Armour Tests and Fellowship Focus

[Stormcrow]

Rocco's axiom clearly states that if you have to populate an entire room full of pre-buffed invisible Ancient Red Wyrms, something in your game (and probably the system) is amiss.

There is a difference between setting fights in tactically interesting situations and stacking fights with ludicrious enemies. And you DON'T have to do it every time—let them fight some of the tougher fights on bright, open plains if you like. Variety is the spice of One Ring combat. I'd consider a fight on a stormy mountain path far more interesting than a fight on a peaceful plain simply due to the dramatic setting, never mind the game-mechanical effects.

The game also posits a combat frequency of once every two sessions. You don't need to go too far afield at that pace.

[Rocmistro]

I hope you can appreciate the hyperbolic comparison was meant to produce a good chuckle more than any serious contrast.

I mean c'mon...a whole cave full of Ancient Red Wyrms with invisibility just waiting to pounce on PC's. It's frekking hilarious.

[Murcushio]

I can't even imagine what a full party of Beornings all with that Virtue would be like. You could conceivably drop the TN all the way to zero.

I very much doubt the virtue is intended to stack...

If you want me to spell out the logical argument for why that's true I'm happy to do so, but in the meantime I'll assume you are being facetious.

Oh, the difficulty reduction part almost certainly wasn't intended to stack, you're right. (Although as-written, it clearly does stack; intent and what actually goes into the rules are two different things.)

Although I'd make the argument that the extra Fellowship rating part of the Virtue is both intended to, and should, stack. Like having multiple Hobbits in the party.

[Glorelendil]

I guess it's not a problem so much as it makes for a flat game.

LM: "ok guys declare your st...."
Heroes: "DEFENSIVE!!!"

If you throw those complications into the mix they're much less likely to do this. If you're fighting in the dark in cramped quarters (TN +6) you may have trouble hitting from a defensive stance (TN 18).

Sure, that's fine, but how many times can you do that without it seeming a bit forced and ridiculous?

This reminds me of a D&D campaign where our players had reached like 18th level, and of course in 3.5 with no limits on multi-classing and the expectation of just "getting" magic items at certain level benchmarks, the GM had to populate an entire cave full of pre-buffed, invisible Ancient Red Wyrms in order to provide us a threat. Rocco's axiom clearly states that if you have to populate an entire room full of pre-buffed invisible Ancient Red Wyrms, something in your game (and probably the system) is amiss.

I had to invent "Star Giants" to rein in players who had gotten too powerful. This was 30+ years ago, and if I were to send an email to my old friend Matt with the subject line "Star Giants" he would know instantly what I was talking about....

[Glorelendil]

Although I'd make the argument that the extra Fellowship rating part of the Virtue is both intended to, and should, stack. Like having multiple Hobbits in the party.

Agreed.

But I think we're all wandering off into the weeds a little bit and talking like we're playing D&D in Middle School.

Here's where I come out: if there's a good narrative reason for the "tank" and the "dps" to do the Fellowship Focus trick, then I'm fine with it.

If they're only doing it in order to get the awesome mechanical synergy....then we're playing the wrong game.

[Stormcrow]

I hope you can appreciate the hyperbolic comparison was meant to produce a good chuckle more than any serious contrast.

With the characters in this forum, I can't tell.

[Glorelendil]

I hope you can appreciate the hyperbolic comparison was meant to produce a good chuckle more than any serious contrast.

With the characters in this forum, I can't tell.

Seriously? I find this group to be exceptionally un-powergamey. Except for Rich H., who is apparently in a Lollipop Guild. I read that on teh Interwebz.

[Hermes Serpent]

I'd agree with the Crusher of Elves, mostly my hyperbole is designed to have people go "What did he say?" rather than take them at face value and to think about things. Some of the issues of things not being quite right with the rules are possibly dependent on how much editing was done to clarify things for rules lawyer types who study every nuance in the text. In most cases I think Francesco and the editing team have erred on the side of a light touch and expected players to go with the flavour of the Professor's works and not treat it like a game where the characters are murder hobos of the worst sort seeking every advantage in some sort of competition to be the baddest guy in town.

If you do not want to play in a game where two players synergize to demolish their opponents then you have choices; go with the flow, have a discussion with said players about expectations or find another set of players. Similarly for players farming AP's or spamming Hope or whatever is annoying you today.

[Rich H]

Except for Rich H., who is apparently in a Lollipop Guild. I read that on teh Interwebz.

... Yep. I like to dip 'em in my bear.

[aramis]

I hope you can appreciate the hyperbolic comparison was meant to produce a good chuckle more than any serious contrast.

With the characters in this forum, I can't tell.

Seriously? I find this group to be exceptionally un-powergamey. Except for Rich H., who is apparently in a Lollipop Guild. I read that on teh Interwebz.

As a player, I tend to be a serious munchkin from hell.
Not as a GM, tho'.

I can see people abusing the fellowship focus mechanic, but, generally, it takes a hope to divert the attack in the first place, which is a clear cut case for it being recovered by focus.

Spending upon the armor test allows you to continue protecting them, which is why I allow it, as well.