Although I cannot see any explicitly detailed info on this - (though there are many areas that seem to imply or infer one way or another) I was wondering how the following is being adjudicated by others:

Persons in rearward stances being affected/attacked by their foes in a combat.


Which of the two scenarios is the actual way it is intended to work:

1)
the heroes have a hobbit archer in rearward, and three dwarves in forward. Four orcs attack the heroes. one orc on each dwarf the fourth can move up to the hobbit and attack on its turn. Then on the heroes turn, because the dwarves took a forward (or other non-rearward stance) they effectively give enough intereference so that the hobbit can use the dwarves as meat shields and scamper away easily enough to get a shot off.

OR

2) the heroes have a hobbit archer in rearward, and three dwarves in forward. Four orcs attack the heroes. one orc on each dwarf and the fourth cannot move up to the hobbit and attack on its turn because the dwarves in forward stance simply barr that from happening. In other words: the orcs do not possess the ability to move up to the hobbit.


in D&D/Pathfinder - there are a multitude of rules to govern movement, facing, flanking, attacks of opportunity, threat range etc. Obviously in TOR, the combat is far more abstract and narrative - so I just need to wrap my head around the idea that a four or fifth, or sixth, or seventh orc could not feasibly manuever around the blocking dwarves.

I think there was a rule that said if the total number of foes equal twice the number of heroes, one cannot take a rearward stance - so I stopped counting at 7; but a rule stating this does not specifically state that one CAN be rearward if less than 2 times the number of the fellowship, and is therefore not threatened from being attacked. It's just as plausible that one can get to a rearward if only temporarily enough to attach the archer - only to have the archer then capable of manuevering away and/or the meat shields to come pick the attacker off and keep them away from the archer on the heroes' turn in the initiative.

So this all boils down to: so long as your numbers are less than twice the enemy, the character choosing Rearward Stance is exempt from danger (unless the foe has some special trait like flight or giant size, or jumping or something).

Finally another question: due to their needing 2 warriors in a non-rearward stance for a character to be able to fight from a rearward stance, does this mean for EACH hero in a rearward stance there needs to be 2 non-rearward (thus 2 hobbit archers would require 4 dwarf meat-shields - or at least 6 members of a fellowship?)

I had understood it as being your example 2. The Hobbit in rearward stance cannot be attacked unless there are seven or more Orcs and even then, six of the Orcs are tied up in melee by the Dwarves so, only the spare Orc can get to him.

Regarding the second question, I would apply a simple ratio of 1:2 heroes to Orcs.
Thus two of the Dwarves could prevent up to four Orcs from interfering with the third Dwarf and the Hobbit in rearward stance. A fifth Orc joins the fray and either the Hobbit or third Dwarf must choose a new stance.

That's my take anyway.

Thank you.

In my heart, this is how I assumed it was intended to work; however in my head, it isn't believable enough (to me) to truly accept it without a bad taste.

If two orcs are squared off against one dwarf and the orc on the right (position from the orc's perspective) moves right to go around the dwarf and the orc on the left moves left to go around the dwarf at the same time, the dwarf can thematically only move to shield one of them from getting to the hobbit in the rear.

To use a football analogy:

If the Right Guard is responsible to pick up the Nose Tackle, he cannot also be expected to stop Outside Line Backer that is blitzing in the same gap. That's Defense 101 - blitz one guy more than they can defend to get to the QB (or archer in this case).

I can just as easily see the rules working (in fact it makes more sense) that ONE of the orcs CAN move to the archer to attack it - noting that a rearward stance TN is 12 - same as Defensive Stance - to possibly account for the difficulty in navigating towards said archer and away from anyone defending him; and then on the players next turn the archer can "move away" once again into a position behind the frontline fighters, and/or the fighters can maneuver and reposition themselves to block the second orc also for brief moment - which is roughly the narrative that equates to fulfilling the prerequisite of "two or more persons in non-rearward stance so as to allow the archer to attack w/ a bow"

EDIT: In other words - I can just as easily abstract that the prerequisite that stipulates that "two or more characters must be in a non-rearward stance to allow for one to be in a rearward stance" applies primarily toward allowing the archer enough room and time (on his turn) to get away and fire a shot, but does not specifically stop an attacker who WANTS to go attack the archer (on its turn) and move around the defending dwarf; basically dancing and moving around the melee dwarf like a playing tag around a tree or car; again there's no rules that govern such tactics

Again - more complicated combat rules such as those found in D&D allow for this albeit with an attack of opportunity or the need to successfully tumble away from the defending dwarf to prevent that in order to get to the archer - but it is far from impossible and not even far from improbable that it would play out similarly.

Your head is complicating the matter and destroying the fun. Tell the said head to stop it

More seriously, the rules as they stand allow you to make alterations on given circumstances. I would embrace that flexibility instead of aspiring to the complex combat systems you refer to.

Combat is a chaotic situation and the rules provide a good approximate for what happens in a wide variety of situations. Sure, in a football game all kinds of strategies can be used to divide the opposition, but in combat your life is on the line. Those two orcs may split but that Dwarf might rush them first, there may be terrain preventing the split, the orcs may split at different times, the PCs may be working as a wall, the Hobbit may be up a tree etc. There are too many variations to make such a strategic approach as you suggest the better baseline IMO.

As said, if you have an unusual situation, like where one Orc lays in ambush or is somehow overlooked and sneaks around, you are free to adjudicate a change to the baseline. It would be cool and dramatic even in those situations, and it will be a lot easier than overhauling one of the combat system's central tenets.

Thank you. Wholeheartedly.

I'm truthfully not asking to overhaul the whole combat system, I'm just musing if it's a fair abstraction that it's just as likely that an unaccounted for attacker could get back to attack a rearward if for only an instant (until the characters turn to move and for the fighter to re-intercept said assaulter)?


Personally I think it can; and I think the TN of 12 for a Rearward assumes some level of difficulty to attack them - hence the same difficulty to hit them as it would be to hit a defensive stance person. (i.e. the forward stancers are trying to get in the way, and block the egress to the 'defenseless' archers - thus creating a harder target - thus the higher TN).


I was sure it wasn't intended to work that way - i'm merely pointing out that it can without a lot of special rules - the higher TN as a side-effect has already provided a harder target - all that's left is appropriate narration and abstraction - which I have already provided one example thereof.

Now I'm not saying all badguys are going to follow this logic - the less crafty and non--thinking foes definitely wouldn't; but a strategic monster/creature would surely have reason to want to get to the archer.

Without a complicated rules system that involves tumbling, attacks of opportunity, reach, overrun and bullrush feats etc (which trust me I DON'Twant at all!) the easiest work-around and still keep it simple is to assume that this is possible, and explain that the higher TN (equatable to that of a Defensive Stance) already assumes the difficulty in getting to the target.


My problem with it as most believe it's intended is that it's "mathematically" far more superior to be an archer - especially for longevity purposes - because with the few exceptions of flying targets or superiorly large forces, the archer is relatively safe between the other "meat shields" so long as they realize they're usually exempt from ever being attacked. And just to show you that I'm really wanting to level the playing field - the archer in my game is my own 11 year old daughter and I'm looking to give her character a smack-down or two. hehehe

Don't forget to add monsters with ranged attacks, Great Leap or Fell Speed too. IME around 50% of fights have ways to get at a ranged PC without your house rule.

My main concern with your house rule is that it will make combat more samey and diminish the effect of the choice of stance which is the prime tactical decision. As it stands there is a lot of variety in the game play between melee and ranged and how these interact with different monster abilities. This will be lost to some extent.

Perhaps trying mixing up you encounters more if you are finding that you gravitate toward small numbers of melee opponents only. This may actually have other benefits of adding excitement through variety.

As for longevity, I don't see an issue with ranged attackers have a boost in this area. It makes sense. However, it's not the immunity that you fear it is and with the commensurate difficulty to hit, it certainly has its downside.

So I don't see your suggestion as levelling the playing field, but adding a slope with ranged attacks at the bottom.

I think it helps get your head around it if you stop thinking of it like pieces on a chess board or heaven forbid a tiled map.

Go and watch the fight scene in Balin's tomb in the Fellowship of the Ring film. (I'll assume you have it because otherwise how dare you defile these hallowed pages with your presence! )

Seen it? Good.

Now then did you see how Orlando Bloom is scrambling around like the girl he is (That joke never gets old btw. ), dodging foes and shooting off arrows whenever he gets a chance because one of the more masculine heroes whacks the daylight out of the orc chasing him.

That's how reward stance works.

The 2 forward 1 behind and twice the number of foes are just abstract rules that states that even the most awesome heroes can get swamped by superior numbers.

I hear your criticism, but I am in no way thinking like a chessboard or minis-map; I can narrate, describe, and abstract as well any anyone. And yes I have the movie - extended version - and have watched it many times.

Don't get me wrong - i'm merely playing Sauron's Advocate here:


I see your point completely and that's a very good illustration of Stances at work (in relation to the girly elf) being in a rearward stance being dodgey and tumbley and avoiding foes - and it works quite seamlessly.

However, to prove I can abstract and narrate just as capably, I can just as easily describe and attest that he/she/it/elf WAS still being attacked (which is the crux of my differing perspective) - However by the very nature of being at the "rear" and having meatshields at his disposal, and going last in initiative even after defensive stance (a trade-off), he is awarded a TN of 12 to be hit which made him less likely a target, and harder to be hit, than the more forward combatants of Borimir and Gimli for instance (TN 6 - twice as easy of a target); thus he was via his stance - more dodgey/tumbly and able to avoid being hurt much (loss of endurance points) but was STILL a viable target at least for a moment until he tumby/dodgey away to protect his nails and hair and fancy clothes.

You see? I was quite capable of illustrating that without moving a rook to L7 (whether or not that's a valid move in chess I have no idea - never learned to play).

That's about as valid an argument as can be made. I can readily accept rules as they are - contrived for precisely for gamists perspective and balance. Indeed the trade-off is harder to hit your opponent.

And I suppose I do indeed need to mix up the combats a bit. So far - wolves, spiders, marsh-dwellers, and a troll (Having played the Marsh-Bell) has yet to prove fruitful on that front; so this is merely testimony from my perspective (although admittedly limited in scope so far via the prepared adventure).


Still - my initial concern/complaint on the matter from the beginning is that I indeed "felt" it was mostly for gamisty/balance perspective, and though I can respect that, it was hard to justify a combatant never being able to ignore the obvious target and going for the rearward (even if it means spending a Hate point to do so) - and in an abstract simplistic combat system as this (which is what I really prefer anyways) that is not complicated with a number of feats, attack styles/actions, and attacks of opportunity, the freedom should exist to make sense of it all - in a word verisimilitude or being able to suspend disbelief; because it's just as easy to envision it not being possible as it is that it could be possible.

You're certainly not wrong in your beliefs on this - it's just that I don't believe I am either. That's the thing with roleplaying games - there's rarely a 'wrong' way to do things. There's just varying degrees of RAW and RAI.

You see, Robert, that's absolutely correct. Who is to say that your approach is wrong. All opinions on this board are just that, and all opinions are subjective.

There are several posters who believe that i was putting too much emphasis on a defined rule in another post rather than simply abstracting it to provide a similar result. Although TOR is open to great (and refreshing) amounts of abstraction, it is at it's heart a rules system.
The rules are defined and provide constants( with exceptions,of course) and if LM's decide to utilise variations of the constants rather than abstractions to achieve their goals in TOR, then who is to say that their approach is wrong. Horses for courses as the old saying goes.

IMO, there are as many posters who are becoming as hung up on the mantra of abstraction as there are those who suffer from it's opposite.

If this board only welcomes those who espouse the abstract then i may not bother coming here anymore. It should be open to players of all shades of opinion.

'this is not heresy, I will not recant' , I'll expect a visit from the Abstract Witch Hunters.......

It's worth noting that Spiders have Great Leap and can attack Rearward Stance PCs.

I don't think you are wrong in your beliefs. People hold different views on this sort of thing. My comment was purely that the change you are making will remove some variety from combat mechanically, which may be less interesting. On that point, it will also reduce the interplay between PCs which is one area that TOR excels as you make it more about each man for himself by removing a group strategy.

As for your comments on what's easier to envision, these sound like they are based on your own personal view of how combat should play out. They aren't objective. Thats cool. Just recognise your personal view differs from the designers and make the change. You don't need to attribute the version you like less as being more gamey, having less vermismilitude or any other "hot button" word to justify not using it.

In case this is referring to me, I repeat it's cool to make changes as you see fit. The danger of making changes is the unforeseen consequences, and I identified two such consequences - reduction in variety of combat options and PC interplay. If these are acceptable consequences, house rule away

Actually no, Skywalker, you were not one of those I was referring to. Although I aired my small grievance on this post it was not completely specific to this post.

You espouse abstract play and that's cool with me. I favour it as well, although I am not averse to adding little extra conventions either.

I do object to high handedness, patronising tones and the inability to take into account that right and wrong are subjective. I don't think that applies to any of your posts.

Indeed. that's was an Post-game AHA moment (we are all still learning).

Thank you - and I conceded to your point. My latest comments was more to address the accusations that I can only think on minis and grid terms. i was merely advocating for myself that it was not my views that were myopic.

Well my initial goal on this thread was to verify my suspicion that it was not in fact the designers intent. Once confirmed, my follow up question was to see if anyone else could make a case that it's plausible to see it from another angle, and perhaps afford the possibility that I proposed.

Yes I get that it's wasn't what was originally intended; nor was most of the other user content that many brilliantly minded persons on here have concocted and shared; but that is not to say that it is without merit to at least one other.

For the record I never said I like it less or that I couldn't abide by what is intended; just opening the floor for more possibilities and outcomes. I get that it may imbalance one thing or another - as all things do if used without caution or moderation. I only said that it would be harder pill to swallow if I'm told one cannot possibly narrate it or envision it that way. That would hurt the believability.

In the end, I appreciate all of your commentary and concerns, and I heed them. So thank you.

Why is this a problem? It is safer to be an archer, because you're protected by the melee combatants. Not everyone can be an archer, because then the foes would attack them.

If it's simply that you have an urge to damage the archers of the party, perhaps you should examine that urge. Why shouldn't a character be allowed to play it safe? Why, when there are a whole bunch of men, elves, and dwarves attacking hand-to-hand, should the referee want to single out my frightened hobbit at the back?

It also scares the bejesus out of ranged PCs who think they safe

Exactly!! LOL And this answers the previous poster's question about why the urge is there....


But to be fair to a broader spectrum, many players tend to get butt-hurt if/when their characters die - especially if it's "only happening to them". At the start, I had too many players (3 out of six) want to play the "safe" archer type who stands in the back and gets protected by the meat-shields. They had to hash it out who would get to stand back and be protected - and who didn't get to. Generally, It'll only take a couple characters dying and/or perpetually Weary, while watching their archer be 'safe' and healthy most of the time before finger pointing would begin. Again I'm playing Devil's Advocate - I don't necessarily have such immature players at the moment - but I have RPGed for alot of years and unfortunately dealt with more than my share of such individuals.

I don't want a situation where players learn to view the "archer" spitefully; the way many players and fans feel about the Quarterback position in the NFL - because there's so many rules in place to protect that player above all other positions - regardless of the pragmatism or reasons why.

Typically animosity and butt-hurt feelings of spite are not well thought-out.

So I was just musing that if the possibility does still exist that melee combatants could potentially hurt an archer every so often it would do much to dispel the "quarterback" protection syndrome. Either way - I had/have no intention of making a habit of it either - but I will say that I do see a place for typical strategical-minded nemesis/enemies making such strides - and I propose the need for spending a Hate Point in order to do so. Regardless - such an act would significantly add to the flavor and story and memory of said foe.

Fair enough. There was no hard feelings when this happened in my game, just a lot of excitement resulting from the surprise.

I can't say that I have come across such players that you raise and I have been running TOR with a group of 12 to 14 years olds as well as an older group. Sounds like a deeper problem than a simple house rule can solve to be honest. But do whatever brings you more fun

Sometimes the need to game outweighs ability to be choosy of one's participants.

Most of the players that I game with are far more intellectual and mature than the extreme examples; but I have gamed with too many not-so-mature players in my time, and truth is sometimes there's not enough players in the social circle interested in gaming a particular system to allow for selectivity.

I've done some housecleaning along the way and removed some of the bad apples - thankfully I live in the Bay Area of California, so the pool of potential players is quite large.

This game being so new however is just a matter of time to actually recruit enough interest. As it stands there is a HUGE bay area movement of Pathfinder which is what I typically GM for. TOR is my newest venture; and the few players that I've invited over are truly enjoying it; but it's not for everyone; alot of the local players are more into games w/ mini-grids - they'll stick to Pathfinder

Actually, I think lost my point once I started to mock Orlando Bloom.

I'll just say this; don't forget that a character in the reward stance is not only harder to hit but its also hard for him to hit...

pffff, Legolas has a unique cultural virtue that allows him to use archery while fighting in forward stance... as long as he can slide on something, off course (it's a game balance thing).

I though everyone knew that!

Holy crap. That means Lord of the Rings on Ice will make him invincible!