Defence only viable stance for experienced characters

[Corvo]

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?

I'm referring to my house rules (explained in post #10, first page of the thread): in these rules, the parry rating isn't a fixed value, but a dice roll, like the attack roll.

[mica]

Personally I am still not convinced with splitting attacks or for that matter applying full damage to multiple targets.

I like the single roll mechanic and a much clearer reason for choosing a stance when fighting, even if not looking to use a special stance action (mainly for experienced characters).

In our next session I will test these three mechanics:

Forward - Kill them all - No max on Tengwar damage adds and allow character to apply damage over multiple foes currently being engaged (with the GM being final arbitrator of which foes can be hit).
Reasoning is that the character is taking the fight to the enemy, exposing his back while pressing in amongst them, maybe even slashing an enemy that is engaging another character as he ploughs through.

I do like the idea of applying the success total for Intimidate to all appropriate enemies. This makes it viable.

Open - Drive Back - enemies attacking the character may have to spend hate point to get within range. 1 on a success, 2 on a superior etc. How this is paid is up to the GM. Example, some craven goblins and a big orc are attacking a character. Following a superior successful attack by the character, on their attacks the GM removes both hate from the orc so that the craven goblins don't flee at the end of the round. The hate has to be spent before the enemy can attack. This means this method could be used to drive away (or get to surrender) enemies that have expended their hate.

Rearward - Parry - Reduce incoming damage by success level of previous attack. 1 point for a success, 2 for a superior etc to a minimum of 1. This is applied to attacks that can be parried. The idea is that the character is turning full hits into glancing blows.

[Glorelendil]

New data on "called shot on sauron" rule:

I added the rule to my simulation as a checkbox (caveat: no proof my code is correct). I put a Beorning (Errand-Rider, Great Spear, Spear 2, No Armor) against an Orc Chieftan. With the rule ON the Beorning wins around 53% of the time (multiple 10,000 fight runs, variation +/- 1%). With the rule OFF the Beorning wins slightly less, about 52%.

That assumes a called shot resulting in a pierce. Your mileage may vary with other weapon types.

So the rule really is a very small advantage for players, but it adds some weird (fun?) unpredictability. I like it for that reason. It's a low probability, high payoff move. In fact, we should called it the "Hail Mary Rule".

(For you Europeans, a Hail Mary Pass is an American football term: it means the quarterback just throws for the distant endzone and says a Hail Mary while the ball is in the air. Probably coined at Notre Dame.)

[Eclipse]

I was toying with the idea of allowing player-characters in Forward to let their damage spill over to the next opponent if they down a foe. For example, if an Orc is hit for 10 points, but would go down with 3 already, 7 points can be allocated to the next opponent. Minimal bookkeeping necessary, if any at all, and Forward becomes a little more deadly without upsetting the damage balance too much.

[Woodclaw]

I was toying with the idea of allowing player-characters in Forward to let their damage spill over to the next opponent if they down a foe. For example, if an Orc is hit for 10 points, but would go down with 3 already, 7 points can be allocated to the next opponent. Minimal bookkeeping necessary, if any at all, and Forward becomes a little more deadly without upsetting the damage balance too much.

This might be a good idea, I'll have to test it.

[Glorelendil]

I was toying with the idea of allowing player-characters in Forward to let their damage spill over to the next opponent if they down a foe. For example, if an Orc is hit for 10 points, but would go down with 3 already, 7 points can be allocated to the next opponent. Minimal bookkeeping necessary, if any at all, and Forward becomes a little more deadly without upsetting the damage balance too much.

Interesting tweak. I think I'm going to compile some house rules for the stances and build them into my sim, so we can see what the actual impacts on outcomes are.

Relating this to the thread of fatigue, It does seem curious to me that armor choice involves a subtle trade-off, whereas stance often has a clearly superior choice.

[Sprigg]

I love the damage spill over rule, might test it out!

Armor very much seems to be more a 'do I want to maybe take a wound, or pass out?' Choice rather than 'how protected am I?' If enemies aren't getting piercing blows, then a characters armor choice is simply flavor at the cost of lots of fatigue. But if they aren't wearing armor, when the blow comes, it's a wound. It's tough, but an enjoyable change of pace.

[Rich H]

I was toying with the idea of allowing player-characters in Forward to let their damage spill over to the next opponent if they down a foe. For example, if an Orc is hit for 10 points, but would go down with 3 already, 7 points can be allocated to the next opponent. Minimal bookkeeping necessary, if any at all, and Forward becomes a little more deadly without upsetting the damage balance too much.

... For any foe? You may need to clarify that it is the same type of foe this applies to as the TN for the first adversary may be different to the second one (different types have different Parry modifiers and therefore affect the required TN to hit them) if they aren't the same adversary/creature template.

[Woodclaw]

I was toying with the idea of allowing player-characters in Forward to let their damage spill over to the next opponent if they down a foe. For example, if an Orc is hit for 10 points, but would go down with 3 already, 7 points can be allocated to the next opponent. Minimal bookkeeping necessary, if any at all, and Forward becomes a little more deadly without upsetting the damage balance too much.

... For any foe? You may need to clarify that it is the same type of foe this applies to as the TN for the first adversary may be different to the second one (different types have different Parry modifiers and therefore affect the required TN to hit them) if they aren't the same adversary/creature template.

Good point Rich, maybe the rule can be tweaked a bit like: the extra damage can be passed to another foe with a parry score equal or lower to the downed one.

[Michebugio]

I love the damage spill over rule, might test it out!

Armor very much seems to be more a 'do I want to maybe take a wound, or pass out?' Choice rather than 'how protected am I?' If enemies aren't getting piercing blows, then a characters armor choice is simply flavor at the cost of lots of fatigue. But if they aren't wearing armor, when the blow comes, it's a wound. It's tough, but an enjoyable change of pace.

I actually love how armor is handled in TOR, it’s very realistic.

I’m quite experienced in amateur boxing and protective headgear works just like that: if a blow is well-placed, you feel it practically like the protection wasn’t there. There is almost no difference between the “stun” effect you get from a punch wearing an helmet and not wearing it.

The headgear is just meant to avoid you more serious issues like bleeding bruises (friction from the opponent’s glove) and head trauma from elbows or headbutts (voluntary or involuntary…). But we can safely say that with or without protection, you go down after roughly the same amount of “standard” punches. Only difference is that while if you had the protection you wake up more or less ok, if you hadn’t you’re bloodied, bruised and aching all over.

Moreover, encumbrance is another real factor always overlooked in other systems. A boxing headgear is something a pugilist loves and hates at the same time: it protects you, but it also makes you sweat more, limits visibility, it’s tight like hell on your cheeks and chin, and adds weight to your head. When you remove it at the end of combat, you really feel those 3 points of Resistance coming back!

Similarly, if you get hit by a sword or an axe but the armor soaks the damage, you still lose your breath as if you were hit by a mace of equivalent weight. The armor avoided much worse damage and trauma, but if you get hit again and again, eventually you’ll pass out because of sheer physical trauma.

Only very thick armors, like a full plate, should actually soak some of the damage incoming from every blow, and not just protect your character from a Wounded condition. But full plates are almost unheard of in Middle-Earth, so this is not a problem for us LMs, I guess!

Well done, TOR!

Now, let's get back In Topic btw