Adventurer's Companion - Speculation

[Deadmanwalking]

They just seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity to include another Culture is all.

Is more (always) better? I can see the benefit for players who have a character concept for a Breelander that they are itching to play, but I wonder...in all RPGs including this one...if there is such a thing as too much choice. How much design space is available, before the cultures begin to blend into each other?

The same question could be asked of weapon choices. For both, I tend to err on the cautious/conservative side.

I've gotta half-agree here. You can't add an unlimited number of Cultures and have it work well. That said, I think any number up to about 20 is okay, and we need Men of Gondor, Rohirrim, and Elves of Lorien, just for thematic reasons.

For similar thematic reasons, I'd really like to see a 'Clubs' type weapon group, with three or four weapons in it, and maybe another weapon or two (a Greatsword or Lance seems possible). But yeah, much beyond that seems a bit excessive.

And Equitation for Rohirrim? Skill (new) or Traits?

They aren't gonna add a new skill. I'd imagine a Trait, a Cultural Blessing, and probably a Virtue or two will be involved.

[DavetheLost]

I would love to ulimately see Harad and the Southlands covered, but that would almost be a seperate game setting.

I think lots of cultures becomes a bigger proplem if you try to use them all in one game campaign. If a campaign is limited to say Wilderland there is no need for Men of Gondor or Rohan, just as Elves of Mirkwood and Beornings would be almost unknown in Gondor and Rohan. Note that am in no way advocating for excluding Gondor from the game!

I do think that a clubbing weapons group would be a worthy addition. Hammers, maces, cudgels and quarterstaffs do appear in the novels.

Great Swords I am less certain of, the text for Long Swords says that even these require superior craftsmen to forge, and speaks of exotic origins. This seems to argue against their inclusion, but I would not oppose it.

I doubt we will see a mounted lance. The Rohirim seem to use more ordinary spears while mounted rather than true lances. If we do see a lance it will likely come with the Knights of Dol Amroth, possibly along with plate armor.

I could see crossbows along the Pictish model of hunting crossbows for the Dunnlendings, or possible as an orcish weapon provided by Sauruman. But don't expect them.

A new skill for Equitation seems unlikely. For the Horselords I would expect either a Virtue or a Cultural Blessing that allows them to freely use all of their skills while mounted. "Born to the Saddle" or similar.

[Glorelendil]

I could see "knights" (Gondorians, for example) having a virtue that let them use a Great Spear while mounted, in lieu of adding a new "lance" weapon.

EDIT:
I vote for calling Gondorians collectively as "The Gondor", and singularly as "Gondo". Like Noldor/Noldo.

Just because it makes me laugh.

[Otaku-sempai]

I do think that a clubbing weapons group would be a worthy addition. Hammers, maces, cudgels and quarterstaffs do appear in the novels.

Great Swords I am less certain of, the text for Long Swords says that even these require superior craftsmen to forge, and speaks of exotic origins. This seems to argue against their inclusion, but I would not oppose it.

I remember an older thread where a bunch of us hashed out the probable stats for a Two-handed sword. Tolkien did use the term Greatsword, but he seemed to only apply it to mean a hand-and-a-half (bastard) sword, which is already covered in RAW as the Long Sword (Anduril for example).

I agree that there should be more blunt weapons.

Men of Gondor are Gondoreans as Men of Westernesse are Numenoreans.

[Glorelendil]

Did Tolkien ever use Greatsword as one word, or was it always two? The latter case is much more open to interpretation, especially when used from the point of view of a Hobbit. And depending on the size of a non-great sword...think Seax or Gladius as archetype..."great" might not be all that big.

That said, my vote would be to add Greatsword to the rules.

[Otaku-sempai]

Did Tolkien ever use Greatsword as one word, or was it always two? The latter case is much more open to interpretation, especially when used from the point of view of a Hobbit. And depending on the size of a non-great sword...think Seax or Gladius as archetype..."great" might not be all that big.

That said, my vote would be to add Greatsword to the rules.

Tolkien used the phrase great sword, allowing for a more nuanced interpretation, as when Frodo and Sam first see Aragorn with Anduril on his throne.

Here is what we finally worked up:

Two-Handed Sword:
Damage: 9
Edge: 10
Injury: 18
Encumbrance: 4
Group: Swords
Notes: Two-handed weapon. Not usable by Dwarves or Hobbits (or small Orcs).

___________________________________

Optional rule for long swords: My understanding is that Dwarves are allowed to use swords (one-handed only?) the precedent being Thorin Oakenshield with Orchrist. I suggest that Dwarves may also use long swords, but only as two-handed weapons.

And here is where it was discussed: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=90&hilit=greatsword.

[Jon Hodgson]

Just a heads up - House rules go in the house rules forum now, and a thread that gets substantially derailed with a house rule discussion is going to get moved to the house rules forum too.

Some ideas on how one can address this without derailing a thread:

Don't put house rules into threads in the general forum. It sounds silly but one could just not mention house rules at all - it is an option.

Post a link to a house rules thread and encourage further discussion there.

Comment to say you'll start a new thread in the house rules forum.

There's absolutely no harm no foul here, but this is the direction we're heading in.

Carry on!

[Andrew]

I've never been much of a fan of the term 'Gondorean' - I can never find where Tolkien actually used it.

[Otaku-sempai]

Just a heads up - House rules go in the house rules forum now, and a thread that gets substantially derailed with a house rule discussion is going to get moved to the house rules forum too.

Some ideas on how one can address this without derailing a thread:

Don't put house rules into threads in the general forum. It sounds silly but one could just not mention house rules at all - it is an option.

Post a link to a house rules thread and encourage further discussion there.

Comment to say you'll start a new thread in the house rules forum.

There's absolutely no harm no foul here, but this is the direction we're heading in.

Carry on!

Fair enough!

[Glorelendil]

I've never been much of a fan of the term 'Gondorean' - I can never find where Tolkien actually used it.

Besides, if the parallel with Numenorean were accurate then we would also have Arnorean. Which just sounds dumb.