Adjusting Rangers and High Elves

[Rich H]

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

I agree and it goes right back to the third post in this thread:

I suppose a starting question would be do you think it's okay to have either/both the Rangers and High Elf cultures as being distinctly more powerful than the other cultures? So, could you simply get rid of the higher XP gain for both and the Fellowship pool restriction and the Marked Skill shadow rules for Ranger and High Elves respectively?

I'm personally okay with that; maybe adding two less egregious rules with regard to the Rangers' access to Hope and the High Elves' management of Shadow, like those suggested in this thread, and mostly leaving it at that.

If balance is important, then you can restrict access to these cultures until the other PCs have reached a certain level of XP* or if starting a new campaign simply boost the number of bonus points the PCs get to increase their weapon skills and common skills.

* The only problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the APs that such characters would have gained and used to increase their common skills but I think the acceptance here must be that this isn't an exact science.

[Dunkelbrink]

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

+1 here as well, and this would of course work at a table where everyone agrees on this and that the game does not have to be "balanced". This is probably the best solution and closest to the source material. In my campaign the players started out with cultures from the core book, but if a hero would withdraw or perish I would probably let the player choose a Ranger och High elf without the xp penalty since they are so far behind anyway.

But this thread also contains the other discussion, i.e. are the Rangers and High Elves balanced or are they being too punished. I think that Francesco's aim was to make all cultures somewhat balanced. And with my argument about Attributes I was trying to show why they are balanced even with severe drawbacks.

[Glorelendil]

So, for me, my concern isn't that the Ranger as written is imbalanced mechanically/statistically (although I have no idea how you would ever even begin to do the math to show that it is). Rather my concern is that the way it is balanced sucks the fun out of the class. One of the most fun parts of any RPG is, let's face it, seeing our character improve. So slowing that down is just cruel. And in TOR specifically the spending of Hope at critical moments is also really fun, and that got crippled as well.

So where I come out is:
1) I'd actually be fine with simply having Dunedain and Noldor be more powerful, and give the LM strong guidance on how to incorporate them into the game without spoiling the fun for others.
2) For those who do want them balanced, find ways to accomplish that goal that are more fun to play, not less.

I actually sort of like the Shadow rules for Noldor: it creates interesting decisions and although it eventually might force the retirement of the character, until then it's a fun mechanic. (Caveat: that's how it seems to me, anyway; I haven't actually played one.)

[alien270]

It seems like a lot of responses in this thread (and the thread in the general discussion) include some variation of the statement "I haven't seen Dunedain/Noldor in play at my table." Now, Rivendell has been out for quite some time now, and both of these cultures should be popular. Does that in itself indicate that these cultures might be punished too severely, effectively making them weaker than other cultures as-written? Sure, they might have "bigger numbers," but the numbers usually fade into the background more than the tangible drawbacks of not being able to replenish hope or heal corruption as easily, or advancing more slowly. In fact, I would think the slow advancement would negate the front-loaded higher numbers eventually, but Dunedain and Noldor are still stuck with their respective disadvantages.

If anyone actually has any in-game experience with either culture, please chime in and let us know if your experience is in line with this!

Personally, if I run a game with either of these cultures my inclination is going to be to run them as written just to see how it goes, but with normal advancement.

[Southron]

Hmmm...no delete option.

[Southron]

If anyone actually has any in-game experience with either culture, please chime in and let us know if your experience is in line with this!

Personally, if I run a game with either of these cultures my inclination is going to be to run them as written just to see how it goes, but with normal advancement.

I played a Ranger in an online game. I made the error of making him going solely by the character idea I had and not by what might be better by the numbers. He was young, 15, and had the herald background, so I thought he'd should have a high travel and be the party's guide, but since he was also young I thought maybe he should not have a lot of combat experience so his weapon skills were were not increased initially.

So basically, I was crap in combat as I couldn't hit anything. Plus, I was afraid to use any hope as I knew that I had a severally limited amount. And, I was ever behind in advancing my skills due to extra points needed.

It made the character idea I had not a fun one to play even though the storyline was good.

[Glorelendil]

Played a Ranger. Have played in games (online) with at least 3 Noldor and 2 Dunedain. There's always at least one or the other in every fellowship.

[Rich H]

A player joining my campaign wanted to play a Ranger and we interoduced him at the beginning of an adventure. After just the first, short, session it became pretty clear just how challenging it was for him to manage Hope expenditure without having access to the Fellowship Pool - this was like exacerbated by him not being an experience TOR player. I quickly decided to remove the character and introduced a Beorning instead; to which he's having a blast with that.

[atgxtg]

I think the Ranger's restriction is not only too severe but a bit "off". . Basically, as written Rangers can't tap the pool because their burden sets them apart from others.

I could see that being true when dealing with outsiders (at least at first) but not a with other Rangers. But that is how it works in the RAW. Logically, a Fellowship comprised entirely of Rangers should be able to function normally. But by RAW they would be a pretty dysfunctional fellowship!

For similar reasons I'd would expect Rangers to be able to function normally in a Fellowship with Evles from Rivendell. Elrond is pretty much the patron of the Dunedain , and Aragon did adventure quite a bit with Elrond's sons.

I think what would make better sense and work better in the game would be if the Ranger's restriction applied to strangers and not to other Rangers, Rivendell Elves or friends.

I think that Rangers should, over time, be able to spend experience points to name other characters as friends (say 1 experience point per character), and then be able to tap the fellowship pool normally.

[atgxtg]

I think the High Elf restriction would work better if they could Heal Corruption, but only when they are in an Elven Sanctuary. Or, I think it would if it wasn't for the free trip to anywhere that comes with the Fellowship Phase.