In my last gaming session, one of the players with the "hardy" trait asked if that meant he received auto successes on travel rolls (at least the TN14 and below ones). Given that, in my opinion, this would be over-powered I said no but from the way traits are described in the rule-book I could not fully justify that decision. I ended up giving him an auto-success on one leg of the journey.

Has anyone else encountered this and how did they handle it? How do people think it should be handled? Thanks.

Oh, ugh. There's a tricky one. Even more so since if they get an automatic success, they can never roll a Lidless Eye. And it just occurred to me that my group is probably going to pull that on me soon. Unfortunately it does say, "...travel far without rest..."

Maybe instead of effecting the Travel roll, it can be used for who is on watch. To resist falling asleep. Or maybe allow a roll for reducing fatigue or endurance while on the road. Ohh, I like that. How about they get to make a roll once per leg of a journey to resist fatigue? If the player thinks of it of course.

I am glad we had this talk.

I had the same question come up in my game and ruled no. I did however let Hardy apply to the Forced March roll in the Tales from the Wilderland(p.61) adventure Kinstrife & Dark Tidings. Basically he auto passed the Athletics roll and didn't take additional Fatigue.

I have also made all of the character's pass an Athletics roll to avoid becoming Weary when they went without sleep for too long and allowed the Hardy character a pass or an opportunity for a check if he rolled.

I have also allowed him to make Fatigue tests at a lower difficulty on a case by case basis.

In general I wouldn't allow a trait to avoid one whole game rule like that or I think soon you will see all characters having that Trait.

One of my players had that trait. I indeed allowed him to use it for Fatigue Tests. At first i did think it overpowered when he first suggested to use it as such. However my experience now taught me that while the advantage is obvious its still not game breaking. So what he auto succeeds on these? His character is uber hardy and simply functions in ways we cannot explain or perceive.

The balance is that if he elects the auto success, he never gets the opportunity to earn an advancement point and he doesnt have the capability to roll a greater/extaordinary success with which he can use those to help a fellow character succeed who happened to fail.


Eventually my player learned to use discretion as to when to choose auto success of it - usually when it was really important or likely to be very detrimental to him if he failed.

Surely, the Hardy trait should allow automatic successes on Fatigue tests just like anything else. As Loremaster, you should just accept that Hardy characters are really, well, hardy.

Can you imagine Aragorn being so tired from a journey that he becomes Weary at the end of it?

The downside of taking automatic successes is that you don't get to qualify for advancement points.

The Loremaster might require a roll just to see if there is a hazard, but whatever the roll, the Hardy hero doesn't gain fatigue.

I hadn't even thought of doing that - I think I will start expecting a roll just to see if there's a hazard.

That may also help quell any metagamey thoughts by players that they can circumvent the "hazard" chance by making characters with the Hardy Trait.

Still I think the trait should indeed allow a character to be hardy enough to not gain Fatigue from such tests - if/when they wish to use the trait for auto-success.


As I said - no allowing Advancement Points is a tough one, but not being given the opportunity to help a fellow party member out with a great success is very tough pill to swallow sometimes; especially if you have a couple skill ranks in Travel and have a good chance of rolling a 6.

I'm in agreement with Stormcrow here.

Hi:

(AFTBRN)
Don't the rules state something akin to "if the Trait is used/justified for things that are "inconsequential", then let it be an auto success"?

Now, does a Fatigue roll whilst using the Travelling rules qualify as "inconsequential"?


Maybe I'm wrong,
Ñ

Exactly this. It's not overpowered, because the auto-success balances out. If the player wants to earn AP using Hardy, he or she must risk failing or rolling an Eye.

Yes, you can use Automatic Success to skip past inconsequential things related to your trait.

Fatigue tests are not inconsequential. The consequences for failure are (1) increased Fatigue, and (2) a possible Hazard.

The example in the book of an inconsequential use of Automatic Action is where a Hero with Woodwright doesn't have to roll Craft to open a box. The consequences of not opening the box are... not opening the box. This is what is meant by inconsequential.

The HARDY Dwarven character in my campaign uses the trait a lot for Fatigue tests. However, I asked him to do more than claim a success because of his hardiness. Instead, he has to narrate it into the flow of the game. Initially, this worked fine. He started, though, to use the same "narrative" explanation over and over again. That became dispiriting for other player-heroes. After a bit of this, I negated his auto success with an "in your overconfidence you've grown unconsciously lax in your travel preparations thinking to rely too much on your sheer physical aptitude..." That caught his attention. And, I think this is the caution we LMs should consider: traits can easily mechanize the game and "turn-off" player creativity.

Also, I must say that his use of HARDY for this purpose was my suggestion. Before each session, I remind the player-heroes about using traits to either lay claim to Advancement points or narrate an auto-success at a task or test. Usually, I emphasize that this "lay claim" or "narration" should come from them and not through my part in the story as the LM.

For all my player-heroes, TOR is very different from any other systems they've played. Becasue of that, I have always felt the need to have a bit of a "readiness" conversation before beginning the evening's session. My hope has always been to facilitate the use of traits by the player-heroes through the narrative. As in all things, sometimes it works out this way; and, at other times, it does not.

What has been the experience of other LM? Do your player-heroes tend to invoke traits mechanically (best word I have at the moment for describing the type of invocation at my game table) or weave it into the narrative? Ay tricks you might offer for encouraging the latter?

Regards,
E

My thought on the trait invocation affecting Fatigue tests which are not inconsequential is that the loss of potentially gaining an Advancement point balances out the auto-success. Now, like others, I did not consider making them still roll for the potential Eye that might have arisen generating a Hazard. That could further balance the use of the trait for something as central as a Fatigue test.

Maybe I will still require the Fatigue test, I.e., a roll of the dice, but if the outcome is a failure that would be the point the trait is invoked...? Endure the fatigue and resist its potentially debilitating affects...?

Hmmm.....

What do you mean by this? I can't find reference in the rules to greater+ successes helpng other companions that have failed. Am I missing something?

It seems he's referring to the Lore roll on AB, 154 or so I would think. Success there allows you to help a companion automatically pass one Fatigue test, or reduce all Travel rolls by one TN level for the entire Journey. As for a great or extraordinary success on a Fatigue test providing a benefit to a companion, that I haven't seen in the rules.

Anyone else...?

The ability of the people I know, including myself, at producing good-sounding, spontaneous storytelling is second-rate at best. I prefer to accept that in-game conversation around the table can never get close to sounding like a novel, and to just get on with the adventure.

"Make a Fatigue test."
"My hero doesn't have to because he's Hardy."

That's good enough for me.

I agree but that part of the rules doesn't relate to the Hardy trait so it isn't really relevant. Glad I'm not the only one wondering what rule he's talking about!

Sorry that was just a bit of creative liberty on our end due to other aspects having this mechanic set as a precedence. I merely forgot that it was not RAW due to us using it often.

Sorry for the confusion.

So apparently as RAW, the only downside is the possibility of a Advancement Point. This may not be enough to offset always being able to succeed and never worrying about the chance of a hazard just for that trait.

In this case - either make a line in the sand that says "It's not inconsequential - so i won't allow it"

or

Make the player still roll a feat die to see if an EYE appears as someone suggested.


In my games - since the core mechanic of aiding others with greater successes do exist elsewhere, and there's really no greater benefit (other than an advancement point) in game for rolling the 6s, I have found allowing these to assist others who fail to be quite interesting, rewarding - note that I expect my players to narrate and describe how/why their characters actions over the course of the journey assisted the fellow in their success when they otherwise would have failed. Furthermore when a failure rolls an EYE, they can still be "successfully aided" by another who rolled a greater success, but the Hazard still play out.


Robert

I feel that would be too lucrative. All the chances of success and benefits thereof for the purposes of Advancement Points, and none of the fears of failure.

The point of a Trait is that you use it to succeed but not have the luxury of possibly getting an Advancement Point; NOT being a safety net when/if failure.

The way I see it - making a feat die roll (ONLY) to ensure no Hazard occurs but still allowing success 100% of the time (when activating the trait for auto-success) is the most sensible way to try to balance any perceived imbalance of this issue.

If still unconvinced - then take the road of "it's not inconsequential - so I won't allow that to apply."

Hi:

It was a rhetorical question.


Ñ

I'm fairly certain that the paragraph regarding the invoking of traits for auto successes does not say that they are for inconsequential events only. IIRC, it says something like 'can be used for an auto success ,especially where there is no dramatic consequence.
The 'especially' seems to imply that it is possible to grant an auto success for trait invocation at any time, but most normally when there is no dramatic consequence.

Quite right. The first example of automatic success in the rules has a Keen-Eyed Hero automatically succeed at a Search action to spot an ambush. This is certainly not an inconsequential roll!

Excellent point.

What it then boils down to is some feel the trait is too lucrative mechanically, and others are copacetic as written. Ymmv. There's just no right or wrong answer. Theres just personal preferences.

I would agree with you both. As I have allowed Hardy (and, at times, other Traits) used to invoke an Automatic Action, I've already unwittingly crossed the "line in the sand" where actions are no longer inconsequential.

Although, I think if someone is looking to balance this out, the suggestion to still have the player-hero roll for a Hazard seems a good one. As the player-hero has already invoked the Trait for the Automatic Action, they should not be allowed to invoke it a second time to claim an Advancement point, and this would have to be clear and known upfront. As SK pointed out earlier, to do otherwise would be too much: get out of the Fatigue test AND get an Advancement point. In essence, the player-hero sidesteps the issue of gaining Fatigue, but still risks bringing down a Hazard episode on the Fellowship...

Regards,
E

It's already in the rules. An automatic action is considered a simple success, and as such it represents a just-good-enough-but-no-more result. You don't get advancement points for that.

Advancement points can be earned on simple successes as the question isn't how good was the role, but it's relevancy to the action: "When a hero succeeds in an action that strongly reflects one of his Traits, he may invoke the Trait to ask for an Advancement point. If the Trait is agreed to be relevant, the player earns an Advancement point and checks the relevant box" (AB, 96).

The responsibility lies with the player to request an Advancement point, the reason is becasue some success (of any quality) strongly reflects their Trait in their opinion, and it's agreed to that this in fact is the case.

It seems this mechanic is precisely this way to encourage and reward a player for playing in-character and playing true to who that character is as defined by (among other things) his or her Traits.

I may be wrong in this assessment of the designer's intention; nonetheless, this is how it has played out in my campaign. My players tend to play more closely aligned to their character's Traits when I remind them that this is the fundamental path to development and advancement. This as opposed to operating all over the board and attempting to do everything, as well as simply killing monsters and grabbing gold.

Regards,
E