Deadmanwalking wrote: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..