forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Yes, and one thing to bear in mind when you see some of these discussions is that we love playing around with the system... why some folks who will never play with house rules might continually propose new variations of house rules, just for the mental fun of it.

The rules-as-written work very well, I do recommend playing a few game that way before tweaking things too much.

zedturtle wrote: why some folks who will never play with house rules might continually propose new variations of house rules, just for the mental fun of it.

That must earn them a lot of Shadow points.

Welcome Bocephas! This:

zedturtle wrote:The rules-as-written work very well, I do recommend playing a few game that way before tweaking things too much.

is important. Play the game RAW a few times before jumping into house rules.

zedturtle wrote:Yes, and one thing to bear in mind when you see some of these discussions is that we love playing around with the system... why some folks who will never play with house rules might continually propose new variations of house rules, just for the mental fun of it.

The rules-as-written work very well, I do recommend playing a few game that way before tweaking things too much.

We're currently discussing the relative merits of a house rules subforum to counteract any inadvertent impression that TOR needs a lot of house ruling. Let's not derail this thread with any discussion of that here, (serious face, I mean that) but I thought it was pertinent to mention it.

Jon Hodgson wrote:We're currently discussing the relative merits of a house rules subforum to counteract any inadvertent impression that TOR needs a lot of house ruling. Let's not derail this thread with any discussion of that here, (serious face, I mean that) but I thought it was pertinent to mention it.

I have seen it for many games, I think it is an excellent idea.

Bocephas wrote:One issue I have not seen raised is why hobbits are allowed to use the same size bow as elves.

It seems to me standard bows should be pushed up to Enc 2 and a new category of bow should be created - a small bow with Enc 1, Damage 4, Injury 12.

I use a similar approach: all Hobbit sized weapons (i.e. all weapons a hobbit uses) have a -2 to Damage and Injury.

This way, their Bow is Dmg 3 / Edge 10 / Injury 12 / Enc 1
Their Short Sword results very similar to a human-sized dagger: Dmg 3 / Edge 10 / Injury 12 / Enc 1

I think that, due to the proportions, the Encumbrance should be the same: a hobbit sized weapon is as encumbersome to a hobbit as a human sized one is to a human.

The starting hobbit weapons are:
Axe 1, Short Sword 1, Dagger 2
[Axe is, even with this maluses, the only hobbit weapon with a high injury (16). This set is for foresters and "melee fighters".]
Bow 1, Short Sword 1, Dagger 2
[Hobbits have a certain natural ability with bows, but not a martial training. Therefore 1 skill point, but favourite. Hunters choose this set.]

As Glorendil said, however, you should give the hobbits some alternative options for combat,though. They might not be elven archers or beorning slayers, but they're not useless either.

My choice was to add a few Combat Actions:
FORWARD STANCE
TAUNT
Befuddle, ridicule, and confuse an adversary who is attacking somebody other than you. Roll Riddle or Persuasion against a TN of 10 + Attribute Level of target. If successful, the adversary will switch to attacking you for 1 turn per success (e.g. 3 turns on an Extraordinary Success), beginning on the next turn. On a failure with an Eye the adversary gains a point of Hate.

OPEN STANCE
HINDER
Roll attack against an opponent. On a success, instead of doing damage you prevent that opponent from using Called Shot until the end of your next turn. On a great success, you also raise the opponents attack TNs by 2; on an extraordinary success you raise them by 4. On a failure with an eye, you fall prone: on your next turn you can't attack, you can't change stance, and you lose your Parry bonus (base TN by stance only).

DEFENSIVE STANCE
EVASIVE MANEUVERS
Opting out of any form of offense, a player-hero in the defensive stance tasks evasive to present their most formidable, and single-minded, defence possible.
By sacrificing their attack for the round, the player-hero makes an Athletics roll. The TN for this roll is 10 plus the highest Attribute level amongst the opponents faced. A successful roll applies a bonus to their parry rating dependent on their quality of success:

• Ordinary success: +2 parry rating
• Great success: +4 parry rating
• Extraordinary success: +6 parry rating

This bonus persists until the start of the player-hero's next turn.
-----> Taunting a foe first and using Evasive Maneuvers the turn after, a hobbit might prove a useful help for the rest of the allies. Remember Bilbo throwing stones at the spiders and insulting them, so that they abandoned the dwarves.

REARWARD STANCE
TACTICAL ACUMEN
Calling upon their own battle experience and observation, a player-hero in the rearward stance may employ the tactical acumen option to bolster their companions with timely assistance and advice.
At the expense of their attack, the player-hero may roll Battle to determine combat advantage, just as is normally done at the onset of a conflict. Combat advantage determined in this fashion is delegated to one's companions, however, but otherwise applied as usual.


Hope there's some ideas here that can be helpful.

Great replies, all. Falenthal, I like your suggestions for allowing hobbits to play a key role in combat without being heavy damage/injury dealers.

As for playing the game RAW before house-ruling, I am not sure this works for everyone. It might work for people new to tabletop RPGs, but my gaming group all have 20+ years playing (mostly D20). I stumbled upon this game and I love the elegance of the system, quality of the artwork, and elements not found in typical hack-n-slash RPGs. However, if something looks logically inconsistent to me, then it will probably look the same to them. I would prefer to come up with a plan to resolve these issues ahead of time. That way, when my people show up, create characters, and start saying some aspect of the game "doesn't make sense" to them, I have a fair and reasoned solution. If they choose not to implement it, so be it.

This is not to imply that there is anything wrong with the RAW. What appears as a logical inconsistency to me, might appear to others as an abstract but beautiful simplification that advances good role playing. To each their own. But my group, being more "power gamer" and "miniature war-gamer" oriented, would question a few things, and I would like good answers before assembling them to play a game they have never seen before.

I do feel house rules should be kept to a minimum, and used only in two situations:
1. When your personal suspension of disbelief fails, and a house rule is needed to repair it (such as the hobbit-bow issue in this thread, and for me at least, the idea of unlimited arrows)
2. When you feel a house rule is needed to balance some other aspect of the rules (such as allowing damage reduction, and subtracting Body from total Enc of gear, in order to compensate for high Enc rating of armor)

Falenthal, I also like your thoughts on Enc for hobbits. I can see Enc of armor remaining the same, as armor would be scaled to the size of the wearer. However, a true man-sized short sword would be more like a full-sized sword to a hobbit, and might merit being counted as Enc 2 for them, rather than 1. Likewise, a dagger, which would be Enc 0 for a man, would be more like a short sword for a hobbit (as described in the book The Hobbit), and might be counted as Enc 1 for them. Thus, a hobbit-sized bow would have the same Enc for a hobbit (Enc 1) as a man-sized bow would have for man (Enc 1).

As far as the arrows go, I think that's an excellent case of "try the RAW first." In TOR the combats just don't last very long, nor do you have very many of them before visiting a settlement, or at least a place where broken arrows could be fixed.

I've yet to encounter a situation where I've thought, "Wow...he has fired a LOT of arrows..."

Armor encumbrance is another thing worth experiencing before changing. I understand the incentive to have the "best" gear for your character, which is why in TOR there is no "best" (nor is there any cost for equipment...you take what you want.) I think the inspiration was the books: how many of Tolkien's heroes (either in Thorin's group, or in the Company of the Ring) wore heavy metal armor as they traipsed around Middle Earth? I believe the rules are meant to encourage a similar narrative. (Notice that Dwarves have a cultural blessing that lets them wear heavier armor.)

In my experience, 2D-3D is plenty of armor, which usually at least puts you in range of spending Hope. Sure, you occasionally get a Wound, but who wants an invulnerable hero?

EDIT: And since (redacted) just deleted his post, I'll say it: I've been playing RPGs for 35 years, and my first reaction to TOR, before I actually played it, was "oh these few things need to be fixed..." (You can probably find it in the archives somewhere.) But I was wrong on all counts. In the various campaigns I'm in we use very few house rules (mostly additions, not changes), and when I LM I use no house rules, despite my enthusiasm for discussing them.

Let me just add that I very much agree with Glorelendil. After having role-played for about the same amount of time, I'm one who usually tinkers with and adds plenty of house rules. Right now I'm playing TOR completely RAW, and haven't really needed to adjust anything. I'd encourage trying them out first, as you'll often find (later, after playing with them) a brilliance that you'd never considered.

Falenthal, while I like the Tasks you've made for Hobbits, it seems strange to me to have a set of Tasks that only works for one Culture. The first thing Hinder does (on a success) is make it so the opponent can't do Called Shots. Do you have your own rules for Called Shots? (where the opponents can choose when to do them?

I get the basic idea to limit Hobbits, but it seems to me the RAW already has this 'baked in' with their low Body scores. Our Hobbit (sometimes a melee fighter, sometimes an archer) has never dealt much damage to the adversaries, though he's still been effective in dropping enemies in other ways, by things like Wounding them.

Falenthal wrote:My choice was to add a few Combat Actions:

... Those look familiar!

As a bit of a tangent, I really hope we see the Adventurer's Companion expanding on elements/systems that already exist in the RAW. Some new Combat Tasks would be interesting to read and adopt to my game.