Enemy called shots

[Random221B]

Glorelendil and Falenthal, I see where you are coming from, and you raise good points, but that still doesn't solve the issue of "Rolling an Eye should be bad, but in combat, rolling an Eye is somewhat beneficial to a Companion, as it increases the chances of the enemy's attack missing completely." I'm not looking to make Adversaries more deadly, I'm just looking to make rolling an Eye more consistently a problem for Companions. When they roll an Eye in combat, I want them thinking, "Oh no," and not, "Oh, good." Any other thoughts?

(Note: just to be clear, I was not considering changing the rules for how Companion Called Shots worked, because--as Glorelendil says--there is a risk/reward decision involved in choosing to try one. But for Adversary CS's, there is no weighing of risk/reward, because there's no choice/decision to be made. Adversaries/LMs never get to "decide" when to make a CS; they can only do it in response to a Companion's Eye roll, and then *must* do it. It's an "only and always" situation, so no deciding if the trade-off is worth it. And, again, the idea that a Companion rolling the eye--which is always supposed to be bad--forces their opponent to make an attack that has a higher chance of missing completely just seems off.)

[Glorelendil]

You are assuming that if you roll an Eye of Sauron in combat it should be "bad", but why?

I mean, it's already bad...you probably missed. And you can RP it by describing how badly you fumble. But what should it necessarily be worse.

Your second paragraph is spot on about why the rules works the way it does. Imagine the following conversation (in Italian):

Andrew: "When do Adversaries used Called Shots?"
Francesco: "Whenever the LM chooses."
Andrew: "Hmm...is there some way to make it deterministic, so that the LM doesn't have to think tactically for all the Adversaries?"
Francesco: "How about whenever a hero rolls an Eye of Sauron, the Adversary responds with a Called Shot?"
Andrew: "Perfect."

[Random221B]

Imagine the following conversation (in Italian):

Andrew: "When do Adversaries used Called Shots?"
Francesco: "Whenever the LM chooses."
Andrew: "Hmm...is there some way to make it deterministic, so that the LM doesn't have to think tactically for all the Adversaries?"
Francesco: "How about whenever a hero rolls an Eye of Sauron, the Adversary responds with a Called Shot?"
Andrew: "Perfect."

Yes, this part makes perfect sense, and I have no problem with this. I'm glad the LM doesn't have to make the decision and weigh risk/reward for each Adversary constantly. I like the method which triggers the use of an Adversary CS. I just still find it kind of weird and jarring that a Companion rolling an Eye actually improves their chances of not getting hit on their Adversary's next attack.

I'm not definitely decided on anything, still mulling both sides of the matter over. Just trying to reconcile the idea that in all other circumstances, rolling an Eye definitely means something bad happens; You have a good chance of failing the roll, but you also definitely have some additional bad thing happen. But in combat, it means you have a good chance of failing the roll, and a chance that your opponent may do something worse to you if they hit you, but you have a better chance of them not hitting you. In combat, the eye is a mixed bag--Sometimes Bad, Sometimes Worse, Sometimes Better. In all other situations, an Eye means Definitely Bad, Sometimes Worse.

[Stormcrow]

"Rolling an Eye should be bad, but in combat, rolling an Eye is somewhat beneficial to a Companion, as it increases the chances of the enemy's attack missing completely."

It has nothing to do with being detrimental or beneficial. The result of rolling an Eye is simply thematic. "Ooh, Eye of Sauron! The enemy makes a special move."

[Glorelendil]

I just still find it kind of weird and jarring that a Companion rolling an Eye actually improves their chances of not getting hit on their Adversary's next attack.

But if they do get hit it's a worse outcome.

[Random221B]

But if they do get hit it's a worse outcome.

Yes, that's why I said it's "Sometimes Bad, Sometimes Worse, Sometimes Better." Sometimes Bad = Sometimes you fail, or sometimes the enemy succeeds on a Called Shot against you; Sometimes Worse = Sometimes you fail *and* the enemy succeeds in a CS against you; Sometimes Better = Sometimes you succeed *and* the enemy misses with their attack even if they beat the TN, due to no Tengwars.

It has nothing to do with being detrimental or beneficial. The result of rolling an Eye is simply thematic. "Ooh, Eye of Sauron! The enemy makes a special move."

That's fine, except that's not the way it works in any situation other than combat. In all other cases, Eye = greater chance of failing the roll, and also things go poorly for you in some way. Only in combat does rolling an Eye actually have a chance of making things better for you. Considering that the vast majority of TOR mechanics are designed to work the same way across all circumstances, this one just stands out as odd, is what I'm saying. I don't really include the "greater chance of failing the roll" aspect of an Eye into the effects of it being an Eye, per se, since rolling a 1 on the feat die also means there's a very good chance you failed the roll (at lower skill levels, at least.) it's the extra bad stuff that makes the Eye something other than just a zero. In all other circumstances, the extra bad stuff is assured. it's part and parcel of rolling the Eye. Only in combat does it equal "Maybe this hurts you, maybe it helps you."

[beckett]

The rules for adversaries usually differ from the rules for player-heroes. So it isn't really all that game breaking to say that if a player-hero rolls an EYE in combat then when the enemy makes his called shot he only needs to beat the TN for the attack (regardless of tengwars).

From a misreading of the slipcase rules, my group actually played it this way for years. It wasn't until the revised edition came out that we realized our error. When we started playing it "correctly" my players preferred the way we had been playing it as they thought it gave more weight to the EYE in combat, so we housed ruled it.

We also have a house rule that an EYE is always a failure regardless of the outcome of the other dice. In that respect, the EYE is the exact opposite of the Gandalf rune in our game.

[Glorelendil]

Actually, there are relatively few places where "extra bad stuff because you rolled an Eye" is assured. At least, before Eye of Mordor rules. In the vast majority of cases it just counts as 0.

Other than Fatigue checks on Journeys, can anybody think of a place where an Eye always has additional "bad" meaning?

And even on Fatigue checks, it can easily turn out even better for the heroes: if you pass your skill tests there's no adverse effects, and you can get AP doing so.

I don't think it breaks the game to implement any of these house rules, including the one that treats EoS as an "auto-failure" (I used the same rule for a while.) I'm just trying to point out that RAW is Working as Intended.

P.S. I like to play with a house rule that if you fail with an Eye you can earn an AP if you narrate your spectacular blunder. So for me Eye failures are actually better than normal failures.

[Random221B]

Huh. What do you know. I just skimmed through the rules again, and it turns out you're right. Somehow, I had gotten it in my head that rolling an Eye was a "You may or may not fail the roll, but it will always bring some sort of disadvantage on you" situation. But you're right, that does not appear to be in the rules anywhere.

It occurs to me, that it may be because I first read the TOR rules around the same time I first played the Star Wras: Edge of the Empire RPG, which has "Advantage" and "Threat" symbols that can come up on dice, that do not mean success or failure, but do mean something either good or bad happened. So it's possible to roll a success with a Threat, which means you succeeded at the action, but something bad or negative happens in relation to the action, in addition. I think I saw the EoS symbol as similar (since it only represents a zero, and not an auto-failure), and somehow read into it that it always represented some negative element to the action/situation, regardless of success or failure.

I may continue to run it that way--I like the idea of the Eye meaning more than just "zero" in most or all circumstances, and not just in the specific circumstances where the Eye triggers specific negative effects. Looks like you're right, though...that's not actually in the rules anywhere.

The "Eye forces a Called Shot, which improves the chance of your opponent missing you" still feels weird to me, but it's good to know that it doesn't clash with the rest of the rules, like I thought it did. Might still use that house rule, though. We'll see.

In any case, very much appreciate everyone's input and clarifications.

[aramis]

You are assuming that if you roll an Eye of Sauron in combat it should be "bad", but why?

Because the game is more tense when rolling an eye is always a moment of dread as you count the 6's and/or weigh whether or not to spend hope... because a fumble will totally hose you.

The game posits 8 distinct allowed outcomes, noting that success can be either total value of the dice or rolling a gandalf....
Success with 2+ [6t]'s
Success with 1 [6t]
Simple Success
success with 2+ [6t]'s with [eye]
Success with 1 [6t] with [eye]
Simple Success with [eye]
Simple Failure
Failure with [eye].

Sauron rolls should suck. This is to discourage unneeded rolls, and to discourage unneeded risks.

I mean, it's already bad...you probably missed. And you can RP it by describing how badly you fumble. But what should it necessarily be worse.

Yes, it should.
The dice rolling has 2.5 axis of output:
Axis 1: Success or Failure. Almost never worse than 1/12. †
Axis 2: Eye or not
Axis 3: quality of success.

Quality is semi-linked to success - I've seen non-sauron results of 13 on a TN 14+ that had [6t][6t] but still failed... when weary, I even saw it happen with a TN 14 non-sauron on a 5d character... {1}[1][2][3][6t][6t] which, when weary, totals 13... (Yes, the player did hope it.)
Likewise, eye is almost independent of success. At 3d, any TN is achievable with any success level even if an eye result is present {eye}[6t][6t][6t] hits TN 18 with great success, but still has a sauron. That sauron should still hurt...

† Legendary is 1/72 with 1 skill die (1.3%), 11/36 (30.5%) with 2, 91/216 (42%) with 3, 671/1296 (51.7%) with 4, 4651/7776 (59.8%) with 5, 31031/46656 (66.5%) with 6...

The Sauron ensures you have a potential for really bad things, like losing gear...
And the failure should have its own separate consequence.