forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Glorelendil wrote: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?

Yeah, but that's the rule right now. Anyone can do that... maybe it needs to be two points of Hope for one Shadow, or a point of Hope and an XP (only one time per Adventuring Phase) and a Shadow.

zedturtle wrote:

Glorelendil wrote: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?

Yeah, but that's the rule right now. Anyone can do that... maybe it needs to be two points of Hope for one Shadow, or a point of Hope and an XP (only one time per Adventuring Phase) and a Shadow.

Correct, zed.

Regarding Rangers, I meant "gain a Shadow point for each Hope point from the FP, regardless of wether the company agrees or not". It raises the question: what if the company disagrees with the Ranger taking the Hope point? Does he only gain 1 Shadow point or would it be 2? I'd make it 2.

That's probably also what Glorelendil meant, although applied to other cultures.

Actually I totally forgot that it was a rule...I've never seen it used. Then again I wasn't in a Darkening campaign with a certain Rivendell Elf very long, either.

And I was imagining it as, "Regardless of whether or not you have permission" not just "if you don't get permission." So maybe the phrasing would be, "You always accrue one shadow point for each point of Hope you replenish from the Fellowship Pool, however you don't need permission from the Fellowship to do so."

Going back to the proposal extolled on page 1 and 2 of the thread,
I think that Glorelendil's idea (1xp for each Fellowship point used) got an interesting side effect:
It was a tax on xp, so it combined nicely both the disadvantages designed by the game creators (slower advancement AND reduced hope expenditure).

Corvo wrote:Going back to the proposal extolled on page 1 and 2 of the thread,
I think that Glorelendil's idea (1xp for each Fellowship point used) got an interesting side effect:
It was a tax on xp, so it combined nicely both the disadvantages designed by the game creators (slower advancement AND reduced hope expenditure).

With around 4 to 6 XP being handed out per adventuring phase I think it's too much. I personally prefer the 1 shadow point option. I also don't agree with the idea that these cultures should progress in XP more slowly so it's not something I really need to see supported in any house rule replacing them.

Rich H wrote:

Corvo wrote:Going back to the proposal extolled on page 1 and 2 of the thread,
I think that Glorelendil's idea (1xp for each Fellowship point used) got an interesting side effect:
It was a tax on xp, so it combined nicely both the disadvantages designed by the game creators (slower advancement AND reduced hope expenditure).

With around 4 to 6 XP being handed out per adventuring phase I think it's too much. I personally prefer the 1 shadow point option. I also don't agree with the idea that these cultures should progress in XP more slowly so it's not something I really need to see supported in any house rule replacing them.

+1

I think 1 Shadow is too cheap. And there's no calculus: your margin between Shadow and Hope stays constant, and it's easier to lose Shadow than gain Hope, so you're ALWAYS going to make the trade. Uninteresting decision.

Glorelendil wrote:I think 1 Shadow is too cheap. And there's no calculus: your margin between Shadow and Hope stays constant, and it's easier to lose Shadow than gain Hope, so you're ALWAYS going to make the trade. Uninteresting decision.

Perhaps consider that it doesn't have to be a decision. It's giving back the option of this culture to access the Fellowship Pool; a decision doesn't have to be associated with it more than what already exists regarding Fellowshop pool usage. But... those Shadow points can creep up so it could be something to consider in certain circumstances. And... I quite like the idea of Falenthal's that the accrued point of Shadow is the burden of guilt felt by the ranger 'needing' to rely on others; it adds flavour.

Rich H wrote:

Glorelendil wrote:I think 1 Shadow is too cheap. And there's no calculus: your margin between Shadow and Hope stays constant, and it's easier to lose Shadow than gain Hope, so you're ALWAYS going to make the trade. Uninteresting decision.

Perhaps consider that it doesn't have to be a decision. It's giving back the option of this culture to access the Fellowship Pool; a decision doesn't have to be associated with it more than what already exists regarding Fellowshop pool usage. But... those Shadow points can creep up so it could be something to consider in certain circumstances. And... I quite like the idea of Falenthal's that the accrued point of Shadow is the burden of guilt felt by the ranger 'needing' to rely on others; it adds flavour.

I do like the flavor, but the point I was making is that the critical metric with Hope is the delta between it and Shadow. 12 Hope and 8 Shadow is functionally equivalent to 13 Hope and 9 Shadow, except that Shadow is far easier to shed than Hope is to gain.

Here's another way of looking at it: if you could spend Shadow or Hope to invoke an Attribute bonus, which would you do? Yes, there's still the cost to the Fellowship Pool, but otherwise that's what this change to Rangers equates to. Right now Hope points are too precious, I think many of us agree. But I worry this change would make them too cheap. Rangers would just spend more Fellowship Phases healing Shadow. Some extra investment into Song or Craft and a return to Rivendell for the double roll, and the the penalty isn't really one.

What if Rangers could only draw Hope from the Fellowship Pool when the are eligible for a Fellowship Focus reward? So when their Focus is okay they can draw Hope normally, but when the focus gets hurt, they tap gets shut off?

And they might feel guilty about it and get hit with a shadow point? I mean they are supposed to protect others right? And obviously failed.