Adjusting Rangers and High Elves

[Rich H]

The idea of only allowing Foci of certain cultures is bothering me. That feels contrived.

I think it's okay. The way I'd squared it in my mind was that High Elves and other Rangers don't need to be protected in the same way, so are simply equals to the PC in question. I realise a Fellowship Focus doesn't always mean that, it can be 'just' a great friend and friends can be equals, but I've warmed to the idea of Rangers picking their FFs based on a responsbility in protecting the other free races of Middle Earth.

How about (this is already complicated...) you take the Ranger's higher Valour or Wisdom, and he can only have Foci whose own Valour or Wisdom is lower. I.e., a 3 Wisdom, 2 Valour ranger can only have Foci with 2 Wisdom or lower. In the event of a tie the Ranger chooses which "type" he is.

Accepting my above comment, that I think it's okay as-is, I'd look at that and immediately think "okay, what if me and this FF keep changing positions with regard to our Valour/Wisdom ratings". Do they have to be deselected as an FF or is it only when first selected.

[Rich H]

Remember that the Eye of Sauron rule considers characters with a rating of 4 in either Wisdom or Valour already "dangerous" to Sauron. This could be the limit to apply for a Ranger's focus.

That's interesting too and could work with my previous post/comment - ie, such characters no longer 'need' the active protection of the Ranger. They have grown into great and worthy heroes in their own right. Sort of fits in with Aragorn's relationships with Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry.

[Falenthal]

Fast idea:

Make it a different and independent thing than Fellowship Focus. Something like "Ranger's protegee" or the like.

"A character that would add 3 or more points to the Eye Awareness (even if not using the Eye of Sauron optional rule) cannot qualify as a Ranger's protegee, and can only be chosen as Fellowship focus."

High-elves start at 3, so they'd never qualify for protegee.
Rangers start at 2, so they could be protegees while young and inexperienced (low Wisdom and Valour) or "unimportant" (not possessing any Famous Weapon or Armour).

A Hobbit with Sting, the Mithril Coat and the One Ring wouldn't also qualify.

[Glorelendil]

The Eye Awareness computation is clever, but I think the best metric yet is Wisdom and Valour both less than 4. That's better than comparing it to the Ranger's own ratings, because there's no reason a young & green Ranger wouldn't try to protect somebody who, technically, was more experienced.

It does mean that this feature might become unusable late in a campaign, but that's ok I think.

[Falenthal]

It does mean that this feature might become unusable late in a campaign, but that's ok I think.

TOR campaigns have precisely a tendency to include new characters now and then, because of death or retirement, along the older ones. New characters can begin with extra points to spend on Common and Weapon Skills, but never on increasing Valour or Wisdom. I think the feature will be usable to a certain extent for a whole campaign.

[Falenthal]

The Eye Awareness computation is clever, but I think the best metric yet is Wisdom and Valour both less than 4.

What I like about using the Eye Awareness computation is that, with one rule/sentence, you include that High-elves are not elligible, and only rookie Rangers are (which I see even better than not elligible at all).

It's correct that Famous Armours and Weapons can get in the way of the numbers, but the rules encourage a maximum of one or two FAW per character in a campaign: a hobbit would still have an Eye Awareness of two until he got a Wisdom/Valour of 4. Other cultures would only dissqualify from protegee if they got two FAW. Related to the fact that finding Magical Objects requires expending XPs and lots of luck, someone with two FAW will surely be a well experienced adventurer.

Or is your concern with using the Eye Awareness computations something else? If the game already has rules to determine how dangerous and powerful someone is in the eye of Sauron, why not use them instead of coming up with something new?

[Glorelendil]

Or is your concern with using the Eye Awareness computations something else? If the game already has rules to determine how dangerous and powerful someone is in the eye of Sauron, why not use them instead of coming up with something new?

I guess a few reasons:
1) The possession of magical item shouldn't change anything, imo.
2) It just seems fiddly to have to compute EA in order to determine if the Ranger can make somebody a focus. Yes, I know you have to compute it anyway for starting threshold, but just philosophically...
3) I've never loved the math behind Eye of Mordor rules.

The thing I like best about it is excluding Noldor and experienced Rangers, though.

[Falenthal]

1) The possession of magical item shouldn't change anything, imo.

I tend to agree with you here, but due to the way FAW are obtained in TOR (difficulty of finding a Hoard, need to spend XP, decission on behalf of the LM [remember that the LM can opt to give a FAW or an Artifact with two Blessings/one Greater Blessing even for the highest roll],...), having one says a lot about the power-level of the hero. More than in other RPGs.

But I get your concern.

2) It just seems fiddly to have to compute EA in order to determine if the Ranger can make somebody a focus. Yes, I know you have to compute it anyway for starting threshold, but just philosophically...

Consider computing the EA of a character a separate math that the game provides to calculate the overall power of a character. It can be used then for different mechanics, like the Eye of Sauron, qualifying or not as a Ranger's protegee, what fraction of the enemies' swarm will attack each hero,...

3) I've never loved the math behind Eye of Mordor rules.

Your Heart's desires are beyond my power.

[zedturtle]

It does mean that this feature might become unusable late in a campaign, but that's ok I think.

TOR campaigns have precisely a tendency to include new characters now and then, because of death or retirement, along the older ones. New characters can begin with extra points to spend on Common and Weapon Skills, but never on increasing Valour or Wisdom. I think the feature will be usable to a certain extent for a whole campaign.

Yeah, I think keeping things simple is always the way to go (if it can be managed). So I like this idea (a protégé, should have less than 4 in Valour and Wisdom). I almost wonder if the official rule could stand and this could be added as a Virtue, giving the Ranger effectively 2 Hope per session, and that might be enough.

Of course, that might be viewed as a Virtue Tax; perhaps its better as an alternative Cultural Blessing.

[Angelalex242]

First my apologies for thread necro.

I've found, playing Noldor repeatedly, that the Shadow issue isn't too hard to control...But then again, I'm also devoting my entire character build to managing Shadow. Well, in most ways. For example, I always start with Wisdom 2 (Skill of the Eldar)->Beauty of the Stars (Wisdom 3)-> Books and Maps (Valor 2). And that provides a solid base with which to fight Shadow off.

I'm obviously less worried about Eye Awareness, instead choosing Skill of the Eldar first because it's an 'AP feeder' skill. (Every Gandalf Rune increases eye but every Gandalf Rune also checks an AP box. With Beauty of the Stars, even getting that 3rd box on social skills becomes very easy when a Gandalf Rune comes up.) This keeps the Noldor's AP flow going at a reasonably rapid rate.

That said, even though I avoid Shadow like the plague, Valor 3 is typically lesser ring Wits (taking my 6/3/8 to 6/3/9). 9 Wits is awesome, allowing my Noldor to fight like a capped out Dwarf underground or a capped out woodsman in 'home field advantage.' Or even a hobbit against something bigger than he is. Only my Noldor fights like that ALL THE TIME.

I also typically do NOT go for (Spears) 4, instead choosing to boost common skills so my Noldor balances combat with being the party 'face.' I've been tempted to try a (Spears) 4 build, though, to see if it's in my best interest to do that instead of the balanced approach I've been taking. So far, though, my balanced approach has been working well for me.