Maximum Valour and Wisdom?

[Rich H]

... I wonder often about the sections Adventuring Career and Heroism. Do these rules find usage by the community in actual play? Or, is it one of those later sections in the rules almost forgotten, but not lost?

It isn't applicable for my campaign yet so it simply hasn't been used rather than forgotten about.

[Eluadin]

Rich,

Have you decided whether or not to include those rules in your campaign? I would be interested in hearing how it (the campaign) progresses with an eye towards retirement, etc. Like you, my Fellowship is not there either. Nonetheless, it is in the background of my thoughts often visiting for afternoon tea. Sometimes unannounced...

[Rich H]

Rich,

Have you decided whether or not to include those rules in your campaign? I would be interested in hearing how it (the campaign) progresses with an eye towards retirement, etc. Like you, my Fellowship is not there either. Nonetheless, it is in the background of my thoughts often visiting for afternoon tea. Sometimes unannounced...

I've certainly mentioned them to my players and how it can lead to additional XP awards for characters starting out.

I think the main issue I have with it is that it may not work with my standard way of introducing new characters to a campaign - ie, if someone's character retired, or died, then I'd naturally allow their next character to be built on points similar to what the rest of the characters currently have had spent on them so that the new character isn't incompetent/underpowered in comparison to the more experienced PCs. This would mean the new character having a fairly well developed character history and they may even have some temporary or permanent shadow as well - it would all depend on the player's vision for the character.

[SirKicley]

I think the main issue I have with it is that it may not work with my standard way of introducing new characters to a campaign - ie, if someone's character retired, or died, then I'd naturally allow their next character to be built on points similar to what the rest of the characters currently have had spent on them so that the new character isn't incompetent/underpowered in comparison to the more experienced PCs. This would mean the new character having a fairly well developed character history and they may even have some temporary or permanent shadow as well - it would all depend on the player's vision for the character.

I think that last sentence brings up an interesting point and idea.

For new characters coming into an existing group: player decides how much XP and APs (as a group package) that character has earned - but ALSO it comes with an arbitrary amount of permanent shadow as well.

For instance (and these numbers are just for the sake of discussion - not a true or tested number based on any scientific studies or playtesting).

NEW CHARACTER
20 APs and 8 XP 1 Permanent Shadow
35 APs and 15 XP 2 Permanent Shadow
45 APs and 20 XP 3 Permanent Shadow


(Starting XP for a new character not to exceed any of the existing characters)


Essentially this puts the decision in the players hand - maybe he has no issue with being behind the curve of the rest of the party - cuz he really doesn't want any Shadow to start with. The way the game progresses, he would eventually catch up since it costs exponentially more XP to increase higher attributes. Also, TOR doesn't have the power creep or power curve that other games do - especially D20 games like D&D has, that would make it impossible for a 3rd level character to survive in a 10th level game. So it's not a stretch to believe that a character starting with a bare minimum amount of XP and APs can join a relatively veteran group and still survive and eventually start catching up.

Robert

[Garn!]

As a general idea, that sounds fair. Like you said, I'm not sure of the exact numbers needed to maintain balance, but it seems like it could be a viable means of creating more advanced or "higher level" character equivalents.

Somewhat tangential, but it got me thinking that something similar could be used to create a cursed-item carrying character - somewhat like Frodo - whose build is focused on resistance and survival from the item more so than against the environment, enemies, etc.

[Robin Smallburrow]

Instead of giving higher starting characters permanent Shadow Points, I would prefer that they started with at least one Shadow Trait from their Shadow Weakness, as this gives more scope for roleplaying purposes.

Robin S.

[Rich H]

Instead of giving higher starting characters permanent Shadow Points, I would prefer that they started with at least one Shadow Trait from their Shadow Weakness, as this gives more scope for roleplaying purposes.

At least in my post where I suggested the possibility of Permanent Shadow then that means they'd also get a Shadow Weakness, which is how it all works in the rules - ie, 1 Permanent Shadow also means 1 Shadow Weakness trait.

[Eluadin]

It isn't applicable for my campaign yet so it simply hasn't been used rather than forgotten about.

Out of curiosity, where in the Tale of Years are you running your campaign?

Regards,
Scott

[Rich H]

In my main campaign, as per the book - ie, beginning 5 years after the Battle of Five Armies. I also run a hobbits only campaign set around the Shire and Bree.

[SirKicley]

I also run a hobbits only campaign set around the Shire and Bree.

THAT would be a blast! I'm on the next flight to UK, can I play????


(well...it was a nice pipe-dream; get it - hobbit only campaign and pipe reference)

Robert