forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

atgxtg wrote: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.

I was thinking the other day about this sort of thing... the idea that instead of requiring the heroic cultures to spend more XP in order to get an improvement that you give them more things to spend XP on, in order to slow their advancement and balance out their starting abilities.

This sounds like a very nice start to that idea for the Rangers. Perhaps they could spend one XP to name someone as a friend and they can only use the Fellowship Pool if everyone in the Company is named as a friend. It would encourage them to hang out with Elves and disdain forming companies with short-lived Middle Men and flighty Hobbits.

They are a strange company, these newcomers,’ said Gimli. ‘Stout men and lordly they are, and the Riders of Rohan look almost as boys beside them; for they are grim men of face, worn like weathered rocks for the most part, even as Aragorn himself; and they are silent.’

A little apart the Rangers sat, silent, in an ordered company, armed with spear and bow and sword.

Legolas and Gimli made no answer, but they rose and followed Aragorn from the hall. On the green there waited, still and silent, the hooded Rangers.

The idea of not applying the Fellowship pool limitation to other Rangers or High Elves (or the need to first spend some XPs) looks interesting, and it might work well.

Personally, I wouldn't go with it for some reasons:
1) It might lead to players choosing groups of all-Rangers-and-High Elves, which isn't very thematic, and would make the rule useless. While this wouldn't bother me if it made sense, in the books we never see Rangers in large groups. In fact, they're said to usually work alone, in pairs or in very small and temporary companies (maybe 4 individuals or so). Therefore, this leads me to think that several Rangers/High Elves together might form a party of great individuals, but not exactly what we know as a Fellowship: from the quotes above, we also see that they're not a very happy company, that allows to increase your own morale.
Remember that Elladan and Elrohir could take Hope points from the Fellowship pool, although Aragorn couldn't. Aragorn got probably sick of those two gaining Hope for free and that's why he went alone on his Errantries!

2) Making someone a friend or a similar mechanic does, in my eyes, step on the Fellowship focus mechanic. A way of recovering Hope, but balanced with some risks that require his protection. It looks exactly the way a Ranger makes friends. In fact, I thought each character was limited to only one focus in the party. But re-reading the Fellowship focus section, I can't find that limitation. Am I partially blind, is that a mistake in the Revised Core, or can a character choose several focuses? A Ranger swearing to protect a group of 4 Hobbits seems like a way of explaining him taking the 4 halflings as Fellowship focuses.

Overall, while I like that Rangers have to stick mainly to the Fellowship focus mechanic to recover Hope (swearing to protect the weak and all that), I don't usually like the idea of forbidding certain actions for players. To me, it looks far more interesting to offer the player an option with a higher cost than usual ("You can use a Fellowship pool Hope point, but will automatically gain 1 Shadow point"), than to simply forbid it ("You can't use Hope from the Fellowship pool. Period.").

atgxtg wrote: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.

It would make sense thematically. What I see problematic, in game terms, is that it's too dependent on the campaign: if you're playing Ruins of the North, the group would (near) always return to Rivendell and the High-Elves wouldn't feel any hindrance. If campaigning in Rohan, the High-elves would suffer maybe too much. Again, it seems thematic to me.
But for gaming balance, I prefer to reduce the amount of Shadow points recovered overall (halved, rounded up) and limiting only the choices for Sanctuaries (where Heal Corruption grants two rolls instead of one).

As with Rangers before, I prefer to increase the costs/decrease the benefits than saying a closed "NO".

Falenthal wrote:
It would make sense thematically. What I see problematic, in game terms, is that it's too dependent on the campaign: if you're playing Ruins of the North, the group would (near) always return to Rivendell and the High-Elves wouldn't feel any hindrance. If campaigning in Rohan, the High-elves would suffer maybe too much. Again, it seems thematic to me.
But for gaming balance, I prefer to reduce the amount of Shadow points recovered overall (halved, rounded up) and limiting only the choices for Sanctuaries (where Heal Corruption grants two rolls instead of one).

I think the "free ride" back to the sanctuary is what kills it. If the travel times and such had to be dealt with, I think elf characters would occasionally be too far away from home while adventuring to Heal Corruption.

Frankly, considering how aloof the Elves seem to be, the Ranger's cultural restriction, with my "friend" variant would seem to fit the Elves better than the Rangers.

Falenthal wrote: As with Rangers before, I prefer to increase the costs/decrease the benefits than saying a closed "NO".

You mean something like they take two Hope from the Pool to get one?

atgxtg wrote:

Falenthal wrote: As with Rangers before, I prefer to increase the costs/decrease the benefits than saying a closed "NO".

You mean something like they take two Hope from the Pool to get one?

For example. Would it make more sense (thematically speaking) to you than 1 Shadow point for 1 Hope point?

If the Ranger would deplenish the FP faster than other characters, it might make the companions disagree about letting him use the pool. Interesting. Then, the Ranger player could choose to still use the pool and getting a Shadow point.
But would it have a thematic explanation, maybe that people tend not to rely on the Rangers and their secret goals?

Falenthal wrote: If the Ranger would deplenish the FP faster than other characters, it might make the companions disagree about letting him use the pool. Interesting. Then, the Ranger player could choose to still use the pool and getting a Shadow point.
But would it have a thematic explanation, maybe that people tend not to rely on the Rangers and their secret goals?

Although I don't think it's exactly the right solution for Dunedain, I love the general concept of "When you replenish Hope from the Fellowship Pool you don't need permission from the rest of the Fellowship, but you also get a point of Shadow for each point of Hope."

What's the right culture for that?

Corsairs of Umbar. Or Petty Dwarves.

Falenthal wrote:Or Petty Dwarves.

This. I love it.

EDIT: Now that's a culture I would love to see added. Sort of like the Dunlendings: lower stats, various shadowy abilities. There's a sentence in the Hobbit that suggests there are still Dwarves around who collaborate with goblins, for those who need evidence of something for it to be canonical.

Petty Dwarves could start the game with 4 Flaws, a bunch of Hate points to fuel their abilities, and a Hope score of 0. As the game progresses, the Petty Dwarf will gain Hope points and lose his Flaws. Until he becomes a civilized member of the dwarven society and goes to work happily in dark mines.
Might do a great fellowship in the company of some young and foolish Tooks.

Falenthal wrote: For example. Would it make more sense (thematically speaking) to you than 1 Shadow point for 1 Hope point?

Yeah, it would. I'm not to keen on the idea of gaining hope and shadow through the same action. It seems to me like the shadow gain should prevent the gaining of hope. I could also see spending an experience point to draw off hope from the pool. It would probably negate the need for the increased costs to improve skills.

I was also wondering in there is anything that prevents a Ranger from forming his own Fellowship? I think it would work thematically and from a from a game mechanics standpoint if the Ranger just formed his own Fellowship of one. He'd be able to get back some Hope and probably benefit from having himself as a fellowship focus. Of course, it would mean that the Ranger would have to learn to be very self-reliant and independent, but that sort of fits with what C7 was going for, right?