New Combat Task Ideas

[Glorelendil]

Taunt:
I would shift it down to 1 round per success. However I would make Taunt a Persuade check. Also, keep Taunt in Open stance.*

Hinder:
Now Hinder I would make a Riddle test (10+Att Level), and I would keep the Moderately Hindered malus, but also add in that the foe may not spend any hate for the next turn. Hinder would be Forward stance.*

* Only going this way because the default meta seems to be 1 stance for each action. While we're at it, why not have a combat option in Defensive stance? Having now some experience with the game, I think it needs something like "Turtle" (Defensive stance only): Give up your attack to add your Valor rating to your parry this round.

Hmm. Really good points.

1) Maybe 1 round per success on Taunt, but no loss of attack? Or should it still be loss of attack? (My thinking is that the only benefit is changing the target; you're not restoring Endurance, draining Hate, etc.)

2) I think Persuade is a good idea, but I'd make it Persuade or Riddle. Mostly because "Persuade" doesn't seem to fully describe it (are you persuading a Troll, or befuddling him?), but also because the flavor of using Riddle just tickled my fancy. It would be different from the other combat tasks by giving a choice, but throughout the game there are instances of "Use Skill X or Y..." Also I was thinking of it as a downside to add yet another Personality skill to combat tasks, but maybe that's a good symmetry?

3) Also a good point that Open needs its own combat task to achieve symmetry. I was going for a different symmetry: the two new tasks each exclude one CC stance, rather than require one. And in the case of Taunt, the idea is that you're "tanking" so you'd want to be in Defensive stance. But...I can also see the argument that you're going to have a hard time convincing somebody to attack you if you're hanging back acting all defensive. So maybe the "price" of using Taunt is that for the round that you're using it you have to be a little more exposed; you can switch to Defensive next round.

4) I like "turtle" (probably needs a new name). Valour is a good concept, but makes it pretty weak at low levels. Maybe favoured wits bonus, or valour, whichever is greater?

Thanks for feedback! I might allow some new combat tasks in the PbP game I'm starting.

[Rich H]

Just adding to the thread but I use this Combat Tasks in my campaign...

FORWARD STANCE

SHIELD PUMMEL
Using a shield as a bashing and stunning weapon is an ancient tactic, founded due to practicality. Blocking a large, heavy, blunt object is vastly more difficult than turning aside a blade.

Shields do not inflict grievous injuries, although their use is still tactically sound. A player-hero currently engaged in the forward stance and armed with a shield may perform a shield pummel. Attacking in this fashion sacrifices the shield's parry bonus for the round. The player-hero's attack is conducted with their primary weapon with any shield effects added on a successful strike. A hit adds an amount of damage equal to the shield's Encumbrance.

A successful Called Shot whilst utilising shield pummel enables the attacker to decide between their weapon's typical Called Shot or that provided by the task. Shield pummel's Called Shot, Dazed, reduces the victim's parry rating by the shield's own parry rating (to a minimum of zero) until the start of the attacker's next turn.

OPEN STANCE

TACTICAL ACUMEN
Calling upon their own battle experience and observation, a player-hero in the open stance may task tactical acumen to bolster their companions with timely assistance and advice.

At the expense of a point of Hope, the player-hero may roll Battle to determine combat advantage, just as is normally done at the onset of a conflict. Combat advantage determined in this fashion is delegated to one's companions, however, but otherwise is applied as usual.

DEFENSIVE STANCE

EVASIVE
Opting out of any form of offense, a player-hero in the defensive stance tasks evasive to present their most formidable, and single-minded, defence possible.

By sacrificing their attack for the round, the player-hero makes an Athletics roll. The TN for this roll is 10 plus the highest Attribute level amongst the opponents faced. A successful roll applies a bonus to their parry rating dependent on their quality of success:

• Ordinary success: +2 parry rating

• Great success: +4 parry rating

• Extraordinary success: +6 parry rating

This bonus persists until the start of the player-hero's next turn.

REARWARD STANCE

STORM OF ARROWS
From their rearward vantage point, an archer can alternatively fire a barrage of arrows, potentially injuring multiple opponents.

At the cost of one point of Hope, a player-hero in the rearward stance makes a single attack. The number of targets struck depends on the degree of success. Unless stated otherwise, all damage is base weapon damage.

• Ordinary success: One target struck

• Great success: Two targets struck

• Extraordinary success: Either two targets struck with damage increased by the attacker's Body, or three targets struck

ANY CLOSE COMBAT STANCE

RE-DIRECT ATTACK
If they are within reach, a hero may change the target of his attack to any opponent in a close combat stance by choosing one of the following two options, depending on his strategy for defending himself during the re-direct:

• Wary: Add +2 to his attack TN

• Wide-open: Modify his defence TN by -2 during the next sequence of enemy attacks

SECOND WIND
While a character is not Wounded; once every battle, instead of attacking, a player-hero may spend a point of Hope and recover a number of Endurance points equal to their Heart plus a bonus amount equal to the Success Dice rating of any armour worn.

• For example, Thogrim the Dwarf elects to use his Second Wind, spending a point of Hope, and recovering a total of 8 Endurance points; his Heart score of 3 plus 5 as he is wearing Mail Hauberk (5D) armour.

This option can be combined within the same turn as removing a character's helm. Also, if the endurance points replenished would mean the character is no longer Wearied then this state can be removed for the duration of the combat encounter.

[Glorelendil]

What are the normal rules for changing targets in close combat? The only relevant rule I could find was this statement: "Heroes engaged by multiple foes may choose freely which adversary to attack." That seems to suggest your choice is limited to those who have chosen to engage you, but why does the enemy's choice determine targets? Why can't you "choose to engage" an enemy that has "chosen to engage" your companion?

Rich, how often do your players use Tactical Acumen? It seems to me that you're giving up a Hope point for the mere possibility of one or more dice, which have to be used before a roll, whereas if you just let the other player spend a point of Hope themselves they get a guaranteed bonus worth (on average) 1-2 dice, but used after the roll when you can be sure it won't be wasted. (And do you give up your attack to use it?) Scenarios where I could see TA being useful:
- The other player is all out of Hope, or otherwise is prevented from invoking attributes
- The other player has a really low attribute (2-3) and you have high Battle
- Things are so desperate that he'll need both an attribute invocation AND extra dice

I like Shield Pummel a lot. Another much-needed reason to use Forward Stance at higher skill levels.

[Rich H]

What are the normal rules for changing targets in close combat? The only relevant rule I could find was this statement: "Heroes engaged by multiple foes may choose freely which adversary to attack." That seems to suggest your choice is limited to those who have chosen to engage you, but why does the enemy's choice determine targets? Why can't you "choose to engage" an enemy that has "chosen to engage" your companion

From the rules:

More Enemies than Heroes
The Loremaster pairs each unengaged creature with an unengaged companion in close combat. Remaining creatures can either engage a hero who is already engaged, or stand back, possibly to attack using a ranged weapon.

More Heroes than Enemies (or sides equally matched)
The players pair each unengaged hero with an unengaged adversary. Any remaining companion can then be assigned to face a creature that is already engaged.

A character is engaged when paired in close combat with at least one opponent. A combatant remains engaged until he defeats all opposition.

Heroes engaged by multiple foes may choose freely which adversary to attack.

I interpret this last bit as the heroes engaged within their own personal melee - ie, if 2 orcs are fighting Thogrim (in a larger battle where the other PC's are also each engaged by an enemy); I therefore use the Re-Direct Attack to allow the PC to select a target outside of his personal melee. So, in the above example Thogrim could decide not to attack one of the 2 orcs directly attacking him and pick another orc, within range, that was engaged with one of his companions.

I feel it adds more tactical options and interesting choices with my interpretation; not saying my way is the right interpretation of the RAW though.

[Rich H]

Rich, how often do your players use Tactical Acumen? It seems to me that you're giving up a Hope point for the mere possibility of one or more dice, which have to be used before a roll, whereas if you just let the other player spend a point of Hope themselves they get a guaranteed bonus worth (on average) 1-2 dice, but used after the roll when you can be sure it won't be wasted. (And do you give up your attack to use it?) Scenarios where I could see TA being useful:
- The other player is all out of Hope, or otherwise is prevented from invoking attributes
- The other player has a really low attribute (2-3) and you have high Battle
- Things are so desperate that he'll need both an attribute invocation AND extra dice

Yeah, this is a new one I've only just introduced as an option for the group so, under closer scrutiny, it may be need altering.

I like Shield Pummel a lot. Another much-needed reason to use Forward Stance at higher skill levels.

... And it's weaker than the Men of the Lake Culture's comparable Shield Fighting virtue, which I think is important/critical.

[Glorelendil]

re: RAW. I also infer your interpretation from the key sentence, but it seems pretty tenuous. As I mentioned, the consequence is that adversaries get to "choose" who gets to attack whom, which seems odd. I think I'd rule that heroes can choose to engage any enemy who is already engage in close combat, unless specific circumstances make that unlikely.

But it also suggests a new combat task, to parallel Great Leap and Fell Speed:

"Break Lines"
Requires Forward Stance
Burst through enemy lines to attack ranged attackers. Uses Athletics like Escape Combat, but with the following results:
On a Failure you can't get past the enemy's close combatants
On a Failure with an Eye you stumble and fall down (next round lose your attack and parry bonus, can't change stance)
On a Success you engage the ranged attacker(s) of your choice.
On a Great or Extraordinary Success you have Surprised the ranged adversaries.

Maybe too complicated?

[Rich H]

re: RAW. I also infer your interpretation from the key sentence, but it seems pretty tenuous. As I mentioned, the consequence is that adversaries get to "choose" who gets to attack whom, which seems odd. I think I'd rule that heroes can choose to engage any enemy who is already engage in close combat, unless specific circumstances make that unlikely.

I find the idea that a player character can be engaged by one adversary but then ignore it and choose another to attack to be okay in principal, but not to my taste as the default setting. It's why I use the combat task to provide the RAW 'default' option but to give more of a choice and provide more logic to the engaged status and what that means with regard to attacking - ie, if this creature engages you then its going to attack you and you should, by default, do the same (unless you select this combat task).

But it also suggests a new combat task, to parallel Great Leap and Fell Speed:

"Break Lines"
Requires Forward Stance
Burst through enemy lines to attack ranged attackers. Uses Athletics like Escape Combat, but with the following results:
On a Failure you can't get past the enemy's close combatants
On a Failure with an Eye you stumble and fall down (next round lose your attack and parry bonus, can't change stance)
On a Success you engage the ranged attacker(s) of your choice.
On a Great or Extraordinary Success you have Surprised the ranged adversaries.

Maybe too complicated?

I think that's pretty nice actually, not too complicated at all.

[Glorelendil]

Is there a written rule for falling prone? I thought there was but I couldn't find it.

[dsmvites]

Taunt"
Befuddle, ridicule, and confuse an adversary who is attacking somebody other than you. Roll Riddle against a TN of 10 + Attribute Level of target. If successful, the adversary will switch to attacking you for 2 turns per success (e.g. 6 turns on an Extraordinary Success.) On a failure with an Eye the adversary gains a point of Hate. Requires Defensive or Open stance.

I have been using Taunt already here with a different approach:

If enemy is defending, change stance to Forward for 1 round (2 on great, 3 on extraordinary), unless enemy is in Rearward. If enemy is attacking all Hate costs are double for 1 round (2 on great, 3 on extraordinary) against the character.

[Glorelendil]

Taunt"
Befuddle, ridicule, and confuse an adversary who is attacking somebody other than you. Roll Riddle against a TN of 10 + Attribute Level of target. If successful, the adversary will switch to attacking you for 2 turns per success (e.g. 6 turns on an Extraordinary Success.) On a failure with an Eye the adversary gains a point of Hate. Requires Defensive or Open stance.

I have been using Taunt already here with a different approach:

If enemy is defending, change stance to Forward for 1 round (2 on great, 3 on extraordinary), unless enemy is in Rearward. If enemy is attacking all Hate costs are double for 1 round (2 on great, 3 on extraordinary) against the character.

How do you determine if an enemy is attacking or defending?

I'm trying to parse this, and it seems like you are assigning stances to adversaries. Is that correct?