forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Yeah, the world would definitely end if that kind of min maxing is permitted.

Then again, even with the Hope point he's going to fail some rolls.

And if fights are too easy the LM could up the difficulty.

I'm not siding one way or another on this question, but I don't think it's as game breaking as all that.

Yeah, I agree with Elfcrusher, I don't think it's all that game breaking to be honest; was expecting something far 'worse' after reading a couple of lines of Murcushio's post! I personally would play by the RAW but wouldn't think it was game-breaking if Zed adopted the Hope refresh in this particular case.

To follow up on Elfcrusher's post I reckon two Snow Trolls would do the business aided by some White wolves. Crush on 3D+8 for 8 Endurance loss plus Horrible Strength for 8 more Endurance loss is almost certainly instant Weary. The White wolves using Great Leap and Seize Victim to halve Parry would be icing.

Yep. Give the "protect companion" guy a couple good poundings and his action-taking decision matrix will take a decidedly different turn of events.

It occurs to me that getting Hope for taking Protect Companion is kind of like double-dipping: you're already going to be getting Hope for keeping him unharmed through the session.

Everyone's made really good points; I think I will allow the Hope back for the Attribute use in armour test but not the protect companion. That keeps the rules intact but also allows me to fit the spirit of the rules.

I think that's a good call, Zed.

Hermes Serpent wrote:To follow up on Elfcrusher's post I reckon two Snow Trolls would do the business aided by some White wolves. Crush on 3D+8 for 8 Endurance loss plus Horrible Strength for 8 more Endurance loss is almost certainly instant Weary. The White wolves using Great Leap and Seize Victim to halve Parry would be icing.

Well, this is certainly true, but it wouldn't make the mechanic any less broken.

I mean... the GM can always throw enough foes at a party to overwhelm their defenses. There is literally nothing stopping your Fellowship from waking up one morning and confronting all three Nazgul, their troll enforcers, and a ton of orcs. That party would die and die horribly no matter what they did.

There's a general consensus that the original flava King's Blade was totally broken, right? It could still be gotten around. You could completely obviate it by throwing nothing but custom-made trolls and orcs who are rolling like eight or nine dice + attribute bonus on their protection test at the party with the stab-hobbit in it, boom, problem solved.

Only that's an absurd response. The correct response is "balance the game."

It's a bit the other way around with Protect Companion shenanigans. The "attribute bonus" restriction on regaining Hope seems to be aimed squarely at this; it's the only core mechanic where you'd ever be spending Hope to ambiguously aid someone else and not claiming an attribute bonus while doing so. (There are some Virtues that let you do stuff like that, but they're Culture-specific and more limited in scope.) It already is balanced; messing with it unbalances things in ways that can cause a GM a lot of headaches to get around if the players decide to actually play intelligently.

Murchusio:

I'm going to disagree with on a couple points here.

1. It's always the GM/LM's prerogative...nay...duty....to adapt his challenges to the party and do what makes for a fun game. While I admit Hermes' suggestion was a bit heavy-handed and obtuse (I also think it was meant to be a bit satirical), it's actually a very appropriate response for the LM to orient his "monsters" to the party so that such conflicts are fun and challenging. The example with the Hope refund or not does not invalidate that approach, and it's certainly a very reasonable suggestion to give a new LM if he found it was getting out of whack.

2. Of course, reading the RAW, you're right that it seems clear that the hope point is not to be refunded. Once that was established, though, I don't think that was really where the conversation was going. The sense I got was "would it fantastically break the game to allow". Others said "no", you said "yes". I think you're wrong, and if you consider what each hero must commit in terms of "build points" (an imprecise but hopefully satisfactory term for the purposes of this discussion), I don't think it's imbalanced and certainly not breakingly so. So, yes, one person builds a "tank", and the other person builds a "DPS" and they synergize well together and visit death and ruin upon the enemy. Great. The "Tank" is spending all of his time in Defensive stance and may be missing opportunities to do other things and doesn't build his character in such a way as to be able to multi-role. And if he doesn't put 4 ranks into his primary weapon, he's not going to hit. Likewise for the "DPS" who is spending all is time in forward stance, his opportunity cost for things that he has forsaken is very high. So he puts only 2 ranks in his weapon because that's all he needs for Forward stance right? Sure...for a basic hit. So he hits a lot but not for extra damage because those 2 dice aren't getting him much in the way of Tengwars. The same two characters could have had 3 rank attacks each, both be hanging in Open Stance, and hit for more, on average.*

This is a game that, like Savage Worlds, rewards jack-of-all-trades because of the Feat Die and because of the invoking of Attribute Bonuses. You pay a heavy price for specialization in TOR. I can also tell you this. As a player who has a mid-level character, spending all your time in defensive stance really isn't as great as you might think once you start routinely facing monsters with favored 2d or 3d attacks. And the LM doesn't need to bust out Nazgul or Trolls necessarily for that, either.

* Honestly, if there is a problem with the game, it's that there is little reason to be in Forward stance after you get 3 ranks in your weapon, and little reason for Open stance after you get 4.

Rocmistro wrote:Murchusio:

I'm going to disagree with on a couple points here.

1. It's always the GM/LM's prerogative...nay...duty....to adapt his challenges to the party and do what makes for a fun game. While I admit Hermes' suggestion was a bit heavy-handed and obtuse (I also think it was meant to be a bit satirical), it's actually a very appropriate response for the LM to orient his "monsters" to the party so that such conflicts are fun and challenging.

This is true, but an unbalanced game makes the GM's job that much harder, does it not? King's Blade was broken not just because it put far too much power in the hands of a player for what you had to do to get it, but because it made the GMs job a lot harder in terms of sending appropriate encounters at the party.

I don't think it's imbalanced and certainly not breakingly so.

... you don't think it's imbalanced, at all, for two players to assemble an engine wherein they use effectively unlimited Hope to allow one player to always have the benefit of the other players very, very high Parry, no matter what stance they might happen to be in?

So, yes, one person builds a "tank", and the other person builds a "DPS" and they synergize well together and visit death and ruin upon the enemy. Great.

That synergy should have a resource cap on it, in the form of the tank eventually running out of Hope.

The "Tank" is spending all of his time in Defensive stance and may be missing opportunities to do other things and doesn't build his character in such a way as to be able to multi-role.

That's not true at all.

The tank I described, the one I used as an example? That's a starting character. And he can do far more than just tank; he's also the best at Explore and Search in the Fellowship and has some favored abilities that aren't replicated across the rest of the group. He's multi-roled just fine. In fact, his ability to multi-role will only get better as he advances; the only options available to make him more survivable cost XP, not AP. Those are completely disjoint advancement paths.

As for the missed opportunities for being in Defensive... what are those, pray?

That's not me being sarcastic, that's a real, legitimate question. What is he giving up, exactly? He still gets his entire combat action on top of using Protect. All he misses out on are using Intimidate Foe or Inspire Comrades... both of which he sucks at anyway. I'm not seeing any downside at all aside from him being less likely to hit his enemies.

And if he doesn't put 4 ranks into his primary weapon, he's not going to hit. Likewise for the "DPS" who is spending all is time in forward stance, his opportunity cost for things that he has forsaken is very high.

... how so?

I'm the DPS character in question, and I've given up nothing that I care about. I'm the best in Fellowship at Awe and Athletics and Hunting, and I hit like a hammer. The only thing my build sacrifices is some survivability... which, if the hope-engine were allowed, would be inconsequential. For that matter, the hope-engine opens up options for me! Right now, I'm looking at the Great Strength Virtue and seriously considering it, because it increases my Parry by a lot and that's important to me. If I could hide behind the tank all the time, I'd be like "screw that" and would load up on some gear that would increase my damage potential but which Great Strength, as a Virtue, wouldn't let me carry because of Encumbrance.

So he puts only 2 ranks in his weapon because that's all he needs for Forward stance right? Sure...for a basic hit. So he hits a lot but not for extra damage because those 2 dice aren't getting him much in the way of Tengwars. The same two characters could have had 3 rank attacks each, both be hanging in Open Stance, and hit for more, on average.*

... why on earth would the guy who is focused on damage output only put two ranks in his weapon? You want to fish for Tengwars!

Also, you can't do damage if you're dead. The guys using the hope-engine are going to live a lot longer than the two guys hanging out in Open Stance.

This is a game that, like Savage Worlds, rewards jack-of-all-trades because of the Feat Die and because of the invoking of Attribute Bonuses. You pay a heavy price for specialization in TOR.

As near as I can tell, you almost CAN'T specialize in TOR. There are two completely disjoint advancement paths that don't interact with each other, and there are hard caps on what would be considered traditionally attractive places to increase character power. (It's hard to get more Endurance, hard to get more Parry, the fact that you can't get much more Endurance limits the number of things you can carry, etc.) Unless you're so bull-headed you insist on pouring all your AP obsessively into a single skill, you almost certainly are gonna be good at at least two things... and you'll eventually max that skill and have to branch into others.

I can also tell you this. As a player who has a mid-level character, spending all your time in defensive stance really isn't as great as you might think once you start routinely facing monsters with favored 2d or 3d attacks. And the LM doesn't need to bust out Nazgul or Trolls necessarily for that, either.

This interests me, and I'm curious as to the logic here. If you're up against guys with favored 2d and 3d attacks, why wouldn't you go into Defensive? If you go into Open or Forward, aren't you just begging to get mauled? I don't know about you, but I don't like getting mauled. I camp in Defensive unless I have a damned good reason to leave it because I'd like not to die.

* Honestly, if there is a problem with the game, it's that there is little reason to be in Forward stance after you get 3 ranks in your weapon, and little reason for Open stance after you get 4.

Speaking as someone who started play with 3 ranks in their weapon, I am salivating at getting my fourth rank, because I have trouble hitting stuff. The damn tank is hitting more often than I do, because he bought a fourth rank at our first fellowship phase and I bought a Virtue instead. I didn't want to, but the rest of the party was getting utterly ruined by Travel rolls, and I went "For the good of the group, I will take Twice-baked Honey Cakes, just so we don't get screwed over by weariness."

(We're all first-time players of this system and I am literally the only person who realized just how much of a killer Fatigue can be and designed appropriately. Everyone else was very, very surprised when we took a trip through Mirkwood and suddenly Fatigue started piling up.)

I do agree with your statement, tho. I only leave Defensive when I need to Intimidate Foe. That happens a lot; I'm very good at it and will only get better. Otherwise? I stay in Defensive.