Combat Hazards

[Indur Dawndeath]

The LM can spice the Combat Hazards up with these effects that replace the normal Called Shot. Use these when the companions are fighting many weak foes.

Combat Hazards: Roll Random 1d6 after a failed attack by a player with an Eye of Sauron.
1. Accidental Friendly Fire: Weapon damage to a random companion close to you, or in case of missile fire, close to your target. This can be negated by spending a point of Hope.
2. Caught in the open: Move one Stance forward. From Defensive to Open… If your enemy has already acted, then you cannot change stance as usual at the start of the next round.
3. Trip: You have lost your footing, and are considered moderately hindered attacking and defending until you spend a full round to get your bearing again.
4. Blinded: You have been blinded by blood, dust or a poor fitted helm. You are severely hindered until it is your turn to act again.
5. You’ve dropped your weapon, draw another or spend a full round retrieving your dropped weapon, while being severely hindered.
6. Blindsided: One enemy gets a free attack on you, no Parry.

To much, or just right? Comments

[Majestic]

These are awesome. Right now the Called Shots rule is too weak, where it's almost desired to get an Eye roll if you're a companion (I've had lots of them rolled, but never one that's been negative for a hero).

These seem about right. I might play with these and test them out! Thanks, Indur!

[Deadmanwalking]

This definitely works.

As I noted in the other thread, the simple solution to Eyes not being bad enough is to not require Tengwars for the enemies called shots inspired by them to hit. That makes them suck quite a bit.

[Rich H]

Had some house rules developed for something similar in my game...

Fumbles, page 32, here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/795 ... 0Rules.pdf

[Glorelendil]

This definitely works.

As I noted in the other thread, the simple solution to Eyes not being bad enough is to not require Tengwars for the enemies called shots inspired by them to hit. That makes them suck quite a bit.

I think the goal here is not just to make Eyes more penalizing than they currently are, but also to (like Journey Hazards) be a bit more varied and interesting.

To that end, two things I'd love to see:
1) Results vary by stance. Rich's rules distinguish Ranged from Close Combat, which is good, but my ideal solution would also treat the Close Combat stances separately, in a way that results in different feels.
2) Results that can be countered with skill tests. Again, like Journey Hazards. They wouldn't have to all be "Fumbles" in the sense that you screwed up your attack; they could be events in the battle, beyond your control, to which you must respond.

Some examples (there's no way I'm going to improvise a full 4 x N grid for this...)

Who's Got My Back? (Forward)
In your battle-lust, you wade a bit too deep into the fray, letting yourself get separated from your companions. Pass an Awareness test or a random Adversary gets a free attack against you.

Turtle (Defensive)
Your defenses are so effective that your opponents seek other targets. Pass an Awe test or one enemy with who you are engaged uses its next attack on one of your companions in Forward or Open stance.

Stop Moving, Dammit! (Rearward)
Can't...get...a....clear...shot.... Pass a Riddle test or your attack struck a companion in Close Combat with your target.

Etc. In all cases if the description doesn't apply to the situation, the Hazard is cancelled.

An alternative approach to make this even more like Journey Hazards, this could use a specific skill used for each stance. For example...
Defensive: Awe
Forward: Athletics
Open: Awareness
Rearward: Riddle
Or something of that sort. And then the roll would be for consequences of failure of that test. E.g., first you roll an Eye then you roll a 7: "Bad Positioning", which means "Pass the test appropriate to your stance or an adversary with whom you are not engaged gets an extra attack against you."

Regardless of whether those are the right skills, a potential flaw is that it effectively creates a dependent skill for archers. E.g., anybody building an archer knows they will also need Riddle skill. At least melee combatants will have to balance 3 different skills.

And I keep thinking of more alternatives...maybe I'll mull this one and make a more complete proposal at some point..

[Deadmanwalking]

That's definitely an interesting idea, I'm not sure about tying particular stances to skills they aren't already tied to, though. It makes for weird character choices that might go against theme (like all archers being trickster-types or they're screwed).

Maybe go with Valour and Wisdom instead? With Valour for Forward and Open, Wisdom for Defensive and Rearward? Rolling them to avoid Hazards er se would be interesting and new, and using them more in actual battle would also make sense (especially for Valour).

Or with skills already tied to them via the actions they make available (like Awe or Battle for Forward Stance)...though in that case, you still need to come up with something for Defensive and Rearward. Which still seems iffy to me.

[Rich H]

Glorelendil beat me to the punch; I was going to suggest the same things about combat stances varying the type of hazard and also being keyed to Common Skills so that there is a chance to avoid their effects. This way they fit the same design space as those associated with journeys.

[Otaku-sempai]

This is an interesting notion. I might seriously consider adding this or some version of this to my own game.

[Glorelendil]

Ok, here's all I've come up with so far.

1) When you roll an EoS on an attack roll you trigger a Hazard. You must pass a skill test or suffer consequences.

2) The skill you use is based on your stance:
Forward: Athletics
Open: Awareness
Defensive: Insight
Rearward: Riddle or Wisdom, player's choice.

Since archers will only ever be in one stance, they get a choice. The idea is that you can either rely on your intellect or your instinct.

3) The consequences of failure depend on a roll of the Feat Die. The "EoS" result for each is if you fail with an Eye of Sauron. (The names are colorful placeholders, of course; it's more work thinking up appropriately Tolkienesque phrases.)
Eye of Sauron: Friendly Fire - Re-roll an attack against a companion...spend Hope to subtract your attribute from the roll. EoS: you can't spend Hope.
1-2: Two Left Feet - Fall down (like Knockback, without damage mitigation). EoS: Take 1 Success die damage.
3-4: Two Left Feat - On your next attack roll the Feat die twice and take worse result. EoS: Until then, attacks against you roll the Feat die twice and take the better result.
5-6: Blind Spot - A random adversary gets a free attack against you. EoS: Halve your Parry bonus.
7-8: Foul Up: - Moderately hindered for one round. EoS: Severely hindered for one round.
9-10: TBD (Ideas, anyone?)
Gandalf: Flow: If you pass your test, gain one bonus die to use this combat.

The descriptions of each hazard would vary by stance, of course, just like they do for journey hazards. In principle I like the idea of having a separate table for each stance, but then you end up with either 4 tables or a mega-table with tiny text. Also, if the descriptions get too specific it discourages players/LM from narrating the meaning themselves, depending on whim and context. But in general I'm imagining these as environmental Hazards, not fumbles. That is, something unexpected happens in the battle, to which you must respond, rather than you just screwing up particularly badly. Again, like Journey Hazards.

I left "Wound" out of the table because: a) several of the Hazards can result in Wounds, b) it seems too big of a penalty for a Hazard. It would be like a Journey Hazard that resulted in the Journey taking twice as long.

A potential flaw to this whole approach is not that it would encourage players to concentrate on certain skills, but that players would tend to favor stances that rely on their stronger skills. So if you've got high Athletics but low Insight you'll tend toward Forward. Or maybe that's not a flaw?

EDIT: I'm not sure I'd actually use this, or any combat hazards. I suspect one of the reasons battle Hazards were left out of the rules is that combat already has a lot of rules and dice-rolling. Whereas Journeys without Hazards would be too simple and quick.

[zedturtle]

Yeah, I can't say that I'm a fan of adding complexity to fights just for the sake of it. The 'Called Shot on a Eye' rule is weak, but this is a lot of complexity whereas something like 'If you fail your attack with the Eye of Sauron, the targeted Adversary rolls two Feat Dice and picks the best on their next attack.' would make EoS's in combat much more scary.