forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I think people are sort of missing the point...I am fully aware of the freedom of how it MIGHT work in terms of creative freedom. But some players want to simply be spoon-fed their options. Mine need to see the list of possibilities laid out in front of them.

I'm a huge RPG geek and so when I, as a player, submit ideas for affecting the game with my rolls, I suggest a potential, rules friendly outcome. My players hardly even have time to read the first half of the ToR core, much less the whole book, and so they must be described as casuals. They mostly just act. They are not rules or RP junkies.

Seriously, they have to be reminded that Prepared Shot is a thing that exists. They only ever perform in-combat Common Skills when something REALLY needs to happen, like a monster needs to be tackled with Athletics or something stealthy needs to be caught. They fall roughly into typical RPG party roles and stick to them.

I'm not saying these house rules should replace creative freedom. I'm saying they should supplement the two stance tactics that already exist. What I was looking for was not encouragement towards letting the players do whatever they want. Indeed, I would be thrilled and a bit taken aback if any of them except my most veteran player dared to begin regularly straying beyond the standard rules of combat. I'm just looking for ideas on balance and the function of the abilities. Do you see room for abuse? Do they make sense in how they function and their potential for opening up new player meta-roles? And so forth.

Psychomachia wrote:I think people are sort of missing the point....

Either that or they simply want to participate in a discussion. You know, brainstorm because it's fun.

Glorelendil wrote:

Psychomachia wrote:I think people are sort of missing the point....

Either that or they simply want to participate in a discussion. You know, brainstorm because it's fun.

Brainstorming is fine, but not at the expense of completely throwing out what I initially asked for help on in favor of being told to loosen it up when my campaigns simply don't work that way. Not because of me, but because of the friends I play with. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to shift attention back to what I posted so that veteran GMs and players can judge them and see if they would actually function without issue.

As it is, my players LOVE the sound of them. I've already posted them in draft on our Roll20 page and they're really excited to each have something new to do in combat, something that could enhance their respective roles. If you have suggestions on balance or even what would fill each slot, by all means. But the brainstorming needs to have lightning bolts arcing in a certain direction here, not striking all willy-nilly.

I think the actions you propose sound solid and would play well. I think anything that causes players to think outside of the standard rules is a good thing. If you gave them those additional choices I think it would add a significant amount of variety into the combat. At the same time, I would strongly encourage them to be creative and modify or improvise non-combat tasks, more so as they become more comfortable with the basic rules. In our game, players are really just starting to experiment with non-combat tasks and almost never attempt called shots or prepared shots. How you get them to consider such options is still beyond me, unless I start asking them, "Is there anything else you would like to try other than a staight-forward weapon attack?"

Wbweather wrote:I think the actions you propose sound solid and would play well. I think anything that causes players to think outside of the standard rules is a good thing. If you gave them those additional choices I think it would add a significant amount of variety into the combat. At the same time, I would strongly encourage them to be creative and modify or improvise non-combat tasks, more so as they become more comfortable with the basic rules. In our game, players are really just starting to experiment with non-combat tasks and almost never attempt called shots or prepared shots. How you get them to consider such options is still beyond me, unless I start asking them, "Is there anything else you would like to try other than a staight-forward weapon attack?"

I've been trying to get them to do it for years. And now we have two brand new players, a friend of a friend, and my girlfriend. Never played an RPG before. Both love it, just...yeah. They're good at it when it comes to regular old Adventure Phasing, but when it comes to combat, they just don't want to at all unless it's an athletics check.

I'm assuming each of these takes the place of a combat action, same as existing RAW tasks.

Psychomachia wrote: Forward Stance: Assault - Where no advantage exists, you make one. Using Athletics or Awe at TN 10+HAAL, you spend the turn forcibly maneuvering the enemy into positions of weakness using displays of raw force...or by simply employing your body as a battering ram. This ability functions in the same way as the initial Battle roll at the start of a combat to determine advantage. These must be spent immediately and apply to the character's very next combat roll.

In some circumstances trading your attack for extra dice (maybe) on your next attack is a good idea, but Forward stance will rarely be one of them. Your TN is already low enough that you will have a high likelihood of hitting anyway, so you're trading two high probability attacks for one very high probability attack. You may get extra damage from Tengwars, but probably not enough to compensate for the missed attack. And except in rare circumstances the only reason you'd want a called shot is if you have a spear, but now you're trading two decent chances for a regular pierce for one chance for a called shot pierce. The only time I could see this being useful is if you really really need to Disarm or Smash Shield.

Plus Awe already has a combat task associated with it...and an exceptionally useful one at that...so it doesn't really expand the range of skills used for combat tasks.

Open Stance: Tactical Direction - The player may spend a turn to roll a TN 10+HAAL Search or Insight check as they visually scour the enemy lines, looking for holes, weaknesses, and tactical flaws. Doing so successfully will lower the fellowship's attacking TN on all enemies by 1, 2 for a Great, 3 for an Extraordinary. This effect lasts until the start of the player's next turn.

I'd have to do the math on this (or run a simulation) but my hunch is that a +1 or maybe a +2 (30% chance at skill), assuming it succeeds at all, is not worth giving up an attack, especially for small fellowships. Also, although the dictionary definition of Insight might seem applicable here, it doesn't really match the RAW description of the skill. Or Search, for that matter.

Then again, if having something else to do, regardless of whether it's actually a statistical benefit, makes your players happy, then this at least doesn't risk breaking anything.

Defensive Stance 1: Taunt Enemy: A player may use their turn to make a TN 10+Target AL Persuade or Song roll in order to goad an enemy into exposing its greatest vulnerabilities. The selected enemy suffers a negative to its Protection rolls equal to the player's Heart rating for a number of rounds equal to the degree of success to a maximum of three. A failed roll returns 1 point of Hate to the creature. A failed roll with an Eye returns 1 Hate to all enemies present.

I do think the game could use more ways for teams to work together to take down those hard-to-kill adversaries with Great Size, and reducing their Protection is one way to do that. I don't quite get the logic of somebody in defensive stance persuading a troll or ogre to do that, nor how song would achieve it, but in general killing trolls is a good thing. The risk/reward has a high beta here, I think: a player with high skill and high heart burning the group's battle dice in the first round, followed by archers and spearmen making prepared/called shots, might risk trivializing trolls, while a player with normal skill and heart and no battle dice is probably going to waste their turn, and possibly even give a troll a free point of hate, which is a Really Bad Thing (unless its endurance is already zero) because it makes it harder to make them weary. I actually sort of like the near-impossibility of doing the math on this one.

Defensive Stance 2: Retrieve Weapon - A player who has lost or thrown a weapon may enter Defensive Stance and spend a turn there to reclaim it. If an enemy forcefully impedes them, they must pass a TN 10+HAAL Battle check in order to succeed.

Normally it only takes one action to get your weapon back, so I'm not sure I'm understanding this one. And what does "forcefully impedes" mean, rule-wise? An adversary simply attacks? Or is that sort of a combat task for adversaries?

Rearward: Surprise Attack - A player may roll their Stealth or Hunting at TN 10+HAAL to quickly fade out of sight of the enemy as he prepares to outflank them. When doing so, the player must also switch to a melee weapon. They should also note the degree of success on their first roll. On their next turn, the player must take a Forward Stance attack against any foe they choose. On a successful Stealth or Hunting roll, the player raises his weapon's damage by 2. On a Great Success, he also lowers his weapon's Edge by 2 for the attack. Finally, on an Extraordinary Success, he additionally increases the degree of his success on his attack by one.

The game rather explicitly left out sneak attacks, or anything else representing D&Dish archetypes of rogues or assassins. Some people don't like that, of course, but it's worth noting. Whenever this topic comes up the usual response is, "Use your bonus dice from rolling Battle and just narrate your sneak attack." (Which suggests that maybe players should be allowed to roll Stealth rather than Battle...)

In any event, if you want sneak attacks in your game, the problem I see with this rule is that for it to be useful requires decent skill with two weapons (although it could be argued that in Forward stance you can get by with lower skill). And the number of situations where giving up one attack in order to have +2 damage on a subsequent attack is limited. But your close combat fighters can't rotate through Rearward in order to use this, and your archers will most likely be better off staying Rearward. So another one in the category of "If your players think it's fun regardless of whether it makes tactical sense, then go for it."

I like the idea of allowing stealthy characters to roll for Stealth at onset, rather than Battle, though I'd probably increase the TN by 1 step if they wanted to do that (otherwise, Hobbits might suddenly become the fiercest warriors of the group!). Though I should note, it's not that they left the rules for sneak attacks out... It's called Ambushing the enemy. Generally speaking, I believe that covers most of what sneak attacks would entail. Though, I might rule that, say, if all but one of the players succeeded on the ambush roll, maybe opening volleys can only be made against the one who failed, or something to that effect. Sort of like how individual companions may be surprised, even if the company as a whole is not.

Azrael Macool wrote:I like the idea of allowing stealthy characters to roll for Stealth at onset, rather than Battle, though I'd probably increase the TN by 1 step if they wanted to do that (otherwise, Hobbits might suddenly become the fiercest warriors of the group!). Though I should note, it's not that they left the rules for sneak attacks out... It's called Ambushing the enemy. Generally speaking, I believe that covers most of what sneak attacks would entail. Though, I might rule that, say, if all but one of the players succeeded on the ambush roll, maybe opening volleys can only be made against the one who failed, or something to that effect. Sort of like how individual companions may be surprised, even if the company as a whole is not.

Yeah, I agree: between Ambush rules and preliminary Battle roles there are plenty of mechanics that can be used for narrating sneaky attacks. But there will still be people who want to play D&D rogues.

But either way, I don't think it would be OP for Hobbits to roll Stealth rather than Battle. Their initial headstart in skill can quickly be overcome, and extra Tengwars for Hobbits generally won't have much impact because their Body scores are so low. Sure, the archers might burn extra dice on Called Shots, but they'll need a lot of dice to get better odds than simply relying on Fair Shot.

The only time I could see this being useful is if you really really need to Disarm or Smash Shield.

The point of this was not necessarily to give the acting player advantage. Remember that other players can enjoy advantage generated by different owners. This is a combo-setup ability for when it'd be REALLY nice to have another, perhaps more situationally effective fighter get their attack in.

I'd have to do the math on this (or run a simulation) but my hunch is that a +1 or maybe a +2 (30% chance at skill), assuming it succeeds at all, is not worth giving up an attack. Also, although the dictionary definition of Insight might seem applicable here, it doesn't really match the RAW description of the skill. Or Search, for that matter.

Thanks for the math. I was most concerned about this one. I wasn't sure if I should do 1, 2, 3 on all enemies in the fight or 2,3,4/Valour on a single enemy.

I do think the game could use more ways for teams to work together to take down those hard-to-kill adversaries with Great Size, and reducing their Protection is one way to do that. I don't quite get the logic of somebody in defensive stance persuading a troll or ogre to do that, nor how song would achieve it, but in general killing trolls is a good thing. The risk/reward has a high beta here, I think: a player with high skill and high heart burning the group's battle dice in the first round, followed by archers and spearmen making prepared/called shots, might risk trivializing trolls, while a player with normal skill and heart and no battle dice is probably going to waste their turn, and possibly even give a troll a free point of hate, which is a Really Bad Thing (unless its endurance is already zero) because it makes it harder to make them weary. I actually sort of like the near-impossibility of doing the math on this one.

This was an ability taken straight out of the Hobbit books wherein Bilbo taunts the Spiders of Mirkwood with song. We didn't know how to translate that in game any better than exposing some kind of vulnerability. This seemed like the most interesting, balanced, flavorful way to do it. While the context of the book would suggest an actual hit to Endurance (as the spiders get hopping mad and literally begin to froth with frustration), I was loath to add some kind of splash damage attack that face characters could use. While it wouldn't have been able to kill enemies, I saw the potential for a lot of face characters simply whittling down enemies from defensive stance. As for how much Heart it's worth, I....will probably change that.

Incidentally, I also see the way Gandalf was screwing with the trolls as an epic Persuade check.

Also, forgive the weapon pickup rule, I should have edited that out. It's an interaction with other houserules in my campaign.

The game rather explicitly left out sneak attacks, or anything else representing D&Dish archetypes of rogues or assassins. Some people don't like that, of course, but it's worth noting. Whenever this topic comes up the usual response is, "Use your bonus dice from rolling Battle and just narrate your sneak attack." (Which suggests that maybe players should be allowed to roll Stealth rather than Battle...)

In any event, if you want sneak attacks in your game, the problem I see with this rule is that for it to be useful requires decent skill with two weapons (although it could be argued that in Forward stance you can get by with lower skill). And the number of situations where giving up one attack in order to have +2 damage on a subsequent attack is limited. But your close combat fighters can't rotate through Rearward in order to use this, and your archers will most likely be better off staying Rearward. So another one in the category of "If your players think it's fun regardless of whether it makes tactical sense, then go for it."

I'm not sure I see why they'd have to have two decent weapon skills...this skill was meant to function similarly to Prepared Shot, but with a common skill involved. How we saw it working is, at the end of the round, a player would call rearward, fully intending to flank the enemy. Even if they don't have a ranged weapon, they can then call it in preparation for Surprise Attack.

What this ability was meant to illustrate was a character fading out of the battle and finding a route around the main part of the skirmish in order to race out of the woods, from behind rocks, etc. For lack of a better description, it is not your typical "physically vanish and then teleport behind an enemy" attack. It's supposed to be more of an aggressive outflanking maneuver wherein the flanker is helping bring down an enemy already engaged (whether mechanically or narratively) with another player character. As one who has been brutally blindsided in a fight before (awareness exercises in a decade's worth of martial arts) it is a severely unpleasant experience.

Further, the task was supposed to help some archers who are having difficulty hitting their high parry targets. Since archers typically have low melee skill, this task was designed to allow their common skills to influence how hard they hit. After all, it's not hard to absolutely murder an enemy that never saw you coming...

I do agree that I should probably up the value of success...it was just that our initial projection for it was STUPIDLY powerful, so we brought it back. The pendulum will have to swing back towards balance, I think.

EDIT: Also, as a sidenote, the most a player could do to a troll is -7. On one or two of the trolls, yeah. That's pretty powerful. On a couple more, the trolls still have 4d6 to roll. On the last couple, that negates their Favored AL bonus...they still get their 3d6.

EDITED EDIT: After doing test rolls, that does actually severely trivialize at least two of the troll basetypes. I will probably change it to be just -2, -4, -6 armor for a single round instead.