Defence only viable stance for experienced characters

[SirKicley]

If so - this is a nice game-mechanic worth exploring.

Robert

I'll caveat my own comment:

that I would recommend this ONLY for those people who feel like the OP stipulates.

For most I presume, will experience as intended that as one gains enough XP to have 4 in weapon skills, that they'll have earned being in Defensive Stance, and have used a fair portion of their HOPE along the way; and while they won't need it as often as they used to, it's a nice balance in that they should have a fair amount less to work with.

Robert

[Woodclaw]

Maybe the maximum number times one cn get the extra damage from Extra success can be tied to the stance:

• Forward up to 3 times
• Open up to 2 times (as per current rules)
• Defensive up to 1 time

This way,at low levels, the stances works more or less as usual since it's rare to roll all those "6s", but at higher tiers Forward and Open became more interesting for the player who want to go to the offensive.

So if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying:

In forward stance you can do BODY damage x3 (Maximum) IF you roll 3 6's on your success dice?
And in Rear if you roll 3 6's, the max you can do is 1x BODY damage?

If so - this is a nice game-mechanic worth exploring.

Robert

Yes that's the idea.
In Defensive even if you roll all "6s" the maximum extra damage will be your Body score (eventually modified by your Virtues), all the extra "6s" aftet the first won't do you any good.

[Evening]

For most I presume, will experience as intended that as one gains enough XP to have 4 in weapon skills, that they'll have earned being in Defensive Stance, and have used a fair portion of their HOPE along the way

Agreed.

We are close to the end of the Tales of Wilderland and the characters have developed good combat skills. They have concluded that there is almost no point in using any other stance than defensive....
The characters want to use other options but they are simply not worth it under the rules as written.

An LM could state that at 4, all Combat Stance Tasks, except Prepare Shot, are available characters in Defensive Stance.

[Rich H]

So if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying:

In forward stance you can do BODY damage x3 (Maximum) IF you roll 3 6's on your success dice?
And in Rear if you roll 3 6's, the max you can do is 1x BODY damage?

If so - this is a nice game-mechanic worth exploring.

Robert

Yes that's the idea.
In Defensive even if you roll all "6s" the maximum extra damage will be your Body score (eventually modified by your Virtues), all the extra "6s" aftet the first won't do you any good.

Yeah, I like it too. Gives additional reasons to still adopt Open and Forward stances along with access to the Combat Tasks available in those and not Defensive.

[mica]

The primary reason for going defensive is that you can pretty much always hit.

Further, as defensive tactics do not improve with experience even though the quantity of enemies faced at once and their individual power does, forcing characters to give up the only advantage they have, i.e. decreased defense in order to inflict damage on the enemy seems counter intuitive.

Personally I prefer carrots to sticks.

I think being able to spread damage over multiple opponents from a forwards stance (or split skill into multiple attacks) or automatically causing a hate point or more loss with valour traits or as somebody else suggested more combat options seems quite reasonable. I quite like options such as knocking one enemy into another on a successful hit, preventing both attacking. Then there is the risk that going forward may be sufficient to take out multiple foes, prevent them retaliating, but failure results in a kicking.

All these though still leave the issue of highly experienced character being unable to improve their defensive capabilities beyond choosing the defensive stance (without handing out lots of magic items - something that does not fit with the setting) or means of reducing incoming damage. In TOR, mountain trolls rarely miss and with horrible strength deliver on average half a characters endurance with even a basic hit.

[Rich H]

Personally I prefer carrots to sticks.

Understood Mica. Don't know if you've checked out my Additional Rules supplement but it may have some ideas in it for you: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/795 ... 0Rules.pdf

In there you'll find:

1) An additional Mastery in there (Thwarting) which increases Parry (page 13)

2) Additional Combat Stance Tasks which expand the options for each stance (page 41+)

3) Further Combat Options including multiple attacks (page 43+)

... These may be useful for you and/or give you ideas to develop further.

[Angelalex242]

Nobody likes the 'split your dice' idea for multiple attacks? Rolling 6D is forward is silly, rolling 2D thrice in forward makes sense, backing it up with Shadow Bane makes even more sense.

[Rich H]

Nobody likes the 'split your dice' idea for multiple attacks?

I don't because you can't split the d12.

[Angelalex242]

No, with the d12, you just roll it 3 times, once per attack.

The triple attack idea is the same as a beginning character who didn't up his weapon skill attacking thrice, only with an experienced character's valor, wisdom, and virtues and rewards where applicable.

[Rich H]

No, with the d12, you just roll it 3 times, once per attack.

The issues you have there is increasing your chance to roll a G rune and auto success by the number of foes you want to attack, and also increasing your chance of a penetrating attack as well (on a successful hit) making the results for multiple attacks and splitting dice pools really odd. Add to that a player rolling multiple times - could well slow the game down.

The triple attack idea is the same as a beginning character who didn't up his weapon skill attacking thrice

How? Their 3 attacks would be spread across 3 combat turns; that's not the same, you'd be allowing a PC to attack multiple times within one combat round and because you'd be allowing the d12 to be rolled multiple times you're massively increasing the odds of an auto-success and a penetrating attack within that combat round - facing 3 enemies and you're increasing your chance of a G rune in that round from 1 in 12 to 1 in 4; for 6 attacks that goes up to 1 in 2. I'd take those odds as you're effectively allowing multiple attacks with no real penalty to doing them *and* increasing the chance of an auto success/penetrating attack - that seems like a very broken mechanic.

The way described in my additional rules does have a penalty that you roll less dice in total than you would if you were making those attacks over consecutive rounds. Your way is allowing all attacks in one round with no total success dice penalty. It's a win-win all the way. I personally think there should be a penalty/cost to the total dice you roll when making multiple attacks as making more attacks is harder than making just one.