Combat Tasks to help archer in small Fellowships

[Glorelendil]

I guess the difference is that I don't see it as a "minute detail". If you change the ratio, then you also have to change the number of adversaries that can engage a single hero, or you risk having adversaries standing around doing nothing.

The ratios aren't arbitrary numbers; they are part of an exceedingly well thought-out system.

[JoeArcher]

I guess the difference is that I don't see it as a "minute detail". If you change the ratio, then you also have to change the number of adversaries that can engage a single hero, or you risk having adversaries standing around doing nothing.

The ratios aren't arbitrary numbers; they are part of an exceedingly well thought-out system.

For me that issue has more to do with gameplay balance than staying true to the books alone. Changing the ratio makes it easier on archers, but it removes a layer of tactics when players can just do the same every combat. I'm also glad that TOR have embraced the low fantasy theme so well. All other Middle Earth RPGs so far have been very poor representations of Tolkiens work and only half decent fantasy games at best. The One Ring is an amazing Middle Earth RPG and on top of that it's just an awesome system. I am currently playing a WFRP 3rd ed. campaign (TEW) and am considering porting over to this rules system, simply so we can focus more on story and less of crunch/fiddling.

But have now read through TOR book and must say that even when reading the crunchy parts I felt it really supported the mood of the setting. Absolutely brilliant ME RPG and hands down the best fantasy rules in general - covering everything I want, while keeping it elegantly simple.

[Stormcrow]

Why do we want to go easy on archers?

[JoeArcher]

Why do we want to go easy on archers?

I don't think we do.

[Hermes Serpent]

Ah, you think gameplay balance comes into it. Sorry this isn't your most common fantasy game on the market. Balance is not something that appears to have been primary in the design of the One Ring. True, no-one culture is excessively 'must-have', but the discussion on the old forums about King's Blade and other Virtues and Rewards proved that balance did not apparently come into the design equation.

[JoeArcher]

Ah, you think gameplay balance comes into it. Sorry this isn't your most common fantasy game on the market. Balance is not something that appears to have been primary in the design of the One Ring. True, no-one culture is excessively 'must-have', but the discussion on the old forums about King's Blade and other Virtues and Rewards proved that balance did not apparently come into the design equation.

Of course balance was part of the equation. RPGs are about having fun and if the balance was way off one way or the other, it wouldn't be fun. This system looks like a lot of effort went into making sure it was streamlined and fun to play. I'm not talking about balance across cultures etc. but about the balance of the core system, which the combat system is one component of. I am sure they discussed when players should die, when monsters should die, what the right amount of endurance/fatigue was and also how ranged combat should work etc. I don't believe that the fine balance of this system was down to sheer coincidence and luck

[Glorelendil]

Ah, you think gameplay balance comes into it. Sorry this isn't your most common fantasy game on the market. Balance is not something that appears to have been primary in the design of the One Ring. True, no-one culture is excessively 'must-have', but the discussion on the old forums about King's Blade and other Virtues and Rewards proved that balance did not apparently come into the design equation.

Of course balance was part of the equation. RPGs are about having fun and if the balance was way off one way or the other, it wouldn't be fun. This system looks like a lot of effort went into making sure it was streamlined and fun to play. I'm not talking about balance across cultures etc. but about the balance of the core system, which the combat system is one component of. I am sure they discussed when players should die, when monsters should die, what the right amount of endurance/fatigue was and also how ranged combat should work etc. I don't believe that the fine balance of this system was down to sheer coincidence and luck

You just changed the topic on Hermes Serpent. We were talking about how effective archery should be, implicitly in comparison to close combat. That is balance between character options, so it is analogous to balance between cultures. And I agree with H.S.: Francesco did not attempt to make archery equally effective/potent/viable compared to close combat. The design of the game biases toward close combat, with archery only being effective if certain criteria can be met.

This conversation is drifting toward the sort of discussion that squanders quadrillions of precious electrons on the WoW and D&D forums: "Dual wielding is not balanced with two-handers!" "Sorcerers are not balanced with Warlocks!" "Rogues are not balanced with Rangers!" etc. etc. etc.

That's just not as high a priority with TOR, and I for one am happy about that.

[JoeArcher]

Oh that specifically... yeah I agree with that. I don't mind it either. Ranged combat is just another option and since everyone can do both, balance is fine.