forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Interesting suggestions here. You're of course in your full rights to change the RAW, but with the suggested changes imo you are making these cultures way more powerful than the other ones (which could be fine of course as long as everyone agrees).

In my view the Attributes is what makes Ranges and High elves so powerful. Yes, they start out with a couple more skill points, and their Virtues and Rewards are arguably a bit more powerful than others, but the Attribute bonus is huge. You can't even raise an attribute with Valour or Wisdom (just Damage rating (body) and not even Parry (wits)), and the Lesser ring gives you the "bonus" of a permanent shadow. So the pool of 17 attribute points instead of 14 is equivalent or better than 3 rewards/virtues. The Ranger also has very good stats in Endurance/hope. This raw power has to be compensated somehow - for example a slower learning curve.

I find the High Elf disadvantage really flavourful. I agree though that the Ranger's disadvantage could have bad impact on the play. Hope/shadow is such a big part of the game and a player who refuses to use Hope could be bad for the game.I haven't seen a Ranger in play yet so I don't know how a Ranger would handle his Hope pool: guard it like a dragon or let it dwindle. At my table players shun Shadow and gladly pay Hope to avoid it, so maybe a penalty of one Shadow for every Hope taken would work well.

Sorry if I'm not really contributing to house rule creativity here, just wanted to point out that these cultures with their higher attributes need a significant disadvantage to be balanced.

Falenthal wrote:[My own changes have been:
Rangers - Body 5-7 / Heart 4-6 / Wits 4-6
High Elves - Body 5-7 / Heart 2-4 / Wits 5-7

You actually reduce the total attribute spend from 17 as well, then? Because those numbers don't work for High Elves - ie, they can't have a Heart of 2 without having a Body or Wits of 8.

Rich H wrote:

Falenthal wrote:[My own changes have been:
Rangers - Body 5-7 / Heart 4-6 / Wits 4-6
High Elves - Body 5-7 / Heart 2-4 / Wits 5-7

You actually reduce the total attribute spend from 17 as well, then? Because those numbers don't work for High Elves - ie, they can't have a Heart of 2 without having a Body or Wits of 8.

Yes, I reduced the total Attribute points to 16, closer to the usual 14 of other cultures.
And, therefore, a mistake I detected: I gave High Elves a Heart of 3-5, not 2-4.
However, I like a Heart of 2-4 better.

What I usually do is to give the players a certain number of Attribute points (14 for the usual cultures, 16 for Rangers and High Elves) and allow them to spend those points however they want within the ranges of each culture:
In this case, for a High Elf with 16 Attribute points, he could have a Body and Wits of 7, and a Heart of 2.
Or Heart of 4, Wits of 7 and Body of 5.
Etc.

Dunkelbrink wrote:Interesting suggestions here. You're of course in your full rights to change the RAW, but with the suggested changes imo you are making these cultures way more powerful than the other ones (which could be fine of course as long as everyone agrees).

Personally, that's my intention: to make them more powerful as individuals. Balance is not a necessity for me. But I feel the game mechanics should cover also that they don't usually form companies for some reason (higher Eye Attention, not benefiting much from Fellowship pool, difficulty to share the Fellowship phase with the rest of the group due to the duties and personal concerns,...).

Dunkelbrink wrote: In my view the Attributes is what makes Ranges and High elves so powerful. Yes, they start out with a couple more skill points, and their Virtues and Rewards are arguably a bit more powerful than others, but the Attribute bonus is huge. You can't even raise an attribute with Valour or Wisdom (just Damage rating (body) and not even Parry (wits)), and the Lesser ring gives you the "bonus" of a permanent shadow. So the pool of 17 attribute points instead of 14 is equivalent or better than 3 rewards/virtues. The Ranger also has very good stats in Endurance/hope. This raw power has to be compensated somehow - for example a slower learning curve.

Interesting. I find that Attributes in TOR are not as "powerful" as in other games. Of course they set the basis of some of the most important scores of your character (Parry, Hope and Endurance). But from then on, they're only used after a Hope expenditure. If your character has high skill ratings and/or powerful Virtues/Rewards, invoking Attribute bonuses becomes rarer. Not to say they don't matter, but I wouldn't say they are the best the Rangers and High Elves have.

But you raise good points there, Dunkelbrink. My main concern with the special rules for those two cultures is that they add new and specific mechanics (and a bit more of complexity) where I don't think they are needed (Shadow effects on High elves) and gives a hindrance to both cultures (extra XP cost) that, AFAIK, has no explanation except for balancing purpouses.
And, except for the higher Eye Awareness points, those new rules miss to reflect, IMHO, why both cultures don't mingle with the other ones and live a secret and enclosed live. Which is a core aspect of them both.

In other words: if Glorfindel was so powerful, why didn't he go with the Fellowship of the Ring? Only for the starting Eye Awareness? That's why 4 hobbits were send. Could there be something more?

Glorfindel would have raised Eye Awareness and brought fighty skills to what was intended to be a stealth mission.

The Hobbits added 8 points to the Fellowship Pool! Plus they have good Stealth and Courtesy (which actually ended up to be more important, at least for Merry and Pippin).

Falenthal wrote:In other words: if Glorfindel was so powerful, why didn't he go with the Fellowship of the Ring? Only for the starting Eye Awareness? That's why 4 hobbits were send. Could there be something more?

Using the RAW, over the years he'd tagged more and more of his Common Skills to lower his Shadow points; it was therefore too much of a risk for him to venture forth as part of the Fellowship.

And the stuff that zed said.

And 4 Hobbits with 4 King's Blades, with full Hope, means LOTS of Pierces!

Falenthal wrote:And 4 Hobbits with 4 King's Blades, with full Hope, means LOTS of Pierces!

"The Four Murder Hobos" is what the four PC hobbits in my Three's Company campaign were called.

The literature supports the Noldor and the Dunedain as being superior to the cultures in ME. Also, they were singled out with a special hatred by the enemy. So, the higher stats and the higher eye awareness seem to be on point.

Back in the Decipher days, I recall a lot of discussion around the lack of balance between the races. Some would argue why would anyone want to play a Middle Man when one could play a Noldor because they were more powerful. Others were on the side of it's not about the most powerful abilities that are paramount to playing in ME but a playing a culture that you liked. Some love Rohirrim, some Hobbits, etc... and that was why you would play it.

Balancing cultures out seems to me to go against the literature.

Southron Loremaster wrote:it's not about the most powerful abilities that are paramount to playing in ME but a playing a culture that you liked. Some love Rohirrim, some Hobbits, etc...
Balancing cultures out seems to me to go against the literature.

+1

And every culture has something special: no one rides like a rohir, no one trades like a Man of the Lake, no one cuts through orcs like a dwarf, no one drinks as a Man of Dorwinion, ... That, and not the overall numbers, makes a character special.