If a character does not increase his combat skills during creation he will have a skill of 2 with one weapon (or group of weapons).

So in combat he will roll the feat die and 2d6. The average on 2d6 is 7, the average for the feat die (ignoring the Gandalf rune as I don't know how to figure that one in) is 5 (11 possible number, 0 to 10, add to 55, divide by 11 = 5). So on average a character will get a total of 12.

The main monsters in the scenario in the rulebook have a Parry of 4 meaning the target number to hit them is:
Forward: 10
Open: 13
Defensive: 14
Rearward: 14

Not great odd unless you use the Forward Stance. I realise the same is probably true of the monsters trying to hit the characters but there are (many) more of them. It seems the fellowship will have a rough time in combat and will likely spend excessive Hope.

How does this play out in reality? Am I worrying unduly?

Kind of linked to the above. As experience points are harder to come by than advancement points and you potentially get a lot less per scenario does it make sense to use the original points during character creation to increase a combat skill rather than common skills? I am sure at least one of my players will figure this is a better option.

Maybe you want to check this topic:

Dice Probabilities & Skill Levels, Rules crunch analysis!

Thank you, I missed that while skimming through the forums.

The table seems to support the idea that characters with a skill of 2 in combat will not hit their opponents very often.

Someone did a load of probability tables for TOR in the following:

TOR Probability Discussion

[Edit] Sorry, someone else beat me to it!

As you rightly point out, odds of success are quite steep in TOR. Even Moderate difficulty rolls (TN=14) are pretty hard to pull off (41.898% with 2 skill).

I think this is by design though, i.e. you are encouraged to spend Hope to make important rolls, and in so doing, risk becoming Miserable.

Also remember that in combat, a character with a high Battle rating will often gain extra Combat Advantage dice which can be given to any companion to add to their roll, so the game reflects the idea of "leadership" playing a part (think Aragorn or Boromir shouting warnings or commands to the Hobbits).

One more thing - you usually only need one or two hits to take out an adversary. In my last game, a character skewered a spider with her Great Spear (with "Grievous" +2 damage reward) leaving it with 1 Endurance, then a child killed it with a stone!

I'm probably worrying over nothing but one of my players (who is a bit of a rules guru, he can read them once and "get them") has commented that combat looks brutal hence I started looking at the odds.

We'll give it a go this weekend and see how it plays out.

Less skilled characters do have to put themselves more at risk (and/or spend more Hope) to have an effect, but it's actually relatively difficult to kill a PC in comparison to an Adversary. Also: tactics. Work together as a team; know your strengths and weaknesses.

From what I've seen in sessions, and how true TOR stays to the books and such, I think the point is that combat is supposed to be brutal. Especially when you factor in how long Endurance takes to recover. It's hardly Fourth Edition D&D

Personally, I like this, as it means the party isn't a bunch of unstoppable killing machines (like in D&D)
There's also the fact you have a chance (ranging from I think 1 in 12 to maybe 3 in 12) to outright kill the enemy with a wound.

On the otherhand, they could just run away...

"If a character does not increase his combat skills during creation he will have a skill of 2 with one weapon (or group of weapons)."

This kind of falls into a big question mark the system has for me. Under the skill section 2 is considered "poor" rating in the game. As the characters are "heros" in the story should they not, at least, start out as being average in most skills?

I think the Pc's have to grow into heroes in this game. Reminds me of the terrible starting stats that characters had in the old Warhammer Roleplay.

I think as long as 1 or 2 Pc's have a 3 dice in their weapon skill, then there shouldn't be too much or a problem.

Players have to take more chances in fights: ie fight in foward stance, to overcome some adversaries. They also have to know when to switch to defensive stance at the right moment. (That's been my experience anyway).

I would also consider having a powerful NPC accompany the player characters in the early days of a campaign, until they've had a chance to improve their skills. Just as Strider accompanied Frodo and Sam in the Fellowship of the Ring, and Gandalf tagged along now and then in The Hobbit, it would be good storytelling to have a powerful ally help protect the player characters early on - and if he dies a heroic death protecting them, like Boromir, all the better!

Well, if you're putting your PCs up against Ring Wraiths, then sure...

I agree that mortality should be part of any game, but when a single troll comes within a cat's whisker of wiping out 50% of a party of 5 I start to question the combat ability of the PCs.

My players went through the Marsh Bell just fine with only 1 of the 4 characters having a 3 Weapon Skill. There were struggles, but it was fun and they were never far out of their depth.

I think a 2 in a Weapon Skill is passable enough to get by when you start. That is, unless you want to be a bowman; that sucks without 3 dots.

To weigh in, my group has only 3 heroes. None of them had more than 2 dots in a weapon skill to start (except perhaps the archer, I don't recall clearly), and they were never in serious jeopardy of being wiped out in The Marsh Bell.

In my opinion, a normal troll (ie, one not handicapped like the one in the The Marsh Bell) should, in-game, be quite a challenge for a handful of individuals, even if they are above-average (though not exceptional) people, and I think the rules do a good job with this.

That thing was handicapped!! If there had been 2 of them at least two of my party would have been dusted (one of them my PC.) Someone got lucky and did a wound to the beast, that is the only way we won against it.

Did you count the troll defeated after the one wound? The troll has Horrible strength, or giant size or something to that manner that I can't recall off the top of my head that allows it to continue fighting after one wound, and until its endurance reaches zero.

Trolls can be tough.

I ran the combat with four players (AP here). The PCs were in danger, but they managed to get through the combat without a Wound. My main issue was that they got the troll's Endurance down too quickly (!) with the result that it then turned into a case of getting a Piercing blow and hoping he didn't make the Protection roll.

Last night, my group played the big fight at the end of Words of the Wise but, because they played a bunch of adventures before, I decided to make it harder by adding a hill troll. Surprisingly, they had very little trouble, and probably would have managed to kill the troll even without Radagast arriving.

The thing is: the troll never hit! The PC who fought it has a very good Parry (Swordmaster + improved shield), and the hill troll, with his 3 dice and no favorite skill, never rolled a Eye or enough 6 to hit.

In the end, since they had a little help from luck, woodmen and Radagast, I think a hill troll still is a challenge for them, but it's a lot less scary that I thought. And my biggest problem with fights is that, most often, enemies don't hit, PCs hit and reduce the enemies to 0 endurance quickly, and against trolls they struggle to get a wound. That makes fights a bit boring. I usually add some events, but still, I need to find a way to make enemies more efficient.

Speaking of the hill troll: since he has no favorite skill, is there a use for his attribute level, besides damage bonus?

I had same problem with snow trolls. Francesco suggested treating them as weary when out of endurance which would help.

And isn't the Marsh Bell troll already wounded? (At work, so can't check)

If so, second wound would finish him.

Yes, that troll was already wounded, so reducing him to 0 endurance or wounding him again does the job. But wounding seems a lot harder, unless you have a weapon that can do a piercing blow on a called shot.

As written, the Stone Troll only had slightly less endurance (60 instead of 72). The footnote says the LM may make him even weaker by considering him Wounded.

To clarify a little further, yes, the troll was handicapped, but my group had little trouble with it. If the troll had not been handicapped, it would have been a tough fight, but that is as it should be! Inexperienced adventurers should not fight a troll (under normal circumstances) and expect to win without anyone getting hurt or killed, IMO. If it's too tough a fight, find another way to deal with the situation.

"The thing is: the troll never hit!"

See, now we were the opposite. We couldn't land a blow and IIRC the Troll got two Eyes in the combat (believe me Lug had no trouble reaching out and touching us). Finally, our group managed to land a one or two good shots and that pretty much much finished the troll off. My party got really lucky as far as I was concerned.

"The thing is: the troll never hit!"

See, now we were the opposite. We couldn't land a blow and IIRC the Troll got two Eyes in the combat (believe me Lug had no trouble reaching out and touching us). Finally, our group managed to land a one or two good shots and that pretty much much finished the troll off. My party got really lucky as far as I was concerned.