forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Elfcrusher wrote:

Corvo wrote:

Robin Smallburrow wrote:Although they are not in my 'house rules' doc as I'm still tinkering with them, i basically give characters in Forward stance more 'attack options' (including multiple attacks) and Defensive stance more defensive options, treating Open as the 'mean or average'.
(...)

Hi Robin!
Just a note: if you give more options to forward and defensive stance, you are (comparatively) weakening the open stance (less options, less bonus, less useful). If the open stance has to be the "average or mean", you should give some malus to the other stances ("you got this bonus BUT at the price of that malus...")
Well, probably you are already aware of this, but that was the first problem I encountered when devising my house-rules

That's why I like the house rule about max tengwars (1 in def, 2 in open, 3 in def). Until higher levels you rarely get more than one anyway, so it doesn't really kick in until the stance problem does.

In response to "OPEN" stance being on the light side of having benefits, in addition to the 1x, 2x, 3x BODY for tengwar runes, I propose the following benefit for Open Stance...

WHEN in OPEN STANCE, you have the ability to change the target of your attack after FORWARD stance attacks are resolved.

NORMAL: Engagements are determined before a round of attacks are resolved.

(If a fwd and a open stance combatant were attacking the same creature, and fwd stance character dispatches it on his turn, the open stance fighter loses his turn so-to-speak).

The logic behind this is: Fwd stance is aggressively going after one guy - he cannot change this target due to single-minded focus. The Defensive stance is trying desperately to back-up, duck behind cover, etc to keep his assailant at swords reach or more from him; should his target fall, all the better. IN Open Stance, a person is not fully committed to one fighting style or another and buys just enough of a delay to alternate his target.

This coupled with being allowed 2 Tengwars vs 1 in defense, should provide just enough of an incentive to use that stance as frequently.

As usual, YMMV, and you're certainly under no obligation to agree with my assessments or suggestions.
Robert

Hmm.

If you normally can't change targets, does that mean people in open or defensive stance automatically coup de gras the foe their friend drops if it's dropped on their turn? (It dropped, I can't change targets, might as well stab it and make really sure it's extra dead...)

Most LMs seem to ignore the 'can't change targets' rule as a relic of very early, NES level even, video games.

Angelalex242 wrote:Hmm.

If you normally can't change targets, does that mean people in open or defensive stance automatically coup de gras the foe their friend drops if it's dropped on their turn? (It dropped, I can't change targets, might as well stab it and make really sure it's extra dead...)

Most LMs seem to ignore the 'can't change targets' rule as a relic of very early, NES level even, video games.

I let them choose another option (i.e. OPEN's target died, so he instead "INSPIRES" on his turn, or DEFENSE stance opts to defend his buddy), but by the rules, they chose their target and opted to go "later" in the turn, thus if the target is dropped, they have effectively lost their turn.

Robert

Huh. None of the games I play in have upheld that. They let you fluidly choose targets as you see fit.

Angelalex242 wrote:Huh. None of the games I play in have upheld that. They let you fluidly choose targets as you see fit.

while that may be true TOR rules of combat clearly indicates that engagements are selected before each round of combat. you don't get to reselect until the beginning of next round.

by allowing open stance this flexibility I believe it throws it just a big enough bone to make that option viable especially for the idea of making both forward and defense stances more lucrative themselves as was proposed up thread.

Robert

Just thinking - the obvious "fix" for they eye result (otside of some unfortunate event like alien described) would be to make the next incoming attack a called shot if 6's were rolled, but a normal attack if not; so the player would still be hit.

This, combined with multiple attacks, would meant the stances were viable through out all weapon levels, and multi attacking was not always the best option.

I think we nearly got something worth with the "split dice, at least 2 each on multi-attack" idea... just one easy fix: each enemy can only be attacked once.
This way you don't get to roll 3 times the Feat dice against a Troll with your sword skill 6, having the chance to inflict 3 Piercing blows... 3 Snagas are a different story.

On the other side, I support the brilliant idea of Max number of Ts for the 3 different stances, so easy, so right!

Rich H wrote:

alien270 wrote:I just read your rule, and it doesn't help as much with keeping stances relevant at higher experience levels. I'm the GM in the PbP game that Angelalex is referring to, and here is the house rule as I have it written:

How does yours help more? Can't see anything obvious in this regard...

Mostly that "feat die + 3d6" can afford to take higher-TN stances more successfully than "feat die + 2d6."

Rich H wrote:

alien270 wrote:Comparing the two (yours and mine), in yours you could attack 2 foes with 4 ranks in your weapon skill, and you'd roll the feat die + 3d6, with the result applying to both foes. Using my rule, the PC would split his die pool evenly making two attacks, each of which used the feat die + 2d6. So the "cost" of using your rule is actually lower!

Only from one point of view. It's different if you look at it from a feat die point of view, which I was, and also you're rolling more d6's in total so you get more chance of tengwar results, so we could just as easily say the cost of your rule is actually lower. It just depends on what you think is more important in assessing the cost; you think one thing (d6's rolled in an attack), whereas I think another (more d12's rolled so more chance of Wounds and also d6's rolled in total).

While my rule rolls more d6's in total, your rule applies more d6's in total. Using both rules with 4 ranks and attack 2 enemies, your rule uses a single roll of "feat die + 3d6," but the result gets applied to 2 enemies. Essentially, what's getting applied is 2d12 and 6d6, albeit without doubling your chances of rolling a G rune. Of course this goes both ways; if you roll a G rune both enemies would take a wound, whereas using my rule you could wound one enemy and miss the other completely.

Now, using my rule where each enemy is attacked separately with "feat die + 2d6," you're applying 2d12 and 4d6. While all 4 of my d6 are rolled (whereas you roll 3d6 and apply them twice) which looks like greater odds of rolling a Tengwar, just like the above example with the feat die when you actually roll a tengwar it gets applied twice. I think having the "special" results (G runes and Tengwar) be applied twice is actually more potent than rolling more (which increases the likelihood of special results coming up at all.)

Hopefully that makes sense; it's late and I'm admittedly quite tired!

Rich H wrote:

alien270 wrote:While you're obviously taking out more enemies by multi-attacking, because your die pool is split attacks are made as if you had fewer ranks in your weapon skill, so you'll need to rely on Forward Stance just as much as that starting character who only HAS 2 ranks!

Yeah, same as the rule I use, the PCs move into forward stance if multi-attacking. In fact, it's a requirement of the house rule I use that they are in such a stance, which gives that stance an option others don't have.

I actually missed that requirement, in which case my rule doesn't actually reward Forward Stance any more than yours does! Still, my personal preference is for fewer options to be Stance-restricted, even if such options work better in one stance or another. I'm fine with players trying to multi-attack from Defensive stance if they desire, as TOR is nowhere near option-rich enough to cause choice paralysis and prolong turns (YMMV).

Oh well, since the discussion apparently shifted to multiple attacks/splitting dices...

In my house rules (explained at post #10) there is no "multiple attacks", but "multiple combat": if you want to attack two or more opponents, you split dices (every attack got a feat dice).
But if you are attacked by multiple opponents, you have to split your defense dices (every defense got a feat dice).
This way engaging a lot of opponents is really dangerous.

What do you mean by defence dice? Those used for a Protection test in case of a wound, did you house-rule defence rolls, or do you mean split the parry rating?