protect Companion combat task allowed Player 1 to defend against 4 opponents instead of 3 this round, without giving up his attack. It did cost him a point of Hope, however. The Re-direct Attack combat task that I propose, will not allow for an 'extra attack,' but simply to re-direct an attack. What it will cost is a penalty to either his attack roll or defense.

After writing all this, however, I am getting a new idea for a Forward stance combat task for multiple attacks that cost Hope. Stay tuned...

I read the Protect Companion combat task a little different in that the player-hero is not allowed an attack the round they choose Protect Companion. I base this on page 46 of the LMB, "Each player chooses an action for their character to perform. The action could be an attack, a task like those described from page 162 of the Adventurer's Book, or a different action determined by the current turn of events...."

The way I read this, a player can choose one action and one action only per combat round. The choice is either to attack, or proactively execute a Task (e.g., Intimidate Foe, Rally Comrades, Prepare Shot, the example using an Athletics Task to leap from a boulder and engage the Orc-chieftain in the rear of the combat), or reactively intervene in another's engagement (Protect Companion). And, of course, it's not limited to these, they are just the ones clearly stated in the books. Either way, only one action is normally possible in a combat round.

Protect Compann, then, allows a playe-hero to "leave" the engagement they are in for the current combat round and intervene in another engagement within the same combat round. This is only possible becasue they chose as their sole action for the combat round: Protect Companion.

So, I see this mechanic as a precedent for designing other combat tasks that change the dynamics of engagement within the same combat round.

Also, there is a precedent for more than one action in a combat round although this isn't specified under Protect Companion as far as I can see. The precedent is in the example offered in the LMB. In the example under "Non-combat Actions," a great or extraordinary succes might allow an immediate attack following the Athletics Task in the same combat round. However, I read the "might" as meaning this is up to the Loremaster's discretion.

Am I missing something when you say Protect Companion doesn't sacrifice the normal attack like the other combat tasks?

Regards,
E

Intimidate Foe and Rally Comrades both contain the language "a hero may forego his chance to make an attack roll...", whereas Protect Companion states no such restriction.

The thing is, Protect Companion on p. 163 of the AB does not say a hero must forego his chance to make an attack roll, like Intimidate Foe and Rally Comrades does. Prepare Shot lets you aim an entire round before shooting. Escape Combat lets you leave the combat zone at the top of the round if you were in rearward and at the end of a round of fighting, if you were in a close combat stance, upon a successful roll of Athletics. In this case, you also get to attack and defend before attempting the escape...unless they made a mistake in wording. First it says, "Companions engaged in close combat may attempt to escape when their turn to act comes." Then, "At the end of a combat round spent fighting in a close combat stance, a player-hero may attempt to escape the field by making a roll of Athletics." Which is it? "When their turn to act comes?" Or "at the end of a combat round spent fighting?"

I understand what you are saying from the LB p. 46, but I think there needs to be more clarity from Francesco in the wording. 'One action per round' is fuzzy too because of the creativity that is encouraged.

What I think Francesco intended is that if heroes choose a regular attack as their action, then that is all they get to do during the round. But, if they choose a combat task, they should follow the rules for the combat task, which are very different from one another. Sometimes combat tasks forego an attack action, and sometimes they don't. This would jive with the example in the 'Non-combat Actions' section, which basically describes a player-created combat task involving a common skill roll and a possible attack action in the same round (the example bends the fundamental engagement rules).

If you are right and the intention is that every combat task should forego an attack, then that needs to be spelled out in each combat task description. If that is the case, then the 'Non-combat Actions' example needs to be changed too. I hope you are wrong, because there could be some exciting combat tasks that involve attacks in various forms. It is a great mechanic for customizing combat tactics. Right now, combat tasks utilize stances to give variation and force interesting player choices. In future supplements, they could add other types of pre-requisites to accomplish the same. For example, they could create combat tasks based on culture, traits, weapon-type, or any other factor. In other words, there could be a combat task that requires an Elf in forward stance who is clever and wields a sword. Think of the possibilities!

I really hope that they don't introduce a plethora of other 'combat tasks'. It would be getting a bit too DnD 'feats' for my liking.

iMO, all that needs changed is that 'initiative' should determine choice of engagement and not numbers of opponents After that RAW and a bit of common sense are all that are needed.

[QUOTE=Halbarad,Mar 1 2012, 05:11 AM]I really hope that they don't introduce a plethora of other 'combat tasks'. It would be getting a bit too DnD 'feats' for my liking.

@Halbarad, I have to agree with you.

@Alien, JRB
Here's further develoment of my rationale: In my opinion, the rules in the LMB as opposed to the rules in the AB are more determinative of game mechanics. The AB provides the rules as needed by players, while the LMB provides the detailed mechanics in addition to the general rules to guide the LM. That said, page 46 of the LMB uses a specific grammatical construction: one phrase comma and another phrase comma followed by an "or" with another phrase. Traditionally speaking, this grammatical construction places the phrases preceding the "or" and the phrase following the "or" in an either-or construction. So, when I read page 46 logically, the result is you may do one of these things: either an attack, or execute a pre-defined combat task, or attempt another action thought up on the spot. I agree with you both concerning the lack of definition in the AB, this is something I noted when I read the combat rules from said book. Then, I read the LMB and, for me, that clarified the topic. Of course, this assumes the way the designers wrote the description in the LMB (grammmar of the rules) reflects what they intended.

The example further clarified the either-or proposition of an attack, combat task, or on-the-spot action with it granting (maybe) an attack in the same combat round as a Task if a superior success is rolled. This meant to me that multiple actions (whether proactive or reactive) in a combat round are an extraordinary thing.

I may be reading the rules a literal too literally and taking them at the their face value, but that is how I have run my adventures so far. Clarification would be welcomed I must agree!

@Francesco, any chance of offering a comment and rules clarification on this topic?

Regards,
E

Sorry, I'm in a hurry right now and cannot read the thread. Are you asking about whether combat tasks require a companion to forfeit their attack roll when their turn to take action comes?

Intimidate Foe: yes, intimidating requires to forfeit your attack.

Rally Comrades: forfeit as above.

Protect Companion: you don't forfeit your attack. Spend Hope and be attacked in place of the character you protect.

Prepare shot: forfeit, as you spend the round doing nothing but aim.

Were these the right answers? If ot, can someone summarise the questions? Sorry...

Francesco

Francesco, that really answers the question for the first four combat tasks, but what about Escape Combat?

The rules say, "Companions engaged in close combat may attempt to escape when their turn to act comes." Then, "At the end of a combat round spent fighting in a close combat stance, a player-hero may attempt to escape the field by making a roll of Athletics." Which is it? "When their turn to act comes?" Or "at the end of a combat round spent fighting?"

I see, the text is quite confusing...

The rule should have been similar for both instances (hero in Rearward and hero in any close combat stance), with a companion being allowed to flee (or try to) at the beginning of a round following a round of combat.

- If you fought the previous round in rearward, you may escape automatically at the beginning of your following round.

- If you fought the previous round in any close combat stance, you may attempt to escape at the beginning of your following round by making a roll of Athletics, etc.

Francesco
P.S.: Any other interpretation makes fighting in rearward somewhat less advantageous as far as escaping is concerned, the opposite of the intended meaning (potentially, you could escape combat more quickly in close combat than in rearward...).

Francesco, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up. When you get the time, read through this thread and you'll discover there seems to be a bit of confusion with the fundamentals of engagements, etc.

Eluadin and Halbarad, after thinking about it, I could live without a plethora of new combat tasks too. I certainly wouldn't want the game to get bogged down with too many 'official' choices like D&D. I prefer simpler rules. But, it is fun thinking of new creative things players can do.

I agree with you about keeping things simple and flexible!

Thanks for this post, both it's originator and those who contributed to the conversation. This provided a correction to my interpretation of the combat rules that I did not realize was needed.

@Francesco, thanks once again for taking the time to clarify a rule for us. The way you and the other TOR staff continue to engage the playing-community is inspiring!

Regards,
E

I'll throw in another vote for avoiding a huge array of combat tasks. I play both D&D and now TOR almost weekly, and I really like how the two systems are so very different. Specific options in D&D support the grid-based, highly tactical exercise that is combat with its plethora of interacting parts, and if that's the type of gaming experience I'm after at the time then that's the system I'll choose. I like TOR for its simplicity, abstract combat rules, and the emphasis on narrative over mechanics. I would hate to see the system get away from that.

That said, a few additional combat tasks would be very welcome! These would have to be things that address a specific need in a concise, easy-to-adjudicate way that supports the flow of play and the game's narrative. I believe that our Re-direct Attack fits into this category, and I'll certainly be employing this in our game (at least until an official version is published, if that happens). I can also see an argument for possibly including a 2-weapon fighting combat task (provided it didn't overshadow a regular attack!), a "grapple" or similar way to keep an opponent from advancing away from you, and possibly an "escape assist" where one player attacks or distracts an ally's engaged opponent to make it easier for them to escape. At least that's what I can think of off the top of my head. In any case, I'd certainly aim to keep the total number of combat tasks below 10 or so at most, largely because I can't imagine there would be a need for even that many given the game's free-form structure.

Personally I've never really liked most of the "racial" feats even in D&D. Sometimes it just didn't make sense why a certain race could do something and nobody else could. It just felt like some options were "filler" to balance against races that actually did have unique actions, like the Dragonborn's dragonbreath or the Eladrin's Fey step. Obviously most races can't inherently breathe fire or teleport, so options to support those features made sense as being restricted to their respective races! I can't think of anything that would justify any of the Middle-earth cultures getting "special" actions unless they were tied to unique fighting styles (which IMO would be a bit too "crunchy" for TOR's narrative system).

Actually, now that I think about it I can maybe get behind the idea for some of the "inherently superior" cultures like the Noldor or Dunedain, but I wouldn't like it to get too out of hand...

Also, good to hear from you Francesco! We all appreciate your consistent presence on these forums. For my part, I must say it's a great change of pace from the D&D forums on the WotC website, where the designers almost never directly interact with fans.

I'll echo JamesRBrown's suggestion that when you have some spare time you look over this topic, because I think there's a lot of really good discussion about the combat system. No pressure though, as I'm sure you're working hard to get Tales From Wilderland out (which I'm stoked about, btw).

Oooooh, "Bladesinger" anyone???



I kid! I KID!!!!

Thanks all for the great convo, and to Francesco for taking a minute to help

I think this thread did a lot to spark creative ideas. And answered a lot of speculation. I don't the answers do everything we were looking for. Nor does the explanations and answers truly address how one can alter his chosen action after declaring it, and then realizing that it cannot happen like 1) the critter ran away on its turn, or died as a result of a companions attack, etc.

I think ultimately the rules are just flexible enough to allow all sorts of other options, and I think there's plenty of precedents and examples set to how things can be resolved - some w/ attacks, some without.

And I feel that these then lay credence and needed groundwork for filling in holes where the RAW don't quite fill - which is precisely what Alien and I have been looking for and using - a way to redirect an engagement.

I think the way initiative is figured does play a role in making it all a little wonky; but it's still good and easy to use. Adding in the ability to redirect makes the whole a lot more complete, useful, and more encompassing a wider and realistic amount of options.

This has been a fabulous exchange guys. I just finished reading it again from the very beginning. Great thoughts all the way through and Francesco showing up in the climax put the icing on the cake. I enthusiastically anticipate more of these discussions in the future.