Page 2 of 3
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:49 am
by Fridokind Wargaug
Glorelendil wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:29 pm
Hmm...I don't think it's 100% clear. It depends on your interpretation of "attacked" and "resolved".
Version 1:
"Attacked" means the the player/LM announces intention. "Resolved" means the dice are rolled.
Version 2:
"Attacked" means the dice are rolled. "Resolved" means the result is compared to the TN.
So let's say it's version one and a hero spends a point for his focus buddy. Does he get the point back, even if the attack was not successful?
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:08 am
by Dunkelbrink
Glorelendil wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:02 am
Glorelendil wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:29 pm
Hmm...I don't think it's 100% clear. It depends on your interpretation of "attacked" and "resolved".
Version 1:
"Attacked" means the the player/LM announces intention. "Resolved" means the dice are rolled.
Version 2:
"Attacked" means the dice are rolled. "Resolved" means the result is compared to the TN.
So Halbarad uses the second interpretation, whereas Falenthal and Dunkelbink use the first.
Given that I don’t believe it should be possible to “waste” Hope, I’m with Halbarad on this one.
Until somebody can cite a clarifying passage from the rules, that is.
But the Hope is not "wasted", it is used to protect your companion and divert the attack. The attack is instead made at a character in defensive stance with a higher TN. That is the effect; the possible missed attack is just a bonus effect if that happens.
But I agree that an official clarification wouldn't hurt.
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:13 am
by Dunkelbrink
Fridokind Wargaug wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:49 am
Glorelendil wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:29 pm
Hmm...I don't think it's 100% clear. It depends on your interpretation of "attacked" and "resolved".
Version 1:
"Attacked" means the the player/LM announces intention. "Resolved" means the dice are rolled.
Version 2:
"Attacked" means the dice are rolled. "Resolved" means the result is compared to the TN.
So let's say it's version one and a hero spends a point for his focus buddy. Does he get the point back, even if the attack was not successful?
That has been discussed before, for example in:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2126
You don't get Hope back for using Protect companion in my game, but as you can see in the thread there are good arguments for both sides.
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:27 am
by Fridokind Wargaug
Dunkelbrink wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:13 am
That has been discussed before, for example in:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2126
You don't get Hope back for using Protect companion in my game, but as you can see in the thread there are good arguments for both sides.
Ok, thanks. I alwasy missed the "only for an Attribute bonus"...
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:21 pm
by Glorelendil
Dunkelbrink wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:08 am
But the Hope is not "wasted", it is used to protect your companion and divert the attack. The attack is instead made at a character in defensive stance with a higher TN. That is the effect; the possible missed attack is just a bonus effect if that happens.
But I agree that an official clarification wouldn't hurt.
Wasted in the sense that if the attacker makes a roll that would have missed anyway, the Hope was unnecessarily spent.
It would be like spending Hope to add an attribute to a roll before making the roll.
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:30 pm
by Timmity Took
If you spend a hope point to protect a companion, I as a Loremaster would say that OF COURSE you should get the point back for protecting your focus.
To me it seems obvious that that is the RAI.
A good LM rewards a player for being true to his character and the story, and protecting your fellowship focus is being true to your character and the story.
The rules are designed to enhance something specific in the game and the story, a bond between two characters, to emulate the loyalty between companions that we see in the books.
We get too hung up in the wording and the minutia instead of the "why" .
The hope point to invoke attribute-rules might have been written before combat rules that lets you spend hope for something else... Small details like that can be overlooked in editing or even seen as clear enough as it is.
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:17 pm
by Glorelendil
Timmity Took wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:30 pm
If you spend a hope point to protect a companion, I as a Loremaster would say that OF COURSE you should get the point back for protecting your focus.
To me it seems obvious that that is the RAI.
A good LM rewards a player for being true to his character and the story, and protecting your fellowship focus is being true to your character and the story.
The rules are designed to enhance something specific in the game and the story, a bond between two characters, to emulate the loyalty between companions that we see in the books.
We get too hung up in the wording and the minutia instead of the "why" .
The hope point to invoke attribute-rules might have been written before combat rules that lets you spend hope for something else... Small details like that can be overlooked in editing or even seen as clear enough as it is.
Respectfully disagree...although once upon a time I was where you are.
If you get the point back it becomes zero cost, which makes it too cheap/easy for a well-armored/protected companion to Protect Companion every round, especially if you pick the "right" focus. Which means there's an incentive to choose a focus tactically, rather than narratively.
Picture Protect Companion as a slow-motion "Nooooooooo!!!!!" as you dive in front of the bullet. It's not just another tactical maneuver.
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:39 pm
by Timmity Took
How much should taking an attack and risking getting hurt cost? And you would only get the point back if the companion happens to be your fellowship focus.
You should reward players for protecting their ff.
The game rules are meant to reward that.
You say it makes it cheap, I say it makes the ff rules and the intent behind them count. Ff enhances a specific aspect of the game and the story and should be that powerful.
Respectfully
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:17 pm
by Indur Dawndeath
Timmity Took wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:39 pm
How much should taking an attack and risking getting hurt cost? And you would only get the point back if the companion happens to be your fellowship focus.
You should reward players for protecting their ff.
The game rules are meant to reward that.
You say it makes it cheap, I say it makes the ff rules and the intent behind them count. Ff enhances a specific aspect of the game and the story and should be that powerful.
Respectfully
I agree that you should reward actions to protect your FF, but Hope return Must be limited to common skills, as Per RAW.
You can assist your FF by healing wounds, inspire during combat, if it is directly helping the FF and so forth.
But if protect companion suddenly becomes a free option, then you will see two-handed Axe swinging in Forward, protected by towershields in defensive.
Worst case, I know. But legal if you open that door.
Re: Defensive stance: Protect Companion
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:50 pm
by Glorelendil
Indur Dawndeath wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:17 pm
But if protect companion suddenly becomes a free option, then you will see two-handed Axe swinging in Forward, protected by towershields in defensive.
Worst case, I know. But legal if you open that door.
This.
Plus it’s both RAW and RAI.