"...directly protect or favour..."

[Earendil]

Protect ally does not count, but the attribute test on the protection roll that results does.

I don't see the logic of this. How does preventing yourself from taking a Wound "directly protect or favour" your FF?

[Earendil]

I agree for the most part with what Rich said. But while I agree it shouldn't apply to rolls that benefit the company as a whole, I don't think it should necessarily be limited to rolls that only benefit the FF.

For example, if you roll Stealth to sneak in somewhere to rescue your FF, that's fine, but what if your FF is one of several prisoners? In this case you're not benefitting the FF alone (assuming you will rescue all of them if possible) but if the main reason you're there is to rescue your FF, I'd say that counts.

Similarly, in cases where the FF needs a boost more than others do, the fact that you also benefit others shouldn't invalidate that. For example, Rallying comrades shouldn't usually count, but if you're doing it specifically because your FF is dangerously low on Endurance, that should count IMO.

I guess what I'm really saying is that the circumstances matter, to the extent that it's difficult to come up with any hard-and-fast rules .... which, of course, Rich also basically said!

[zedturtle]

Protect ally does not count, but the attribute test on the protection roll that results does.

I don't see the logic of this. How does preventing yourself from taking a Wound "directly protect or favour" your FF?

Because if you die, that'd be bad for your FF.

It's a cludgy way around the issue of not getting the Hope back for doing Protect Companion on your FF. Some folks come down on one side, others on the other side. But it's up to each LM what is best for them.

[Glorelendil]

Because if you die, that'd be bad for your FF.

He jests, but this is a good illustration of how I interpret "direct". I don't believe it's a synonym for "exclusive". Zed's example is indirect benefit. As would be, "Well my FF is wounded, and the healer is being attacked by a troll, so I need to save the healer to benefit my FF..."

If you are going to sometimes allow inclusive (that is, non-exclusive) use, one argument for always allowing it might be simply so that players don't feel the need to be deceptive about why they are helping the group. The last thing I want in my game is players having an incentive to lie about their motivations, trying to whore a Hope point. So that's an argument for either always or never permitting it. (But keep reading....)

But always allowing inclusive use raises a problem, because invoking attributes on "Rally Comrades" becomes free for anybody with a Fellowship Focus. As would be the case on any Hazard test that had an "All Companions" result (e.g. Alex's Hunting example.)

So I would propose the following interpretations:

First, "directly protect or favour" could be interpreted to only mean immediate benefits. If your FF is being attacked, maybe only allow Inspiration if the hero kills, otherwise incapacitates, or makes Weary the attacker. Otherwise just dealing Endurance damage doesn't help your FF this round. For Rally Comrades, only allow Inspiration if the endurance gained pushes the FF above the Weary threshold (or restores consciousness, if you allow that.) Otherwise, additional endurance will only...maybe...have a consequence later. This might even mean you get back the point if protecting/favoring your FF was not you primary intent.

(And "keeping yourself alive to benefit your FF" doesn't count as "immediate" benefit!)

Secondly, according to RAW, Inspiration doesn't eliminate the Hope expenditure; it refunds the point after it has been spent. Which I think meshes well with my first point: if you think you are saving your FF (which, given the other half of FF rules, is to your benefit regardless) then spend the point. If you kill the troll, or otherwise have what your LM thinks is a direct benefit to your FF, you get the point back. But you can't be sure when you spend it.

[Rich H]

Protect ally does not count, but the attribute test on the protection roll that results does.

I don't see the logic of this. How does preventing yourself from taking a Wound "directly protect or favour" your FF?

It doesn't, for many, but Protect Companion costs a hope point to use yet you can't get that hope point back if directly protecting your FF as you haven't used it to invoke an attribute bonus. This seems a little odd for many considering that Protect Companion is one of the very few explicit rules/actions in TOR that would apply if you were directly defending your FF with it so some LMs rule that it can be applied to any protection test resulting from the Protect Companion action.

[Rocmistro]

I don't have a great answer for this that hasn't already been stated.

But I will say this; whatever the Loremaster's final ruling is, I would advise him/her to err on the side of being permissive. In the several campaigns I've played in over the last couple years, I think I've seen FF inspiration invoked...maybe 10 times, at most.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of Shadow accumulate from wounded FF and so forth. Since I feel that FF is at the heart of the game, if the bad outweighs the good, you will see FF rarely used, and that seems a tragedy given what the game is attempting to do.

A couple other things I've learned about selecting your FF, if you want to meta-game:

-Pick the Dwarf, the Brazen Man of the Lake, or the Hounded Woodman as your fellowship focus. They get injured less.

-do NOT pick the Beorning or the Hobbit, or anyone else not wearing Mail Armor or better.

[Glorelendil]

Pick the archer.

[Angelalex242]

...Yeaaah. Pick the archer. Everybody loves the archer.

I lucked out in my game that my High Elf gets to pick the Dunedain who just happens to be an archer.

[doctheweasel]

Pick the archer.

Man, I remember when my first party did that. It was so good to finally wound him. It was even better when he was close to death and everyone started to regret not spreading out their FFs.

[Majestic]

For Rally Comrades, only allow Inspiration if the endurance gained pushes the FF above the Weary threshold (or restores consciousness, if you allow that.) Otherwise, additional endurance will only...maybe...have a consequence later. This might even mean you get back the point if protecting/favoring your FF was not you primary intent.

I used to think that getting somebody Endurance back (most commonly with Rally Comrades) allowed them to uncheck the Weary box. But as I understand it now, they need a night's rest first. It says on p, 132 (Revised):

Shake off Weariness
A Weary adventurer whose Endurance score is higher
than his Fatigue rating after a night’s sleep or comparable
rest is now properly rested.
A character who was Weary before he rested may now
uncheck the Weary label on his character sheet.