I started my group's second adventure, last night. It followed on the heels of "The Marsh Bell," with Gloin asking the PHs to deliver the gift to the eagles, as Balin and Oin were in no shape to finish their mission.

The group planned to take the same route as the dwarves, which meant they passed through the Long Marshes again.

First encounter of the adventure: that stone troll that lurks in the stagnant pool. They managed to avoid it, last time, and I thought it would be hungry enough by now to actively come after them.

"A hurt troll," I thought, "they should be able to handle this." During a demo I ran, the PHs finished off a perfectly good stone troll with aplomb. And some skill.

You know that "Great Size" tag?

Yeeeeeah...

The PHs got that SoB down to -130something Endurance before they managed to inflict a single wound. I was ready to have elves show up to feather it with arrows, but they were determined to defeat it themselves.

One PH down with 0 Endurance. One heavily worn down with low Endurance. One heavily worn down and wounded. The hobbit was fine, by the way, thanks for asking. She was in the back. Mind you, 90% of her arrows missed.

Then they hauled its carcass back to Estragoth, rested up, and plan to set out again on their quest.

It was the most ridiculous fight ever.

Dice.
You know.
Never able to figure what next they're up to.
But I'm sure it was a good play's night!

Did any of the PCs with bows or spears use Called Shots for the instant Piercing Shot?

FWIW I know that some people have house ruled Great Size, so that if you get the critter to negative its total Endurance, it goes down. Seems sensible to me.

The Hobbit wanderer had a bow; she just could not manage to hit.

The player of the Beorning warden lamented afterward that he should have switched from his long-hafted axe to his spear; the Barding wanderer also had a spear, but was using her long sword.

They learned a little lesson, I guess.

Quick question guys. Do dead Stone Trolls turn to stone in daylight or just live ones?

We should make a little book of advice for adventurers which comprises gems of in character wisdom about the rules as seen from a PH's perspective. You could do some lovely characterful stuff - Hobbits give advice in suitably countrified sayings, elves in philosophical rambles, dwarves in aggressive bullet points, or really long repetitive songs.

Wait, should I be saying this here, or in a production meeting?

I am thinking about a possible tweak for Great size (in the case it turns out it really needs fixing, that is...).

When a creature with Great size is reduced to zero Endurance or wounded once it becomes weary. Then, the rest is as usual.

This doesn't make the heroes more likely to hit with a Piercing blow, but it makes it likelier that a PB produces a wound.

What do you guys think?

Francesco

This would work both mechanically and thematically IMO. I might make it an 'official' houserule...

Another tactic would be to intimidate the troll out of hate points, which also makes it weary IIRC. Otherwise use spears and bows to call piecing blows. Splitting axe comes in handy too, especially if the character has made it keen. Front line fighters using swords to disarm it (making it less likely to wound them) and fight in defensive stance to avoid erosion of endurance as much as possible, allowing as many as possible in rearward stance.

In doubt, take inspiration front the books and send your halfling with its barrow-wight sword!

For my group the troll was first wounded by a called shot by our bow user and subsequently finished off with a spear to the ribs. He went down surprisingly fast, actually!

I've not seen a need for this to be fixed yet after seven sessions - not that the Company have met trolls in every session! But they are VERY wary of them - which is what I want them to be! With two strong fighters in the group plus bows they inflict a lot of endurance damage very quickly when they need to.

The issue here isnt the Endurance damage, but the need to score at least one Wound. There is little that can be done to encourage Piercing Blows except certain weapon choice and Called Shots with Spears and Bows.

Hi Skywalker, yes that's the mechanic I like, the need to wound, rather than just reducing endurance to zero. The ability to roll sixes in my group is uncanny so they are very good at reducing endurance. But, the need to wound as well, the difficulty of getting through that thick troll skin and the terrible uncertainly of it makes the troll a more fearsome opponent. So for now, that's why I like it and it's this random factor that is probably why some may not like it! Of course, the players in my group have now realised the value of the called pierced shot...

We agree.

Even after losing a player-hero to a Troll with zero Endurance that kept making its Protection rolls, I would say "Don't change a thing!" It made the Troll an awesome challenge as it should be. If there had been more heroes in the company (or if they had just run away), no one would have died. More experienced adventurers would have likely hit the Troll more often too, causing more Protection rolls and a greater chance for a wound. These were just beginning adventurers.

What I would like to see is special rules for using bows against large creatures in close combat. How can we re-create Legolas jumping onto the shoulders of a Troll and shooting arrows through its head?

Given he leaps away straight after whilst other PCs occupy the Troll, I would say he never left Rearward Stance and you could narrate the maneuver as such.

That's pecisely how it went down in my game w/ the same troll.

Connar described his character in the Fwd stance, waiting till the troll slammed his club down at him (which missed); he side-stepped the blow as it crashed into the mud, he ran up the arm of the beast, and to stab it in the neck/shoulder. He rolled an EYE.

On trolls turn I described troll shucking the elf off of his shoulder on to the ground (as a result of the EYE, the elf landed flat on his back staring up at the troll) and the large club was now making a powerful downward swing towards the elf's head. I hit doing endurance dmg - but no wound.

The elf on his turn went to an open stance again and described springing to his feet, tumbling through the legs and attacking the back of the thigh.



There were no rules used other than the printed rules for stances. The rest was just garnish. Since neither side received a benefit or penalty as a result of the narrated events, there was no reason to have rules to govern them (to balance them). Instead the whole table benefited from it, because we were treated to a really good detailed and exciting combat.

I have noticed that a lot of people are equating Stances with movement. Stances are IMO just as much about posture than movement.

An elf leaping about the place, even close to a melee, shooting his bow is Rearward Stance IMO. He is moving in such a way that he can't attack or be attacked in melee, yet the spatial distance remains vague.

I am not sure what you mean by seeing a Stance as movement, but I have definitely equated Stances with proximity to the target. I guess the terms Close Combat and Rearward have contributed to this assumption, as well as p. 158 of the Adventurer's Book, which describes the Rearward stance as, "Staying away from the press, to attack your foes from a distance."

An Elf that jumps onto the shoulders and neck of a Troll is definitely not staying away and attacking from a distance. In fact, I think this would qualify as Forward and his TN should be 6.

Has anyone allowed ranged weapons, such as bows, to be used with a Close Combat stance?

I think what Skywalker is saying and to which I do agree is that a "stance" is not just a proximity to one's target. It's a "concept" abstract as you wish it to be.


Someone tumbling about and dodging and avoiding blows getting enough separation to take a shot is a rearward stance; so long as two or more others are non rearward, they work in tandem - the rearward to move away and duck behind, and the non-rearward to move in front of, to be the pick and shield/wall to give them some repreive.


Defensive stance is just as melee (proximity-speaking) as Forward - but the attitude and style of fighting at the moment is different; the former is staying low and protecting oneself, using weapons to parry mostly, and cover themselve waiting for an opening that may or may not present itself (hence the higer TN to hit), while the latter is about charging in, and throwing themself at their opponent recklessly, with all abandon.

Both are melee - threatening reach - just have different approaches to their attacks.

Forward, Open and Defensive are all melee Stances. So except for a very small amount of distance, they are similar. The larger part of these three Stances is your posture, position and fighting strategy.

Rearward is different as you must use ranged weapons and cannot be attacked in melee, suggesting distance. But how much distance is simple narrative. You could describe a Rearward PC being pressed behind two other PCs or a good distance away. As such, it suggests to me also that your posture, position and fighting strategy are important.

As such, I don't see an issue with pushing the narrative a little more to model cinematic moments rather than adding more rules. I could see Legolas' stunt being simply narrated used the existing rules using for Rearward Stance. He starts and finishes out of range and moves away so swiftly that the Troll is unable to react in time to hit him in melee. The other PCs are running a melee distraction. He uses a ranged weapon. YMMV

I understand pushing the narrative instead of creating more rules. I like that. But would you still use a TN 12 for an Elf shooting a Troll while standing on his shoulders? And, would you allow ranged weapons in Close combat stances?

The only reason these questions entered my head was because I was thinking of new ways to fell a Troll (or other large creatures). It seems that there could be some mechanism for getting that automatic Wound and not just the Piercing blow. The trouble is the armor rating of the Troll and how often he makes the Protection rolls.

Well Legolas is jumping onto a Troll, shooting an arrow with unstable footing and then jumping away again. If that didnt amount to a TN of 12+ Parry, I don't know what would The higher TN in Rearward does take into account many factors including range, movement of attacker and target and cover. Some of those apply to the example.

I haven't come across a time where I felt I needed to allow ranged combat in Close Stances.

I think it helps to think about the scene in larger terms. I could see modelling a similar stunt with a round of Close Combat. In that case, the Troll could have attacked back too. I would probably encourage Legolas' player to use his melee weapon for simplicity, but at a push it would either be fine with a bow or using his melee weapon stats for his bow attack. But I would be wary of creating a precedent.

However, looking at the specific example you gave, Legolas' whole action seems to be one action sequence. The Troll does react and Legolas is away before we see any other action from anyone. It seems easier just to treat it as one Rearward attack and be done with it. It also makes the game more cinematic.

Man, I had the exact opposite "problem" as the OP. My crew slaughtered that troll like a pig. The Woodman and Beorning stepped up, banging on their shields, immediately bringing its Hate down to 0, the Barding and the Dwarf scored at least great successes, while the Hobbit peppered it with arrows. The Troll managed to hit the Dwarf fairly hard, but that was reduced by knockback, then the Barding Disarmed it, and the Hobbit, made a perfect shot that brought it to -2 Endurance and Wounded it. Two combat rounds, about 6 endurance lost, and that Troll was dead as a doornail.

It was humbling. It will take swarms and swarms of bog-people to make me feel better.

That makes sense. I think that what you are saying helps to keep players in balance too.

I have players that would probably always ask to jump on the back of a Troll, climb up to its shoulders, and then shoot it in the head. Then, they would want to stay there for as many rounds as it took to kill it with their bow. And yes, they would risk being grabbed or flung to the ground.

To be in Rearward you need other player-heroes in Close combat stances, but this maneuver would not necessarily warrant that, although I think it would be harder to accomplish without the distraction of other targets.

This is a great story Robert - you guys must have had a blast playing this out.

I agree with James' interpretation in that it sounds as if your Elven hero probably should have been in Forward stance & TN 6 - it's about as up close & personal to that troll as I'm sure he wanted to be .

That said, however, Skywalker makes a valid point concerning the theatrics, & it doesn't hurt once in a blue moon to give your players enough rope to hang themselves (as it were). These types of battles tend to be the most memorable.

In addition - since you've asked - I would hesitate before allowing any of your bowmen to fire during any stances other than Rearward. My guess is that Francesco & his play-testers developed this rule for game balance.

If it's an issue with your player & you haven't already done so, you can always consider rewarding him with Deadly Archery on down the road.

It was a blast and we had a lot of fun.

My 11 year old daughter for her first time ever playing a roleplaying game actually made the kill-shot on that troll.

After it was down to about -30 or so encumbrance, she described her character Lillypad (hobbit treasure hunter) waiting till the troll next roared in their direction, lined up her shot and aimed for the back of the throat just after Connar's elf had rolled between it's legs.


She rolled a STAFF RUNE, and it was already weary and I rolled a 3 on the feat die, and the d6s were all low and discounted. (all rolls are done on the table in front of all).

The table erupted in cheers, I described the troll listing slowly backwards and the elf scrambling in the muck to get away just before it splashed into the marsh with a loud splatter. The players were pumped and she got high fives from all my friends like we were at a football game. It was pretty special (From a dad's point of view). Her mom has been a player in my D&D games since 95 and in fact we named our daughter after her favorite D&D character that she played for about 7 years. They played together for the first time - both hobbits. The interaction between the two is a blast and much mirth ensues.


As for the Open vs Fwd stance - I do see your points, and I think mostly it should be, but I can imagine a good arguement for being Open stance while jumping on the shoulder to stab trading a little accuracy for a little concern in being dodgy and ducky from the troll. Afterall, if a rearward archer can do it and remain "rearward" I don't see why Open should be forbidden.


All in all - it's about the narration. I don't let the rules get in the way of the story. If Connar wants to lower to accuracy to hit for an in-game benefit, I'll allow it if a case can be made for it. There are times when descriptions should be relegated to defensive or fwd but for the most part I see Open as a neutral "I'll allow" type of middle-ground. I would not have allowed him to do it Defensive however. Just as I wouldn't allow someone describing himself hiding behind a statue, covering and keeping separation as Fwd stance. But I may allow Open just for a little variance if it can be imagined at all.

I would surmise that if they wish to stay there - they aren't rearward, but a strong case can be argued that one can go there, shoot and tumble back to safety in rearward if the current combat narration seems to have such a maneuver a possibility.

As you stated, since you need others in close-combat stance in order to allow one in rearward, it implies there needs to be other more obvious choices for targets. Even a troll knows an elf standing on his shoulder shooting point blank arrows into its neck is not just an potential target of his ire, but THE ONLY target.

well, once you've done some endurance damage and gotten it "weary" that's the time to do the auto-piercing shot - the chance to overcome the piercing blow is significantly hampered in that case.

Just a quick input regarding my way of dealing with the Legolas syndrome. Running up a Trolls back to shoot arrows into it's head would attract combat complications as per the table on page 48 of the LM book.
Although the character is in rearward stance and is using a missile weapon, I would use the standard modifiers instead of the ranged ones as the character is effectively meleeing with a missile weapon. I would plump for a +2TN.

Getting it "weary" is only a house-rule, still, no? Since I'm working out the numbers, here is the hard data to use/view as you see fit. A stone troll with 3d armor will negate an Injury 14 piercing blow 69% of the time. If using the Weary for Great Size house-rule, it drops to 48%.

Yeah, I have to say that I feel no need to change the way trolls/giant size creatures work, after that session. It just amused the heck out of me.

It also, I think, made them very, very wary of trolls, which I like. In Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG, they waltzed merrily through them.

I prefer the "oh... dear..." looks on their faces in TOR.

I guess it is. I didn't realize what I was saying (exactly) when I posted this.

You know now that you mention it, it never dawned on me that 'monsters' don't become weary. I read the rules on pg 64 in the LM book that says "encumbrance rules do not apply to monsters" but it never clicked this also means that they don't get Weary - which is it's own rule - but indeed piggybacks on the encumbrance mechanic - by way of Fatigue score.


I wondered why I didn't see a fatigue score for the listed stats in the back of the book in the adventure. I just took a SWAG at what it was based on the description of armor that it wore (light clothes/armor). So he took a lot of Endurance dmg before I ever applied the Weary. wow, I can't believe I totally didn't get the inference by the rules on Endurance. Still, it would be nicer to see it spelled out a little more obviously.

In my case, it would have failed the protection check anyways due to rolling only a three on the feat die and nothing higher than a 3 on the 3d6; it was ugly. So no harm no foul; but I can't imagine how much harder it could have been if weary never applied.


I think the suggested houserule on this thread that Great Strength trait allows the creature to be Weary when reduced to 0 Endurance is a fair idea.


Although the notion of nigh-unkillable trolls is intriguing - as they are always hard to kill by D&D standard (at least when not using fire).

In the end, I apologize for throwing you off there.

A monster that starts a round with zero hate becomes weary. So drop their endurance to zero, then intimidate him, then bring out the spears. Or perhaps intimidate first.

Probably Intimidate first to impact the combat more immediately.

I must confess, however, I'm not too keen on the "best" method of participating in combat. I wish the game would have continued the abstraction of combat to it's weapons, maneuvers, and some skills, rather than listing specific combat effects. I'm thinking something like FATE where maneuvers can be anything.