Since a Rearward Stance player that has been hit with Seize Victim cannot change his/her stance the next round what are they attacking with when the next round happens? Are they still attacking with their ranged weapon? It seems very unlikely that a seized player (especially by spider strands) could reach back into their quiver pull an arrow, notch it, push the arm holding the bow out straight and draw the string back all while they are seized. All this also while they are still pretty hard to hit (12 TN + half their parry which is the same as someone in a defensive stance).

Anyone in rearward stance is attacking with a ranged weapon. Any other stance and it's a melee weapon. If the spider has done great leap and then hit with the seize victim, they are still able to use their ranged attack. The spider can't attack unless it uses great leap again, though I'd probably rule that since the character is stuck with web then the spider can continue to attack.

That is how I read the rules to but that seems kind of wonky. There is no detriment to the seized player's attack only to their parry. Forcing a Rearward Stance player to stay in Rearward Stance is probably a good thing for them since they are most likely better with ranged than close.

I really think I would need to add a complication (LMB 48) to make this some what troublesome and a situation to be avoided.

A solo creature using this method (against a rearward) is typically not all that effective. Typically in order for it to happen, either a solo creature has to be able to leap out, fly, or reach the rearward character AND have that ability.


Heres what happens:

1_) Creature leaps - gets ahold of character and now has it bit/grasped around the knees etc.
2_) This limits his ability to change stance,
which means - yes the character can still be in rearward and can continue to make ranged attacks.
3_) It lowers his parry rating (against any other creatures or the same with a secondary attack)
4_) His attack TN stays a 12 - same as a Defensive, but the parry rating being killed makes it extremely easy to be hit again.

So against the one foe....not a big deal.

However IF there are multiple foes:

5_) A second creature sees the struggling person and leaps/flies/reaches to the stuck target - it has a much easier time hitting him (thanks to less parry), and the hero cannot change his attacking TN to make it easier to drop his foes that are harassing him.


That all being said:
This is the first time I've had to consider this issue (never seen it come up before) I wonder if there's a more realistic/pragmatic approach to it, like: say the character must go to a CLOSE stance and cannot attack with ranged weapon. There's already a precedence set for this - because typically characters cannot take a rearward stance if they do not have the needed protection to keep the enemies off of them (either due to not enough characters taking a CLOSE stance, or too many enemies (2:1 odds or more) to deal with.

Usually, I'd say that the flow of combat sweeps the opponents apart again and other characters come to his aid, allowing the character to retain the rearward stance. After all, rearward isn't necessarily "in the rear". It can be dodging in and out of the combat or in the middle of a defensive ring of the other characters. In this case, because of the web, I'd be tempted to rule that the spider can continue to attack the character. Does this mean that he's now in close combat? Possibly. But the Seize Victim says that stance can not be altered.

This is a narrative based game, and as such I would adjust the rules to fit with whatever narrative I and my players spun.

If someone in a rearward stance was in that situation, say in the webs of some sort of leaping entangling spider....

1 A comrade rushed over and attacked the creature maybe I'd say the spider leaps away the entangled character can use his ranged attack at a penalty (due to the webs) but can not go into a close stance unless attacked again in close combat.

2 the attacking spider keeps attacking the character who is stuck in the webs here I'd force the entangled character to chose a close combat stance, or chose one for him.. Perhaps whoever attacks an entangled character who is in a rearward stance with a close combat attack can chose what stance the character will be in.

That's just me... but then again I'm not a "by the book" kind of lore master.

If you want to get rules-lawyery about it, the AB says that heroes can use ranged weapons only if they choose Rearward Stance (158). Meanwhile, they can't use close combat weapons if they're merely in that stance (159).

Given that Seize Victim removes their choice while keeping them in the stance, that could be read as meaning they can use neither ranged nor close combat weapons.

I think for ease I would just count the character as shifting to defensive stance whilst caught by seize victim It's the same TN but forces them to draw a close combat weapon.

This is what I have been toying with as well. It really does make the most sense to me. Leoglas might be able to deal with firing arrows a point blank range but historically when archers came in contact with opposing forces they were toast. Your best bet is to pull your close combat weapon to try and keep your opponent at bay.

Seized Victim came up 2 twice in my game on Saturday. Luckily, I didn't have to deal with a rearward player. The people in rearward were too busy bolting for safety, leaving the fighter types to fend for themselves.

Hope you awarded them a shadow point or two for leaving their comrades in peril.

I didn't at the time but I should have. I did warn them after the fact and sent them the list of Misdeeds from page 58 of the LMB.

My players for the most part have never looked at such things (list of misdeeds); they purposefully would prefer not knowing a bunch of the rules and consequences, as it makes for more believable and honest approach to the game.

Someone for instance either instinctively knows that leaving a friend behind would result in guilt and regret, or it doesn't cross their mind, and those are the people that become suprised when they accrue shadow and have to work harder at preventing it later because it's not as natural to think so true-heartedly.