forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Angelalex242 wrote:Slightly? Have you ran the numbers of Elfcrusher's combat simulator lately? Heavy Armor will KILL you.

In fact, it kills you faster then running around naked.

Depends on how much heavy armor and the number of foes. Mail Shirts (either on their own or with a cap) are often (though not always) a good idea, statistically (particularly against large numbers of enemies), and even coats of mail are valid for some builds (including many dwarves), as are mail shirts with a helm.

Mail Hauberks (or coats of mail with a helm) are admittedly a bridge too far pretty universally, but the very heaviest armor there is being a bad idea isn't exactly the same as 'all heavy armor' being a bad idea. And even that would be worthwhile if it were mithral.

The problem is that the combat calculator (as excellent as it is) only deals with one-on-one fights and TOR combat is specifically about fighting together as a Fellowship.

I think one important factor to take into account is that you are expected to be taking Endurance loss in a fight. It's very hard to avoid it. On the other hand you really, really want to avoid taking Wounds.

So during a combat you will be losing Endurance but also regaining it thanks to usage of Rally Comrades. This is very much an expected approach to play. If you just slug it out with your opponents then yes armour can be a deathtrap but if people are replenishing their Endurance through Rally Comrades then it really helps you avoid those crucial piercing blows becoming Wounds.

Oh, certainly. The most optimal armor is 2d+4, though I often use the 3d Mail shirt because I like metal armor and don't like helmets. Still, the mail shirt is the second most optimal choice.

Angelalex242 wrote:Oh, but it is the point. Because a too difficult game just has players that quit, and then nobody plays. Never underestimate the power of a ragequit, or suffer the fate of an empty table you will.

No argument there. My point is that working to make the game the appropriate difficulty is ALREADY something a LM has to deal with. You might have a game with 3 players vs a game with 6. Playing with 3 makes all the fights twice as hard, so you have to do things to mitigate this, or else they'll all get mad and quit like you say. So my suggestion doesn't ultimately change anything there.

Glorelendil wrote:This opens up the decades old "are hit points meat?" argument. I think in TOR the answer is "only partly". When you lose 5 Endurance to an orc's attack it's largely what you are describing. If that were physical damage it would be odd that you could recover some/all of it from Rally Comrade, or from resting for 30 minutes after a fight.

I figured it was probably an old discussion - thanks for filling me in. This makes some sense.

Glorelendil wrote:The point I think you are making is that even if you parry every blow, or even if you are only attacking and not having to defend, swinging a weapon in real combat is exhausting. True enough, but for me this falls on the wrong side of the "how much detailed realism do I actually need?" line. If nothing else, I don't want to have to keep track of whether or not I remembered to deduct a point each round. One of the things I love about TOR, compared to many RPGs, is the light bookkeeping.

This is a reasonable objection, to be sure. Light bookkeeping is a worthy goal. I guess what I want to see is endurance really being that, and not just a fancy word for hit points. It seemed really silly to me how D&D has you fight full strength until you hit the magic number and fall down dying (and how you're all full up with a decent rest again). Silly in the sense that it's hard to make a sensible story about it in non-game terms. So I'm digging the idea of framing things in terms of "endurance" rather than "hit points" - I just want to see that actually being the case.

Glorelendil wrote:Does your idea more accurately represent the spirit of the texts? I dunno...Bilbo fought those spiders by himself for a while without becoming exhausted, and Legolas and Gimli fought for a long time at Helm's Deep. Was there a passage you were thinking of?

The example I gave was Gandalf being weary, even though no one had touched him. That's what I'm going for - endurance is about being able to stick it out longer than the other guy - which isn't really exactly the same as getting hit less. I'm not really wanting no one to be able to fight for a long time per se, but rather the ability to fight for a long time to actually be a thing.

The point about endurance actually being that - and that someone taking a 5 endurance loss from an orc really meaning that, rather than just a sound thunk on the helm - is worth pondering. I could be convinced. Convince me.

Well the game rules do allow characters to become temporarily Weary without Endurance loss. One problem is that the situation you are referencing (Gandalf gets his spell overcome by a huge counterspell from a Balrog) isn't really something covered in the current rules (nor should it be). It would be very easy for that specific situation to induce temporary Weariness.

On the other hand (as other posters have mentioned) we have plenty of examples in the literature of heroic characters defying traditional Endurance rules. I mean think about Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas running for days!

EDIT: Edited for clarity.

bluejay wrote:On the other hand (as other posters have mentioned) we have plenty of examples in the literature of heroic characters defying traditional Endurance rules. I mean think about Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas running for days!

I daresay they expended the entire fellowship's hope supply in that. Plus, they showed that they all have a stinkin' ton of endurance.

Oh, I don't think so. See, Legolas has the 'Elvish Dreams' virtue to fall back on, which lets him regen endurance as he goes. Aragorn has the 'Endurance of the Ranger' virtue, which gives him a boost. Gimli had 'stiff neck of the dwarves' to add whatever shadow he picked up to his athletics roll (which all 3 of them were making lots of on the run to Isengard.) Aragorn's endurance of the ranger helps him cover for Gimli on that long run too.

Aragorn also got to abuse Rumor of the Earth for a free attribute bonus to his athletics rolls.

The hobbits being dragged along by the orcs had 'tough in the fibre' to get them through it.

Angelalex242 wrote:Oh, I don't think so. See, Legolas has the 'Elvish Dreams' virtue to fall back on, which lets him regen endurance as he goes. Aragorn has the 'Endurance of the Ranger' virtue, which gives him a boost. Gimli had 'stiff neck of the dwarves' to add whatever shadow he picked up to his athletics roll (which all 3 of them were making lots of on the run to Isengard.) Aragorn's endurance of the ranger helps him cover for Gimli on that long run too.

Aragorn also got to abuse Rumor of the Earth for a free attribute bonus to his athletics rolls.

The hobbits being dragged along by the orcs had 'tough in the fibre' to get them through it.

This sort of reverse-reverse-engineering of the books never does get old, does it?

If you feel that a combat is going on for too long, introduce Fatigue tests during combat. That way your get the players Weary if they fail.
I would use Battle instead of Travel in this case.
Don't mess with Endurance, when Fatigue is already in place in the RAW.

Cheers