Armour Tests and Fellowship Focus

[Glorelendil]

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

That's kind of how I see it. It's all one action, even if it's a two-part roll, so it's strange (to me) to call part of it protecting your focus and part of it...something else.

Besides, it's hard to protect your focus if you're lying on the ground with your life bleeding out of you. Amirite?

[Murcushio]

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.

I would submit that it is possible to want to be Mister Clever Boots and take advantage of strong mechanical synergies and build the mechanically strongest character you can, while at the same time having a strong commitment to narrative gameplay. I have friends whose primary complaint about the soon-to-be-retired 4th Edition of D&D is, I kid you not, that it lacked some of the support for activities not revolving around slaying things in previous editions. Typical complaints about D&D do not run in that direction, but rather in the direction of "at high levels spellcasting classes break compared to melee classes" and suchly.

Crusher of Elves

You know, EC, I've been meaning to ask; are you someone who crushes elves specifically, or an elf that crushes things of all sorts?

It's ambiguous.

[Rocmistro]

I would submit that it is possible to want to be Mister Clever Boots and take advantage of strong mechanical synergies and build the mechanically strongest character you can, while at the same time having a strong commitment to narrative gameplay....

This describes me very well, Murcushio.

[Rich H]

You know, EC, I've been meaning to ask; are you someone who crushes elves specifically, or an elf that crushes things of all sorts?

It's ambiguous.

... Even that'll still be ambiguous. Is the 'crushing' a violence thing (smashing 'em to bits) or a love thing (in the same way that I love bear).

[aramis]

I would submit that it is possible to want to be Mister Clever Boots and take advantage of strong mechanical synergies and build the mechanically strongest character you can, while at the same time having a strong commitment to narrative gameplay....

This describes me very well, Murcushio.

It also describes my kids. They are looking to optimize their damage capabilities, but really do get into the story.

[Glorelendil]

I would submit that it is possible to want to be Mister Clever Boots and take advantage of strong mechanical synergies and build the mechanically strongest character you can, while at the same time having a strong commitment to narrative gameplay....

This describes me very well, Murcushio.

That's pretty much what I meant by Case A. I don't see anything wrong with min-maxing, as long as story doesn't become subservient to it.

[Glorelendil]

You know, EC, I've been meaning to ask; are you someone who crushes elves specifically, or an elf that crushes things of all sorts?

It's ambiguous.

It's the name of my first World of Warcraft character, an orc warrior, from 2005. I hadn't played EQ so I didn't really understand the "PvP" and faction thing and was in a D&D mindset. Consequently I spent the next year getting ganked and camped by every Night Elf on the Bonechewer server.

So I guess it really means "He who gets crushed repeatedly by elves."

[Rocmistro]

Oh man, you just opened the can of Wowrms.

Admins, lock this thread now before it's too late.

[Glorelendil]

Ok, to sort of get it back on track...

I was thinking about the case in question, and somebody's reference to "tank" and "dps". I do wish there were some kind of option for tanking that didn't involve spending a point of Hope for each attack. It's fun to be able to build a character that is able to take some abuse, versus one that is designed to strike hard and leap away. But then neither is more likely than the other to be engaged by opponents. Personally I'd like to see some kind of options for 'influencing' adversaries.

Some thoughts/ideas (not all of them compatible, and not in logical order...):

1) Such a system shouldn't guarantee that the tank gets all the aggro and the dps gets none, but it should bias things that direction.
2) If it's based on a common skill, which one? 'Awe' could potentially be used to convince adversaries you're the greatest threat, but it already has a combat use and it would become too important for defensive builds. 'Battle' might apply to knowing how to 'get in the way' of adversaries. 'Riddle' might be used to provoke and enrage them. Song? Persuade? ("I'm going to use my Courtesy: 0 on the orc." "Nice roll; he's so insulted he decides to attack you instead.")
3) Unlike "Protect Companion"; the mechanism wouldn't guarantee success, but it would last either X number of rounds (2 per success?) or until something else in the fight changes. So instead of 'taking the bullet' for your companion, you're actually convincing the adversary to change targets.
4) It should probably only work on one target per use, and can't work on additional targets once the maximum that can engage the tank at one time is reached.
5) Yes, this would change the overall 'power' of Fellowships. See addendum below.
6) Maybe relevant Enemy-lore should result in auto-successes? Or increase number of successes or reduce TN? (Orc-lore, Spider-lore, Wolf-lore, etc.) Especially if it's based on Riddle.
7) This does suggest a new Enchanted Quality: something that makes 'taunt' more effective or less expensive (e.g., allows you to use it without losing your attack, if that's what the cost is.) I guess Artefacts could boost the skill in question, too. (The same way that an artefact can boost Awe and a weapon can remove the cost of Intimidate Foe.)
8) Does it work on ranged attackers? I think so.


Addendum: Don't like that this makes fellowships more powerful? Kill two crebain with one arkenstone and also implement the following: when computing damage from extra successes, you don't get any bonus damage in Defensive, you can only have one extra success in Open, and you can have both extra successes in Forward.