forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Well, as far as benefits from the height difference go, I allowed defenders in a (somewhat) similar situation to use hybrid stances; i.e. the front-line defenders can attack as if in Forward stance but defend as if in Open stance; the rear defenders can attack as if in Open stance but defend as if in Defensive stance.

Then maybe track three height levels... anyone at the same height level uses the rules as written, ones with a single difference in height use the rules above, anyone two height levels away are not in close combat yet.

How I handled it was to run it mostly narratively. I set the scene and showed the company the map, told them the orcs were coming along the path from the old Forest road and asked them for the actions they were going to take.

They said that they were going to take the opening volleys from about the old inn as the orcs came into view and then retire to the hill. They took a second opening volley just before the gatehouse before the Elf and Lake man in rearward moved half way up the hill to cover the dwarf holding the gatehouse entry. As the orcs attacked the dwarf (in defensive stance) the Lakeman moved back to help with his spear (defensive). I had two heroes holding the gate while the Elf peppered the orcs with arrows, shooting anyone who looked like flanking the two holding the gate. The orc archers shot at the two heroes at the gate but couldn't get the scores of 20 or 21 to hit with only 2D attacks. When the archer killed the leader (and the bannerman went down) the remaining orcs fled.

I didn't get the battlemat out as it was easier to run without it and just keep the picture in my head of what was happening, plus I could adjust to make it easier if I needed to without physical evidence of who was where

I played the follow up to this yesterday (note I'm not running the adventure as written). A new player joined us and was a Woodman whose reason for wandering the depths of Mirkwood was to rescue his sister who had been taken by said orcs. I had him turn up the morning after the battle and approach the hill carefully looking through the bodies the company revealed themselves partly (the Elf archer was hidden on overwatch) and had a discussion. After some time roleplaying they accepted him (failed Insight tests left everyone feeling suspicious in an modified Encounter type situation, I also had the company test Corruption based on the backstory of the tower - Blighted Place. They had breakfast and burnt the bodies before setting off after the orcs. Much later in the day the Woodman's Hound came to alert and they found the bodies of his sister and the others taken from the village horribly murdered (Corruption test with a two point Shadow gain for the Woodman and one for others). Burying the bodies they set off after the orcs despite being not in great shape. A battle with 11 Forest Goblins as they approached the Mountains of Mirkwood left them in very dire condition. They chose to retreat back to the road and head for Lake Town to recover with a Fellowship Phase instead.

Heilemann wrote:It seems to me that TORs system wasn't really made to be much help in a situation like this, where the geography is well-defined, and influential on how the battle can be fought. There are a few mentions of restrained pathways and such in the rules, but nothing too definite.

Yep, in many ways, the TOR rules are more about providing a framework with LM's building rulings on the top of them to suit what they're trying to do/setup within their game. I think there are multiple approaches that a LM could employ, it's really a matter of taste and consistency within your own campaign.

Heilemann wrote:But because TOR has no tactical movement rules, I'm not entirely sure how to play this out.

You don't need to show the map to the players - it can purely be a LM tool to help you shape the encounter and understand how all the 'pieces' fit together. There are no tactical movement rules as such in TOR but units of time (ie, combat turns and rounds) do exist so it's pretty easy for a LM to provide rulings as to movement within such periods of time, etc. We all have a good idea of how quickly a person (with varying degrees of encumbrance) can run across different type of terrain so it's easy for a LM to decide how long it should take someone to get from, for example, the tower to the ruined gate in game time. They could also make Athletics tests to reduce this time if you wanted to add such a ruling.

Heilemann wrote:Obviously because the hill is steep, and requiring a stated attempt at scaling it, it acts as a wall between whoever is on top and those beneath. This dictates a) which side gets to determine engagement, and b) who they can engage.

You can also use the combat circumstances table on page 48 of the LM guide as well. In addition, the ruined gates can allow for just one or two PCs to defend against multiple opponents, creating a bottleneck. The map in the adventure was a way of bringing the accompanying descriptions to life and provide positioning context of each described element so the LM/Players were aware of how everything fitted together.

Heilemann wrote:So I suppose I need to track a number of things in this case?

1) Who is below?
2) Who is above.
3) Who is on the stairs, and in what order.

It's all a bit confusing; I'm wondering if anyone else has a better approach?

Battles are confusing and chaotic affairs! So, you don't need to explain what all the orcs are doing all the time.

The players will explain where their characters are positioned and depending on what the orcs do and what happens turn-by-turn they may move around etc. From an LM point of view, you know what opponents you are throwing into the mix. Personally I'd group them up - ie, these orcs are going to force the ruined gate, these are going to attempt to scale the steep slope, these are going to remain in the rear and attack with bows. Once you group them up, you can handle them piecemeal which will make the job easier and the PCs will respond to those different groups of opponents in different ways.

For traps, I've been thinking about this:

A full day spent making traps lets each character participating use Craft or Hunting vs TN 14. Each successful trap can be triggered at any time during combat against an adversary. A success gives 4 endurance damage, a great success gives 8 and an extraordinary gives 12.

This lets them be a little tactical with it, and I would ask them to describe approximately what the trap did and how.

Heilemann wrote:For traps, I've been thinking about this:

A full day spent making traps lets each character participating use Craft or Hunting vs TN 14. Each successful trap can be triggered at any time during combat against an adversary. A success gives 4 endurance damage, a great success gives 8 and an extraordinary gives 12.

This lets them be a little tactical with it, and I would ask them to describe approximately what the trap did and how.

Another variant, that would also be tactical, would be to give them a Battle die for each trap success. Then when they use the dice during combat they have to describe its use in the context of a trap.

Yeah, but somehow that makes me think that it plays more into how they fight, whereas if it's just endurance loss, it's disconnected from them.