forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I know they should only be included in more experienced parties, but at what point is a party experienced enough for a player to take on one of these roles? If it's in the book and I missed it, I apologize. I've not read it cover to cover yet, just skimmed the high points.

Well they start with a few more points to distribute so as long as you've done a couple of years adventuring say awarded at least 50AP's and at least 20 XP then the company should be able to work with a Ranger or Noldo included in it.

Why is balance so important to some gamers? I mean would you really tell some who really wants to play a Ranger in a new game of TOR that he can't until the other players have accumulated 50 AP and 20 XPs? They are, now, official playable cultures, they are designed to be played. The Rangers only get 4 more previous experience points then other Cultures, that doesn't really buy very much more. Has D&D ruined how most gamers think?

Beran wrote:Why is balance so important to some gamers?

I'd say that Ranger/High Elves are actually balanced with the other cultures. Not directly through points distributed at character generation but through the limits of Hope access and other factors. So, the culture may not appear to be balanced at character generation but they are through other game mechanic limitations. That's at least what I suspect and would be interested in seeing if this is born out in actual play.

Beran wrote:Why is balance so important to some gamers? I mean would you really tell some who really wants to play a Ranger in a new game of TOR that he can't until the other players have accumulated 50 AP and 20 XPs? They are, now, official playable cultures, they are designed to be played. The Rangers only get 4 more previous experience points then other Cultures, that doesn't really buy very much more. Has D&D ruined how most gamers think?

In a game like TOR, what's important is not balance in stats but balance in fun.
And a character much more powerful than the others can be tempted to play the first role and let the others as the supporting cast.

That why I think it's fine to add a ranger or an high elf, even in a new team.
But only as long as its player is mature enough to play him as one part of the group and not as the most powerful of the group (imagine what a pain it would be to play pippin in a group where another player plays gandalf >< ).

Dalriada wrote: That why I think it's fine to add a ranger or an high elf, even in a new team.
But only as long as its player is mature enough to play him as one part of the group and not as the most powerful of the group (imagine what a pain it would be to play pippin in a group where another player plays gandalf >< ).

This is mostly I suggested players not starting fresh with the new characters. If everyone is on the same footing there should be no arguments about who is allowed to get to play a Ranger or Noldo.

This plus the rules are slightly different in places for these new options and having to explain to a newbie player why he doesn't function quite the same as the others because we all (the LM's ) know that players never read the rules or only read the 'good' rules as they apply to them.

A Ranger and a hobbit duo... Just think, the Fellowship Pool is 3 and the hobbit has it *all* to himself!

Lovely jubbly.

Our group is starting fresh with new characters, and I'm allowing Rangers and High Elves.

I'll have to see how long it lasts before the world ends.

Dalriada wrote:And a character much more powerful than the others can be tempted to play the first role and let the others as the supporting cast.

I really don't see either the Ranger or the Noldor being that excessively over powered. But, then I think all eleves, and perhaps the Dwarves, should be given extra points given how much longer they have available to them to hone their skills.

I would allow it no problem, but that's because the people I'll be playing with can be trusted not to be jerks (no matter which type of character they pick). If it was a group I didn't know well outside of the game I'd still allow it, but keep an eye (or Eye??) on how the fellowship of both the characters and the players seemed to be doing. Of course, I have no problem taking people to task for their behavior, so there's that...