Deadly archery and Stinging Arrow vs Fair Shot

[SirKicley]

14 for both.

I'm not really sure why you're comparing a short sword to an elf bow? I'm not making comparisons with those and I don't think the OP is - he was comparing hobbit's Fair Shot with the Elf Virtues and suggested swapping the around. I also added that King's Blade was a Reward that I felt was odd but wasn't making direct comparisons to the elf Virtues, I was just stating it scales whereas other Rewards do not. I think the two are separate issues but fall under the same discussion (ie, potentially unbalanced Virtues/Rewards)
.

Hey Rich - sorry to resurrect this issue but I never fairly answered your question.


I was only trying to compare the two weapons to ascertain if one was better than the other for purposes of comparing all angles of a rule mechanic.

In D&D for instance a 2 handed sword does more damage - but forgoes a shield - and has the same critical threat and damage modifier as a one-handed longsword.

A scimitar and rapier does less damage per hit - but has a higher critical threat range (Edge Rating equivalent).

meanwhile an axe has less critical threat range, but more critical damage if/when it scores a crit.


So with that in mind, I was wanting to compare (and had no access to the book while away for a couple days) the two weapons that benefit from these cited virtues - to see if by chance the bow was superior in it's ability to cause critical (edge) hits vs the short sword - which may then make one more comfortable with the shortsword virtue being perceived as superior.

However with your info that they are both 14 this rendered my thinking process moot.


Having come from RPGs with a lot of mechanics, I have an eye for looking at rule options from multiple angles - looking at all of the other mechanics that piggy back off of it, or that it piggybacks off of; as opposed to looking at a rule mechanic in a vacuum without considering how other issues would be affected by it.


As for my argument about something scaling - as far as I'm concerned something that affects another more frequently as one progresses in it's use, is a progressively more useful ability. In other words something that affects another when you score a hit, is marginally powerful in the hands of someone with a minimal skill in its use, but becomes progressively more powerful (scaling up) when one becomes more proficient in the objects use (creating more opportunities to use said ability with more probability of hitting with it).

Now whether or not that levels the playing field of the two virtues is a matter of perception and taste.


I personally haven't seen a 'power' issue with the hobbit that I have in my game with that virtue - but I will admit that one of the first house rules I imposed when I started the game a while ago was reducing all weapons for Hobbits to 1 skill level to start with (to account for hobbits non combative nature) and instead bumping up their HOPE points by four more. This no doubt will have false-negative outcomes if I were truly trying to judge that virtue against another. As read and stated I still don't see an issue with it - but I will admit results from experimenting with it would not be useful due to the house rule early on.

Robert

[Rich H]

Hey Rich - sorry to resurrect this issue but I never fairly answered your question.

No need to apologise, things get missed as there's lots of great discussions on here!

Now whether or not that levels the playing field of the two virtues is a matter of perception and taste.

That's true. Like I said previously I really don't like it as it doesn't match with other Rewards/Virtues.

... but I will admit that one of the first house rules I imposed when I started the game a while ago was reducing all weapons for Hobbits to 1 skill level to start with (to account for hobbits non combative nature) and instead bumping up their HOPE points by four more.

I've also done something similar. For my hobbit-only campaign I reduced Endurance by 4 whilst increasing Hope by 2 for hobbit characters as I really wanted to highlight the difference between then and other races. It's worked really well so far.

[voidstate]

The King's Blade reward and the Small Folk virtue are pretty much singlehandedly responsible for not being able to run The One Ring for two years after my first campaign. Everyone got totally fed up with being overshadowed in combat by a hobbit. Not only did they find it annoying but it didn't seem to fit the source material.

The hobbit in question was virtually unhittable and did more damage than anyone else in fights, nearly always delivering the killing blow.

I would definitely house rule King's Blade if it gets chosen again.

[Corvo]

The King's Blade reward and the Small Folk virtue are pretty much singlehandedly responsible for not being able to run The One Ring for two years after my first campaign. Everyone got totally fed up with being overshadowed in combat by a hobbit. Not only did they find it annoying but it didn't seem to fit the source material.

The hobbit in question was virtually unhittable and did more damage than anyone else in fights, nearly always delivering the killing blow.

I would definitely house rule King's Blade if it gets chosen again.

Interesting.
I assumed the injury rating 14 was enough to balance it out.
In my game it looks like injury-16, nay, 18 is the required minimum to pierce some armour (I'm the LM, and I think my dices are too lucky)

[LOTR_Nerd]

My perspective on it is this the Hobbits have less body so for me I am fine with the Hobbit rewards and Virtues.Also it helps to know enough Hobbit lore to keep the Hobbit on his toes and depending on his profession I can throw in some nasty ways for him to gain shadow.Also with Rivendell Elves and Rangers being added in the Hobbits might not be the most "powerful" anymore.Of course though I am just a dwarf player so what would I know.

[mogul76]

What do you think about the following modification of the Fair Shot Virtue?

Fair Shot

You have spent a great deal of your time practising with all sorts of throwing games, and your accuracy is exceptional. When you make a thrown attack, you can - if you so wish - roll the Feat die twice and keep the best result.

Moreover, you gain the ability to throw stones with deadly precision using the Dagger weapon skill. Use the statistics of a dagger to determine your opponent's Endurance loss on a successful roll, adding your ranged Damage rating on a great or extraordinary success. When rolling a Gandalf rune, you cause a piercing blow. The Injury rating is identical to that of a Dagger (12). When the Feat die shows an Eye of Sauron (either on the first or second roll), you run out of stones, unless you spend one point of Hope.

It is assumed that stones are collected before the combat scene. If - for any reasons - you are considered not to carry any stones and combat takes place outside or in area where stones are likely to be found (for example, in a cavern), you automatically pick them up from the ground without taking an additional action.

When you pick this Virtue add "Stones" to your Gear list and raise your Encumbrance and Fatigue scores by one.

[Woodclaw]

What do you think about the following modification of the Fair Shot Virtue?

Fair Shot

You have spent a great deal of your time practising with all sorts of throwing games, and your accuracy is exceptional. When you make a thrown attack, you can - if you so wish - roll the Feat die twice and keep the best result.

Moreover, you gain the ability to throw stones with deadly precision using the Dagger weapon skill. Use the statistics of a dagger to determine your opponent's Endurance loss on a successful roll, adding your ranged Damage rating on a great or extraordinary success. When rolling a Gandalf rune, you cause a piercing blow. The Injury rating is identical to that of a Dagger (12). When the Feat die shows an Eye of Sauron (either on the first or second roll), you run out of stones, unless you spend one point of Hope.

It is assumed that stones are collected before the combat scene. If - for any reasons - you are considered not to carry any stones and combat takes place outside or in area where stones are likely to be found (for example, in a cavern), you automatically pick them up from the ground without taking an additional action.

When you pick this Virtue add "Stones" to your Gear list and raise your Encumbrance and Fatigue scores by one.

Not a bad idea, mogul76. Thematicly it makes sense with the description of Hobbits. Testing is required.

[Yepesnopes]

Interesting.
I assumed the injury rating 14 was enough to balance it out.

Hobbits can carry axes which have an injury of 18, and the virtue does not restrict the choice to swords. Although it hints something along this direction on its description.

[Elmoth]

Err... away from books now, but I am fairly sure that the King's blade specifies that it is a short sword...

[Rich H]

Err... away from books now, but I am fairly sure that the King's blade specifies that it is a short sword...

Agreed... The text in the RAW is as follows:

King’s Blade (short sword)
At times, country Hobbits find ancient swords inside fallen mounds, amid tilled fields or washed ashore along a watercourse. Unable to discover their precise origin, they call them simply ‘King’s blades.’

If you roll a great or extraordinary success on an attack using a King’s blade, you automatically inflict a Piercing
blow.

... My emphasis on the short-sword element, so it's fair to say it is restricted to the short sword and LMs that allow it to be applied to other weapons are going beyond the RAW.