Fourth Attacker on a Single Target

[Rich H]

Those rules only apply, when the roll is failed with an eye. It should encourage players to use hope to avoid one of the outcomings.

I understand, I just don't like the idea of a result producing a fumble *and* a potential Called Shot as well. Remember that fumbles happen when a PC rolls an EYE on a failed Called Shot so you're basically making an EYE failure on a standard attack actually worse than an EYE failure on a Called Shot. If it works for you guys then that's fine but I just find that particular consequence of adding fumbles to standard attacks to be ... unsatisfactory.

Additionally, adversaries have to roll the 2D4-roll too (on a Gandalf rune, of course). It is really fun to watch orcs slaughter themselves because they rolled something bad.

I do the same because there's no PC response to an Adversary rolling a G result in the same way that there is for a PC rolling an EYE. Fumbles are lots of fun.

[Majestic]

Yeah, I get that. But Called Shots just seem so weak (at least right now in our game).

Slightly tangential but I don't disagree with you about Called Shots. I've made a little amendment in my game to how they work for Adversaries. An EYE roll by a PC is the only way for an enemy to make use of a Called Shot (that's implied in the RAW, if not explicit) so if an attack declared as a Called Shot fails to produce any tengwars, but still meets the TN, then it hits as per a standard attack. This removes the whiff factor you speak of above and doesn't create a problem as Called Shots aren't an active choice on behalf of the enemy/LM in the same way that they are for players and their PCs. This has worked pretty well so far for my gaming group.

Yeah, I'm liking that, Rich. It removes the whiff factor, where PCs celebrate when they roll an eye ("celebrate" might be a bit of hyperbole, but still, per RAW it's a good thing when a player rolls an Eye in combat).

[Fridokind Wargaug]

Those rules only apply, when the roll is failed with an eye. It should encourage players to use hope to avoid one of the outcomings.

I understand, I just don't like the idea of a result producing a fumble *and* a potential Called Shot as well. Remember that fumbles happen when a PC rolls an EYE on a failed Called Shot so you're basically making an EYE failure on a standard attack actually worse than an EYE failure on a Called Shot. If it works for you guys then that's fine but I just find that particular consequence of adding fumbles to standard attacks to be ... unsatisfactory.

Yes, but the fumble is worse after a called shot, you have to roll the d4 and you lose your parry (plus triggering a called shot from the adversary).

[Rich H]

Yes, but the fumble is worse after a called shot, you have to roll the d4 and you lose your parry (plus triggering a called shot from the adversary).

You don't trigger a Called Shot from the Adversary; as far as I can tell from the RAW.

Anyway what you do just just sounds needlessly complicated. I thought you were replacing the Called Shot fumble rules with the ones you were proposing and just using them instead of not in addition to. It's your game but I don't think it's a particularly streamlined house rule.

[Fridokind Wargaug]

Anyway what you do just just sounds needlessly complicated. I thought you were replacing the Called Shot fumble rules with the ones you were proposing and just using them instead of not in addition to. It's your game but I don't think it's a particularly streamlined house rule.

I guess we like it complicated My group is really great in roll-playing so during encounters and such there is not a lot of dice rolling. We compensate that by additional rules and rolls for the fights.

[Rich H]

I guess we like it complicated My group is really great in roll-playing so during encounters and such there is not a lot of dice rolling. We compensate that by additional rules and rolls for the fights.

It's very much a personal thing! For instance, I never understand why people call TOR 'rules light'. I don't think it is, but it depends on the reader's viewpoint, experience, what they are comparing it to, and which rules they are focussing on. For instance, there are lots of little subsystems in TOR that mean *I* could never call it rules light. I don't think it's complicated but the lack of complexity doesn't automatically constitute a game being rules light. C'est la vie!