New Combat Task Ideas

[poosticks7]

I quite like these ideas - I haven't got time to type loads so I'll be brief.

Perhaps consider a simple mechanic to stop these new options being open to abuse/overuse - If a great or extraordinary are not rolled then the option cannot be used again in the same combat. Or perhaps a hope point is needed to use the option again. (I think this is a fairly simple addition that should help maintain balance).

[Glorelendil]

re: Overuse

What kind of abuse are you worried about? Second Wind maybe should be a once-per-fight thing, but the others:

Taunt: you would be limited by the number of opponents that can attack a single target. And in any event it would be unwise to get too many adversaries on one hero. But...maybe each failure increases the TN for that target by 2 on subsequent attempts?

Evade/Dodge: I see nothing wrong with chaining this. If you want to keep giving up your attacks to go all out defense, that's fine.

Break the Line: Nothing wrong with repeated attempts if you fail, and you only need one success.

Shield Pummel: It's a small damage increase, only usable in Forward, and foregoes Parry, so again I don't see a problem with using it every turn.

[Rich H]

What kind of abuse are you worried about? Second Wind maybe should be a once-per-fight thing.

It already is, as per the earlier post, and I agree the others seem to be okay as you're either picking one of these options over attacking your opponent or losing something else (eg, Shield Parry when using it to attack).

[poosticks7]

I suppose what I was trying to get at was that if you introduce too many options you may get players coming up with unlikely combinations that are too effective. I suppose I may be over thinking it, but sometimes when you introduce rules like this odd combinations become too effective.

You don't want to encourage a mentality of 'gamering' - although thinking about it, my idea itself might do so.

Anyway I'm not criticizing - just thinking out loud*



*well in an actually typing it out kinda way

[Bomilkar]

I feel inclined to agree with poosticks here. While I don't think that my group would mine a longer list of Combat Tasks for perfect combos I don't want to overload them with too many different options. To me, about two tasks per combat stance look like the sweet spot.

However, I'm not too certain about which tasks I would want to add - that's why I really like this thread. It gives me a lot of different ideas and people discuss the validity of the different tasks. I will most definitely add some Evasion to the Defensive Stance, while Offensive might get a double attack, which is somewhat inspired by the Spear of the Last Alliance from the Rivendell Sourcebook. For Open I am thinking about Taunt or Hinder, but I am a bit uncertain about what would be more useful without being too great.

The other great things about a long list of tasks is that you might offer some of them to players in a certain situation, even though they may not be used in every battle. For example, you could allow a Hobbit to taunt an especially big and nasty spider with thrown rocks and some mocking songs in order to lead it on a wild chase through the forest while the rest of the companions deal with the rest of the nest and, hopefully, come to the Hobbit's rescue afterwards.

[Glorelendil]

Hmm. I was initially opposed to the idea of putting Taunt in Open because the whole idea was to making "tanking" feasible, as a combination of gear choices, virtues, stance, and use of Taunt. But maybe that's making it too powerful: the idea that you have to take one hit in Open before switching to Defensive makes it a little bit riskier.

And, besides, the idea that you can hang back, hunker down, and convince an enemy that you're an enticing target is a...stretch. (Conversely, in Forward stance you look like somebody they specifically want to avoid.)

By the way, going back to the part about switching targets, the following occurred to me: maybe if you attack an adversary who is engaged with somebody other than you, any existing adversaries with you are engaged get a reduced TN (-2) to hit you. That's to reflect the fact that you're sort of ignoring the ones who are already attacking you. (I mean, realistically you should be easier to hit for each attacker beyond one that is on you, but that doesn't feel like the spirit of TOR.)

[Robin Smallburrow]

Rich H

I love your Tactical Acumen idea because it reinforces one of the main themes of TOR - working as a Fellowship together! I have mentioned in previous posts the most important consideration for combat is to work together as a Fellowship should - I will ALWAYS reward PC's who do this over those who push individual barrows.

Robin S.

[Glorelendil]

Rich,

Have you come up with any ideas for how to tune Tactical Acumen? I've been thinking about it but don't have a solution yet. I think "resource transferral" mechanics are tricky because you only want to use it if it results in net resource gain.There are three choices (that I know of):
1) It's a straight up, deterministic "resource profit", in which case it's a no-brainer to use it and not interesting game design.
2) It's randomly determined, in which case you have to balance the likelihood of success versus the potential gain. Tricky to do.
3) It's situationally advantageous. This can be combined with either #1 or #2.


And here's my latest variant of Hinder:
Requires Open Stance
Freely usable.
Roll attack against an opponent. On a success, instead of doing damage you prevent that opponent from using Called Shot until the end of your next turn. On a great success, you also raise the opponents attack TNs by 2; on an extraordinary success you raise them by 4. On a failure with an eye, you fall prone: on your next turn you can't attack, you can't change stance, and you lose your Parry bonus (base TN by stance only).

[Rich H]

Rich,

Have you come up with any ideas for how to tune Tactical Acumen?

I had a chat with my players and we've ended up moving it so it is used in a Rearward Stance to allow characters an option other than escaping combat or using ranged weapons - kind of like a General or tactician offering aid as and when required.

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

At the expense of their attack, 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 applied as usual.

... They seem to be happy with this setup and the additional support a Rearward character could offer those in melee - ie, providing additional Success Dice. I'm thinking that, perhaps, it should only be able to be used once per melee.

[Rich H]

I love your Tactical Acumen idea...

I agree with you but I can't take credit as this was something I have just lifted from the old forum and added to my own game. I do like the idea though and agree with you.