Elf-lights and Nazgul

[Glorelendil]

I think you're better off outrunning your companions.

Which is probably the real reason Gandalf suggested that Thorin take a Hobbit along.

[Hermes Serpent]

Now to avoid hero's wielding a lit torch in place of a shield I might caution them against such shenanigans.

What's wrong with that? It seems a most sensible precaution against adversaries that fear fire. Mind you, I wouldn't allow attacking with the torch at the same time as attacking with a weapon, but I would certainly allow a player-hero to trigger an adversary's fear of fire just by holding a torch with their off-hand.

You do remember my diatribe against the anathema that is dual-wielding don't you?

It's more a case of 'No you can't fight the opponent with your sword and do anything useful (other than illuminate the area) with your off-hand torch'.

[Valarian]

Of course you can. You take a stance where the torch is in front and the sword slightly behind. The torch is used to ward off the foe. If they approach, hit them with the sword. I'd say it's a valid defensive stance.

[Rich H]

I don't see the problem either in wielding a lit torch in a character's off hand, not to attack with but to defend against the Nazgul. At the end of the day it's only like holding a shield but without the Parry benefit that a shield brings. Like Valarian said above, a character would use the torch to ward against the creature and then attack with the weapon in hand. I don't see any issue at all in working this way.

I'd also allow things like a campfire to trigger a creature's Fear of Fire, if the company were fighting near it.

[Hermes Serpent]

@Valarian and Rich H, not had to deal with many players who take every opportunity to minimax or otherwise try and turn every game into murder hobo city then?

Lucky for me I have one set of FTF players who play by the Professor's standards and a well behaved on-line group that don't make my life difficult in this way. For others it's easier to say no, there are no rules for that and I'm not letting you do it. I have previously mentioned the opening session of a game where I had to dish out Shadow Points to one player who wanted to loot the inn that had been ravaged by orcs and the inhabitants taken. The joys of providing games in a club/group setting where you don't get to chose your players.

[Otaku-sempai]

I don't see the problem either in wielding a lit torch in a character's off hand, not to attack with but to defend against the Nazgul. At the end of the day it's only like holding a shield but without the Parry benefit that a shield brings. Like Valarian said above, a character would use the torch to ward against the creature and then attack with the weapon in hand. I don't see any issue at all in working this way.

For that matter, if a PC knows how to parry with his off hand, there is no reason why he can't use a torch, light club, small stool, or any other object that can easily be held in that hand. Of course there is the chance of losing the item that is being used to parry, but one takes one's chances and what happens, happens.

And from a practical perspective, if one has locked weapons with one's opponent and does have an off-hand weapon in use to parry, there is no reason why an attack should not be attempted with the off hand--it is just as valid as attempting a punch or other strike with a free hand/fist.

[Glorelendil]

I won't get into the mudpit over whether improvised offhands should have combat bonuses, but as a general opponent of dual wielding style (except in high fantasy games) I have no problem with holding a torch instead of a shield.

[Rich H]

@Valarian and Rich H, not had to deal with many players who take every opportunity to minimax or otherwise try and turn every game into murder hobo city then?

Yes and I choose to pick my games carefully with such groups, or not game at all (no gaming is better than bad gaming), however using a torch in the character's off-hand in order to take advantage of a creature's Fear of Fire, and foregoing the benefits of a shield or the two-handed stats of a weapon like a longsword, is hardly min-maxing is it?

For others it's easier to say no, there are no rules for that and I'm not letting you do it.

There are no rules for characters breathing in a game either, but it doesn't mean they can't and don't do it. Reductio ad absurdum maybe, but it's a GMs job in pretty much any RPG to apply rulings rather than just rules, as rules don't exist for every outcome in a game.

I have previously mentioned the opening session of a game where I had to dish out Shadow Points to one player who wanted to loot the inn that had been ravaged by orcs and the inhabitants taken. The joys of providing games in a club/group setting where you don't get to chose your players.

That's a whole different discussion but you have my sympathies - most of the problems I've ever had in RPing is when the players and the game aren't aligned. Often it's best to play a different game with such a group.

[Hermes Serpent]

Oh how I wish I could be selective when running a game at the local club. Basically you put up a game and take pot luck for whoever signs up. We're currently playing a Game of Thrones session where one player when asked about his character said 'I want to play an assassin'. The game description specified a political game but you still get the 'I hit it' player who can't put two words coherently in a row, but has maximised his potential for combat.

Last Session I ran World War Cthulhu in Paris, France 1942, I had a sniper (same guy as above) and several military types. Hardly any of them chose French as a language despite the game blurb suggesting appropriate skills. I had two players out of six that you could hold a RP conversation in character with the others, not so much.

These are the joys of running games where you can't filter for compatibility.