forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I see both sides as reasonable, but what I don't agree is that making enemies drop the moment they reach 0 Endurance is some kind of metagaming strategy or the like.

As far as I can see, allowing them to finish their turn would be the normal thing to do if we understand that a roll doesn't mean a single attack. Even a Wound doesn't mean that the enemy dies right away; he could probably try to kill you back while he's slowly bleeding and while his sight blurs and whatever. Reducing an enemy to 0 Endurance doesn't also mean that you were able to land a killing blow: he can faint from the strain of the battle, from multiple bruises and cuts (none of which is mortal, but all together make the pain unbearable),... So, no need to look for explanations like "the orc doesn't notice you severed his head and still manages to attack you one last time". We can just say: "during the last 30 seconds, you've been dancing with your swords. In this 30 seconds, you've landed some blows, and he has landed some, too. Only that yours have been harder (and/or you're more resistant) and he falls to the ground exhausted while you don't".
But if you decide to allow the enemy to finish its turn, you must also decide if you'll do the same with other states: will he become Weary the moment he reaches 0 Hate points, or in the next turn? If the last Hate point was spent during the hero's action, with the hero holding the initiative, it would still have one action before he becomes Weary next round (the same as with 0 Endurance and dropping to the ground).
The same goes for Wounds, Called Shots activation (should the enemy do its Called Shot in his next action, or next turn? Depends on the initiative, again), Called Shot effects (disarm, for example) and probably some Rewards' effects (like Axe of Azalnubizar).

On the other hand, making every state inmediate (Knocked down, Wound, Weary, etc.) might be seen as unrealistic and out of line with the concept of a turn in TOR (being that, as said before, rolls don't represent a single action), but it would be in line with the TOR concept of "making things as easy as possible": if you have to take notes of everything that's going to happen at the beginning of next turn, it increases bookkeeping.

Also, you have to decide how it all also works for heroes. The normal thing would be to apply the same rules, but some people might think otherwise.

Personally, for the sake of simplicity, I make everything take place the moment it is rolled. I guess that, by applying the same principle to both sides (heroes and adversaries), there's a balance that doesn't break the game. Up to now, we've never had a problem with this.

Majestic wrote:It would be nice to have something "official", but until then I think we could just go with james' memory: that it was clarified before that adversaries fall unconscious when they reach 0 Endurance.

Don't follow this advice. Believe me. Ask my wife. Lol.

Ambushes should be really useful. You should get the opportunity to, and indeed be likely to, kill foes before they even know what's going on. And not just at range, but with melee weapons, too.

In this system, all an ambush lets you do is go first in combat.

These two facts being the case, I'd strongly argue that there are good, strong, thematic as well as mechanical reasons to have foes fall down when they go to zero Endurance. So that's definitely what I'd go with.

Falenthal wrote:but what I don't agree is that making enemies drop the moment they reach 0 Endurance is some kind of metagaming strategy or the like.

I think that was a case of misunderstanding. All I was saying was that when, in a turn-based game, opponents do drop out of combat at zero endurance, it encourages some tactical meta-gaming. But looked at another way, it's not metagaming to avoid stabbing a dead guy, but it is metagaming to avoid stabbing a guy who you know (or think) is about to die. So maybe this proposed re-interpretation of the rules is actually the version that encourages the meta-gaming.

And then to flip that around: the fact that the rules do not seem to support changing targets mid-round would suggest that adversaries don't die mid-round, either. If they did, the rules would seem to be forcing heroes to either stab dead guys, or do nothing. So by that argument, the "dies after everybody has taken their turn" interpretation has some merit.

I'm not really committed to one version of the other, I just think it's an interesting observation and question.

Glorelendil wrote:the fact that the rules do not seem to support changing targets mid-round would suggest that adversaries don't die mid-round, either.

But then again, the guy who attacks an "already dead" enemy because he cannot change target isn't gaining (for him or for the group) anything from it: the adversary is already dead, and he can't prevent it from attacking him or a fellow one more time, whatever his attack results.

To be honest, that's a point that I've always struggled to get right: What happens when two heroes are engaged with the same opponent and the first one to act manages to kill it? What are the option (or what do the rules force him to do) of the second hero?
I don't think the RAW covers this.

And I see this blind spot in the combat rules as not benefiting any interpretation of when does a creature fall down: either you have to attack an already dead creature without a chance of preventing his last attack, or you find yourself without an enemy to attack this round and lose your action.

Well...speaking of video games.

The original Final Fantasy (on the NES) did have the 'waste your attack' idea installed. If you attacked something already dead, the animation would show the sprite flailing uselessly at nothing. Even the black belt, who'd punch empty air if the enemy were dead. Spells cast at already dead enemies say 'miss.' And so on.

All future installments did away with 'waste your attack.'

Interesting! I hadn't noticed that in the rules before. Thinking about it, and considering the discussion so far, here are my thoughts:

Firstly, the rules seem to be written to make an explicit distinction between reducing an enemy to 0 Endurance (they drop at the end of the round) and causing them a wound (they're killed outright).

Maybe this distinction wasn't intended, and the example does seem to indicate that. But it wouldn't be the first time an example was mistaken...

I think maybe the intention was just to make a distinction between being knocked out of combat and dying, and I guess they just thought it wasn't necessary to repeat "at the end of the round". I imagine this was to allow for the possibility of having a prisoner to question; if the players ask if a fallen adversary is still alive, the LM can use this as a basis to decide.

And I think "end of the round" in this case does mean the end of the round (i.e. turn) of whoever caused the damage. As others have pointed out, "round" is used to mean a specific character's turn elsewhere in the rules.

The other interpretation (that enemies can attack in the round they're reduced to 0 Endurance even if they lost the initiative) makes sense too, and makes wounds more valuable, but as pointed out it does reduce the value of initiative and especially ambushes.

Personally I'd prefer that to be a rare ability possessed only by some creatures. In my game last night I experimented with it: I allowed the Night-Wight in "Of Leaves and Stewed Hobbit" one last attack after they reduced it to 0 Endurance. I thought it was a cool and interesting option, and made the Night-Wight feel more special, but I wouldn't want to use it for every goblin; maybe it could be considered a Powerful Ability like those in Rivendell?

(Sorry, heading into House Rule territory there!)

Falenthal wrote:

Glorelendil wrote:the fact that the rules do not seem to support changing targets mid-round would suggest that adversaries don't die mid-round, either.

But then again, the guy who attacks an "already dead" enemy because he cannot change target isn't gaining (for him or for the group) anything from it: the adversary is already dead, and he can't prevent it from attacking him or a fellow one more time, whatever his attack results.

To be honest, that's a point that I've always struggled to get right: What happens when two heroes are engaged with the same opponent and the first one to act manages to kill it? What are the option (or what do the rules force him to do) of the second hero?
I don't think the RAW covers this.

And I see this blind spot in the combat rules as not benefiting any interpretation of when does a creature fall down: either you have to attack an already dead creature without a chance of preventing his last attack, or you find yourself without an enemy to attack this round and lose your action.

Well, look at it this way: if this interpretation is correct, it means that killing opponents by getting Wounds is superior to killing them through Endurance attrition, because it not only prevents them (in some cases) from getting one more attack in, but it also (in other cases) avoids wasted attacks on "soon to be dead" opponents.

The only two situations mentions specifically as being simultaneous are opening volleys

Surprised companions and enemies are not allowed opening volleys. All volleys are resolved simultaneously.

and opposed actions

When this happens, all rolls are resolved simultaneously
and their results compared (see below). If both rolls fail,
roll again or, if more appropriate, the contest is tied.

No where does it state that combat once engaged is simultaneous. In fact it gives a very specific order of attack which would be irrelevant if all hits fell simultaneously.

It is stated that a combat turn represents approximately 30 seconds.

consider a round to be a maximum of 30 seconds long.

So as I envision a combat round taking place, if a player in forward stance and a player in open stance are both attacking the same target in a roughly 30 second window, then if the forward player knocks an orc unconscious, the open player would have plenty of time to realize this and direct his attention at another target.

Deadmanwalking wrote:Ambushes should be really useful. You should get the opportunity to, and indeed be likely to, kill foes before they even know what's going on. And not just at range, but with melee weapons, too.

In this system, all an ambush lets you do is go first in combat.

These two facts being the case, I'd strongly argue that there are good, strong, thematic as well as mechanical reasons to have foes fall down when they go to zero Endurance. So that's definitely what I'd go with.

If you ambush someone, and you get a round to act but they don't, due to surprise, then them dropping at the end of the round isn't going to have any effect on the ambush. I don't remember how ambushes work officially, but I usually just rule that the ambushers get at least a free round if the ambush goes as planned.