forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

mogul76 wrote:I also hope that the revised edition of TOR will adress the most problematic issues which are being discussed in the forums: heavy armour; the defensive stance being the only viable option, once the characters have a weapon skill of 4 or higher; the chance of inflicting a piercing blow not increasing with higher weapon skills; etc.

I'm not sure that will happen. From what's been said so far the guys at C7 are looking at reorganising and clarifying content and not adding such changes that you describe above. Remember that you may see the above as issues but such rules may be quite deliberate in their design and there to support certain styles of play. For instance, I personally don't think the chance of inflicting a piercing blow should increase with higher weapon skills - that's why Called Shots exist; the chance of succeeding at those increase with higher skill.

mogul76 wrote:Yes, I believe that the companions are pensalised (but I can't be sure until intensively playtested).

Reasons:

- Oftentimes they are outnumbered.
- The creatures most commonly encountered have a rather low Endurance rating and are eliminated when this value drops to 0 (the most frequent reason for NPC death).

Those are my thoughts too and it's why I said earlier that I'm cautious/suspicious of some of the conclusions being drawn in this thread and usage of the simulator as it's very much biased to 1 vs 1 combat and not combat between multiple agents, both on the side of the PCs and the adversaries. There are massive swathes of in-game encounters and variables that are not being included and considered within the simulator and discussions around it.

Rich H wrote:And the rule system plays a key part in capturing such a mood.

I agree with Rich. As I mentioned before, the system is very flexible, versatile and offers much potential. That's why creating house rules for TOR is so much fun. If - due to time constraints - the revised edition does not address the most frequently mentioned issues, I hope that Cubicle 7 will at least in the foreseeable future publish a companion with official, optional rules. My greatest fear is that some (or many) of my house rules will need to be adapted due to new Virtues, Rewards, etc. being published in future supplements like Rivendell, The Adventurer’s Companion and Horse-lords of Rohan...

Rich H wrote:that's why Called Shots exist; the chance of succeeding at those increase with higher skill.

True, but the chance of inflicting a piercing blow through called shots only increases if characters wield certain types of weapons (i.e. spears and bows).

mogul76 wrote:

Rich H wrote:that's why Called Shots exist; the chance of succeeding at those increase with higher skill.

True, but the chance of inflicting a piercing blow only increases through called shots if characters wield certain types of weapons (i.e. spears and bows).

I quite agree. I'd have preferred all weapon types to have most/all types of Called Shot; perhaps tweak whether a great or extraordinary success is required for some of the types of called shots for each of the weapons, for example its harder to break someone's shield with one weapon type than it is with another; but allow most types of called shot to be available to most types of weapons.

* Easy to house rule though *

Rich H wrote:* Easy to house rule though *

Yes, unless taking opponents' weapons into consideration, which would require a lot of work

mogul76 wrote:Hello again,

Yes, I believe that the companions are pensalised (but I can't be sure until intensively playtested).

Reasons:

- Oftentimes they are outnumbered.
- The creatures most commonly encountered have a rather low Endurance rating and are eliminated when this value drops to 0 (the most frequent reason for NPC death).

Axes indeed have a lower Edge rating, but their Injury score is higher.
(...)

Ok Mogul, I'll try to answer your points

1-about being outnumbered: I have already explored this situation, with a lot of playtesting. See page 14 of this thread.

2-about enemies having low endurance... so what's the problem with lowering the Edge? Please, believe me, I'm not being snappy or aggressive about it: I really don't understand your point

3-about the Axe having an higher injury rating: this is accounted for. And despite this, the Axe is the worst weapon even for defeating armour. I was skeptical, but Michebugio and others showed me the numbers. I think it was in the thread about the King's Blade. The short explanation is "+2 to inury rating isn't enough to compensate for the sword inflicting DOUBLE number of wounding blows"

Hope this helps

Rich H wrote:

mogul76 wrote:

Rich H wrote:that's why Called Shots exist; the chance of succeeding at those increase with higher skill.

True, but the chance of inflicting a piercing blow only increases through called shots if characters wield certain types of weapons (i.e. spears and bows).

I quite agree. I'd have preferred all weapon types to have most/all types of Called Shot; perhaps tweak whether a great or extraordinary success is required for some of the types of called shots for each of the weapons, for example its harder to break someone's shield with one weapon type than it is with another; but allow most types of called shot to be available to most types of weapons.

* Easy to house rule though *

Agreed. Called Shots are sore spot for me because I think that they're not as well integrated as the rest of the rules.

Elmoth wrote:Regarding a post a few pages back about "no armor being the best way to go" because "characters are defeated by endurance loss", I have to say that this is not the case in my troupe.

My troupe has tended to specialize in Wits 5+ characters in order to have good defense scores (generally 8-9 being common). Most of the time that means that they also adopt positions that max out on their defences, and so, are only hit on a Sauron rune by 95% of their opponents. That means that each hit they suffer *is* a wounding hit while normal endurance is irrelevant (they do not suffer endurance loss during combat due to enemy hits). Under those circumstances their armor is paramount to them and 3D has become quite common.

Just FYI

This echoes my own group choices, my own gut feeling and my own experience.
But bear with me and let me cite myself, since I already discussed this same point:

(...)initially I don't believed Elfcrusher's numbers.
I was sure -by gut feeling- that 2 or 3d armour was mandatory. I laughed at the fools that wrote about going unarmoured or with just 1d. Literally.
Then I used the simulator. Again and again, looking for loopholes or logical fault. (page 12 of this thread)

And

(...)Why in many games my armoured heroes haven't failed? Really, how many total party kill have we got in our campaigns? Cause you need a TPK to really feel the problem. Elfcrusher's simulator is a remorseless killer, and I alone have tested almost a million fights (really). Our personal sample cannot compare. (page 11 of this thread)

I searched for errors in Elfcrusher's simulator, yet I found nothing that disproved that armour, statistically, doesn't work as supposed

Rich H wrote:

mogul76 wrote:I also hope that the revised edition of TOR will adress the most problematic issues which are being discussed in the forums: heavy armour; the defensive stance being the only viable option, once the characters have a weapon skill of 4 or higher; the chance of inflicting a piercing blow not increasing with higher weapon skills; etc.

I'm not sure that will happen. From what's been said so far the guys at C7 are looking at reorganising and clarifying content and not adding such changes that you describe above. Remember that you may see the above as issues but such rules may be quite deliberate in their design and there to support certain styles of play. For instance, I personally don't think the chance of inflicting a piercing blow should increase with higher weapon skills - that's why Called Shots exist; the chance of succeeding at those increase with higher skill.

(bolding mine)
I feel the same. And for this reason I think that Yepesnope's rule can stand above our houserules. It doesn't add nothing: just a change to a single number. It's the only one that got a sliver of a chance to become official.