forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

For player-heroes, to utilize the Escape Combat Task while in a Close Combat Stance requires they make an Athletics roll at TN10 +Attribute Level of the highest Adversary they are facing.

How would you rule for an ADVERSARY who is attempting to Escape Combat? Would you require a Movement roll at TN10 + the highest engaged player-heroes Valour rating? Or their highest Battle rating? or something else?

This came up last session, and I ruled it as a combination of Valour and Wisdom (it seems that an Adversary's Attribute level is a compilation of Valour and Wisdom, i.e.: A player-hero who had a Valour of 4 and Wisdom of 4 might be a fair match for an Adversary of Attribute level 8). So I rolled for the Adversary a Movement test at TN13 (TN10 + Valour 1 + Wisdom 2).

... I'd personally just use the opposed action rules for that for important NPCs, as described in the LM book, or I'd flip it around and still have the player roll Athletics (maybe Battle) with a TN of 10 plus opponent's attribute level but a success stops the adversary from escaping combat.

I think one of the great things about One Ring is it puts a tremendous amount of the tactical decision making in combat onto the players. They really can be the crafters of their own destiny. So i think your idea Rich, of letting the players roll to prevent opponents leaving combat is a great idea that totally fits the ethos of the game.

I might try a TN of 6/9/12 (+ attribute level) depending on the stance of the PC facing the opponent. So its TN6 if the PC is Forward, TN9 if open or TN12 if defensive. It simply strikes me it would be more difficult to prevent an opponents escape if you were more interested in defending yourself than if you were all over them like a warg on heat!

Battle or Athletics seem reasonable but i could also be persuaded to the virtues of Wisdom or Insight.

James

Rich H wrote:... I'd personally just use the opposed action rules for that for important NPCs, as described in the LM book, or I'd flip it around and still have the player roll Athletics (maybe Battle) with a TN of 10 plus opponent's attribute level but a success stops the adversary from escaping combat.

MordorsB1tch wrote:I think one of the great things about One Ring is it puts a tremendous amount of the tactical decision making in combat onto the players. They really can be the crafters of their own destiny. So i think your idea Rich, of letting the players roll to prevent opponents leaving combat is a great idea that totally fits the ethos of the game.

One of the design elements of the old Dragonlance SAGA system was that players rolled* all the actions (and reactions), the GM didn't ever make any active rolls he just presented tasks with difficulty/target numbers. This was the first time I'd ever seen this kind of mechanical setup and as a GM I found it incredibly liberating as I could concentrate on the plot, characters, and dealing with the gameworld in general. In addition the players remained engaged and in control. It was something that I've tried to adopt into my games since then, where possible, and you're right that TOR really lends itself to such s mechanical setup.

* Well, it was a card mechanic so they played cards from their respective hands, but you get the idea.

MordorsB1tch wrote:I might try a TN of 6/9/12 (+ attribute level) depending on the stance of the PC facing the opponent. So its TN6 if the PC is Forward, TN9 if open or TN12 if defensive. It simply strikes me it would be more difficult to prevent an opponents escape if you were more interested in defending yourself than if you were all over them like a warg on heat!

I think that's an excellent idea. Definitely harder to stop an escape if you're on the back foot (ie, in Defensive stance).

MordorsB1tch wrote:Battle or Athletics seem reasonable but i could also be persuaded to the virtues of Wisdom or Insight.

Not sure about Wisdom or Insight but that's just my own personal preferences - I like to offer one alternative skill option in some situations so Athletics (or Battle if it could be justified) are the ones I'd go with.

MordorsB1tch wrote:I might try a TN of 6/9/12 (+ attribute level) depending on the stance of the PC facing the opponent. So its TN6 if the PC is Forward, TN9 if open or TN12 if defensive. It simply strikes me it would be more difficult to prevent an opponents escape if you were more interested in defending yourself than if you were all over them like a warg on heat!

Battle or Athletics seem reasonable but i could also be persuaded to the virtues of Wisdom or Insight.

James

I actually like this a LOT. I think I will allow a player's roll of Battle or Athletics, against their Stance TN +Attribute level of the Adversary.

Thank you for that brilliant suggestion.

I like the idea but can I suggest the addition of +1 TN difficulty for each enemy not fleeing. This gives your big bad a chance to make his escape.

Imagine the scene - the heroes have fought their way through a mass of orcs to confront the dark emissary of the enemy. His elite guard of 4 Black Uruks move to engage while the emissary makes his escape.

Dark emissary - Attribute level 7

TN's - forward (6+7+4 = 17) open (9+7+4 = 20) defensive (12+7+4 = 23)

Still possible for the heroes - espescially reckless and brave ones, but it gives your big bad a chance of fleeing and continuing to be a thorn in our heroes sides at a later date.

Just an idea - nothing worse for a Loremaster than seeing their important bad guy hacked down before you've finished with him. Of course you could hand wave it and say he flees, but this gives the heroes a chance to stop their foe. Just add more guards if need be , (if you REALLY need him not to die) .

Personally, I wouldn't allow a PC to attempt to stop an adversary escaping that isn't engaged with at least one companion. Also, I'd probably restrict their ability to stop someone to be dependant on them not having to focus on another opponent - ie, in Poosticks example if each of the PCs was engaged with an orc then their leader could escape without needing a successful test. I'd probably allow a roll if a player came up with something particularly creative that worked in the specific situation but I wouldn't create a pre-defined rule for it.