Defence only viable stance for experienced characters

[Corvo]

Well...
(...)
Maybe if armor did reduce end damage as well...

For example, armor takes its dice of end off every hit.

With leather reducing every bit of end damage by 1 per hit, and the mighty mail hauberk reducing end damage by 5 per hit. At that point, people MIGHT actually be tempted to wear the hauberks (because it'd make you immune to most attacks where the enemy doesn't get a great success or better.)

I use exactly this rule, for the same reasons explained by Mikebugio, SirKickley, etc.
On the other hand, note that the damage output in my games is a bit higher, since I use a different way to asses damage for great/extraordinary successes.

I'm very interested. How do you calculate it?

Step 1: the weapon's damage is based on the here's body.

weapons with damage 5 --> damage =body
weapons with damage 7 --> damage =body+2
...Etc.
Some modifiers for the smaller weapons are needed:
Short sword: damage body-1, edge 10, injury 15
dagger: damage body-2, edge 10, injury 14

Step 2:
On a great success, damage is doubled.
On an exceptional success, damage is tripled.

These house rules stem from two reasons:
1-having high body be really useful.
2-my players always fumbled around the "basic damage, plus my body times two...". Damage x3 is more simple to them.

The net result is that high body + big weapon is really scary. But with the rules about armor's damage reduction, it feels balanced enough to my players.

[mogul76]

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

Wouldn't it be easier (and more in line with the remaining official rules) to simply apply the below modifiers to damage output?

Forward stance: +2 damage and +2 damage on top of the regular damage bonus for each Tengwar on a D6 (the maximum total damage bonus being +6 +/+ the regular damage bonus for each D6)

Open stance: +/-0

Defensive stance: -2 damage and -2 damage to the regular damage bonus for each Tengwar on a D6 (minimum damage modifier: 0)

The same modifiers - depending on the player characters' stance - could be applied to "incoming" damage when the player characters are being attacked.

In this way, the player characters are more likely to choose a rather defensive stance when being attacked by multiple opponents and act more offensively when facing only one or a few opponents, which kind of makes sense to me.

As suggested above, I don't really like the idea of 3 Tengwars being possible in combat as this is in breach with TOR's basic system (max. 2 Tengwars on a roll).

What do you think?

[Corvo]

Hi Mogul.

I see the logic behind your proposal, but I'm not sure It would solve the original problem: forward stance is pretty suicidal against numerous opponents (I'm trading, forex, +4 damage to an opponent with +4 damage to me multiplied times 3, if I'm facing three orcs), and maybe meaningless against a single big foe (here you are trading, say, +4 damage to the enemy with... +4 damage to yourself).
That said, that simmetric mechanic is pretty nifty... Just I'm not sure it's the solution to the perceived problem.

About the limit of 3 tengwar... I think it's the trade-off of having max 1 tengwar in defensive stance (well, that is my opinion, it's not my mechanic)

Edit: Mogul, maybe I misunderstood your mechanic. I was assuming the modifiers to the opponent's damage is based on the dices just rolled by the Hero. Is it? Or are they based on their own dices?
In other words, if my hero just rolled 2 tengwar in defensive stance (-6 damage), this means the orcs got a -6 damage to their own attack? Or do they receive a -2 for my stance and -2 for every tengwar they roll?

[mogul76]

Hello Corvo,

Thanks for your feedback.

Edit: Mogul, maybe I misunderstood your mechanic. I was assuming the modifiers to the opponent's damage is based on the dices just rolled by the Hero. Is it? Or are they based on their own dices?
In other words, if my hero just rolled 2 tengwar in defensive stance (-6 damage), this means the orcs got a -6 damage to their own attack? Or do they receive a -2 for my stance and -2 for every tengwar they roll?

I was actually thinking of the latter, making the defensive stance a more viable option when facing multiple opponents or when being low on endurance. The forward stance would be more beneficial when opposing a single foe or just a few enemies and when one's endurance is still high, which - as I mentioned before - makes more sense to me.

I agree with you, the solution proposed by me may not be a "direct" solution to the problem stated by the thread owner. However, I believe that it makes all of the available stance options more "interesting", thereby also motivating player characters who are experienced in combat (i.e. those having a combat skill of 4 or higher) to not always remain in the same stance regardless of the situation they are facing.

I personally believe that it's all about (tactical) choices.

[mogul76]

Any other thoughts on the house rule I described in the posts above?

Omitting piercing blows and Tengwar results on D6's (both of which are not influenced by combat stances), the problem with the RAW is that the result of attack rolls are binary: You either hit or miss.

Combat stances have no effect at all on any further outcome. When attacking, they just influence the probability of hitting a target, which becomes less and less of an issue, as player characters progress in combat skill.

With the suggested house rule, the difference in damage output of the Forward stance vs. the Defensive stance lies between 4 (+2 vs. -2) and 12 (+6 vs. -6), depending on the number of Tengwars rolled with the D6's.

This, at least to me, make both of the close combat stances other than the Defensive stance viable options again, even if a player character has a combat skill of 4 or above.

At the moment, I don't see any drawbacks of introducing this house rule. It doesn't seem to unbalance the game. I also believe that it is quite "symmetric" (i.e. in line) with the core rules. Furthermore, the Defensive stance does not become less viable, as incoming damage is reduced by 2 to 6 points (depending on the number of Tengwar rolled by the foes facing the player characters).

But of course, I may have missed something...

Therefore, I'd be very grateful if more experienced Loremasters and players could provide me with feedback. Thank you in advance

PS As to a foe's actions triggered by an Eye of Sauron when a player character is attacking, I will probably house rule them in the following way: The Loremaster can choose whether the creature attempts a Called shot or whether the Feat die is rolled twice during the counterattack, keeping the best result (thereby also solving the problem of some creatures not having a Called-shot option).

[Corvo]

Since you are asking (and since I fumbled my previous post)....
I don't find any issue in your proposal (now that I understand it! :p).
It's pretty elegant and appear to be keeping in spirit with the rules as written.

That said I'm not adopting it, 'cause in my view the issue of the rules as written is that attacking skill goes up with time and xp, while parry is static*. But that's me: your rule looks really fine!

About called shot etc, again it looks fairly good. Maybe a little on the lethal side, but I like it and I'm thinking about adopting it.

*and since I feel like an old curmudgeon today, I'm going to pester some other thread with my ranting crusade

[mogul76]

Cheers, Corvo

Any more opinions?

[mogul76]

Hello again Corvo,

Perhaps the house rule described in the following thread (new Mastery called "Thwarting") may solve the issue you have:

viewtopic.php?t=343&p=3033

I actually find it quite good.

Cheers,

Mogul

[Woodclaw]

Cheers, Corvo

Any more opinions?

Well we might take a page out of one of Francesco old works, Lex Arcana. In that game a character could take 3 stances during combat, much like TOR, with the following effect:

• In assault stance (Furor which equates to Forward) the character increased the extra damage done when he hits, but suffer more damage when hit back.
• Neural (Open) did nothing special.
• Defense (Prudentia/Defensive) the character inflict less extra damage but received less at the same time.

[mogul76]

Thanks for the interesting hint, Woodclaw. I don't know Lex Arcana, but the rule you are refering to correlates with my suggestion.