Ranged Combat in Close Combat

[ThrorII]

I just convinced my group to try TOR again. One player created an Elf of Mirkwood, specializing in range combat (bow). The problem lies with my Elven archer player, who is used to D&D, with it's 5-foot step rule, and an unhealthy dose of Peter Jackson's elves.

Now, RAW states that to use ranged weapons, you must be in a Rearward Stance, there must be at least TWO companions in a Close Combat Stance, AND the total number of adversaries must be no more than twice the total company.

In our situation, the company consists of 5 members. So, 2 must be in a Close Combat Stance, and if there are 11+ Adversaries, then Ranged Combat is impossible (except for opening volleys).

I understand and agree with the rules as written. It makes sense to me that if there are insufficient members to engage adversaries, then the archer is overrun and cannot continue to shoot arrows when someone is in his face trying to kill him.

I'm not inclined to house rule anything...BUT I want to run a few scenarios by the more experienced players to see if these options have any unintended consequences, should I feel extraordinarily generous:

Possibility #1: Require that one companion take a Defensive Stance and take the Protect Companion task if the archer is hit. Essentially one hero must step up to be the personal bodyguard for the archer. Allows the archer to shoot regardless of the number of adversaries, at the cost of Hope.

Possibility #2: Create a new Elven Cultural Virtue called 'Close Combat Archery' or something. "You are allowed to use a bow from any Combat Stance, as if it were a close combat weapon". This is essentially what the Rohirrim can receive as a Cultural Virtue, in Horselords of Rohan, except theirs is from horseback. This option requires an investment from the player in the form of XP spent on a Cultural Virtue, and has precedent from an official supplement.

Thoughts?

[gazery]

I'm not experienced enough to comment on your possibilities, I shall leave that to the White Council of our boards. But I did notice you mentioned that 2 Adversaries need to be in a Close Combat stance to allow a Rearward stance. Thought I would add that in the RAW it actually states that it is 2 Adversaries PER Hero in Rearward Stance. So with 5 heroes, 2 go close combat, that enables 1 hero to go Rearward, the other 2 would also have to go close combat, as there are no heroes 'protecting' them. With a sixth hero, a 2nd one could go rearward.

Gazery

[zedturtle]

I just convinced my group to try TOR again. One player created an Elf of Mirkwood, specializing in range combat (bow). The problem lies with my Elven archer player, who is used to D&D, with it's 5-foot step rule, and an unhealthy dose of Peter Jackson's elves.

There is a third possibility, one suggested by the above. Tell the player that you'll allow them to use their bow and arrows in close combat, but that's a skill that is different from shooting at range and that they won't get the full damage from the bow, due to the fact that they won't have time at that range for a full draw.

In other words, use the Dagger skill and the Dagger stats and refluff it.

Possibility #1: Require that one companion take a Defensive Stance and take the Protect Companion task if the archer is hit. Essentially one hero must step up to be the personal bodyguard for the archer. Allows the archer to shoot regardless of the number of adversaries, at the cost of Hope.

The tricky bit here is that the hero paying the Hope is not the one continuously benefiting from the Hope expenditure (except in the most general sense). I'd try to shy away from this one.

Possibility #2: Create a new Elven Cultural Virtue called 'Close Combat Archery' or something. "You are allowed to use a bow from any Combat Stance, as if it were a close combat weapon". This is essentially what the Rohirrim can receive as a Cultural Virtue, in Horselords of Rohan, except theirs is from horseback. This option requires an investment from the player in the form of XP spent on a Cultural Virtue, and has precedent from an official supplement.

That seems more reasonable, though it's certainly moving into the house rules territory. Simply call it 'Deadly Archery' and solve a number of issues.

[Cleggster]

Ohh, or just use disadvantage. They took that from The One Ring anyway.

I think the issue with not house ruling wont work though. The reason for all those rules is you can't use ranged when someone is attacking you melee. For one it's thematic, can't use a bow when someone is manhandling you. The other is balance. While not the most damaging weapon in the game, I have noticed that they tend to finish things. Probably because of the aimed shot and going last in the round.

That's why you need the screening cover or to be on a horse. If you allow for someone to use ranged in easier situations, you run the risk of suddenly everyone using bows all the time. And the tone of the game will change if you have more arrows then swords when in a brawl. Though I like the idea of using dagger a lot. Just stab them with the arrow. If you really want, lowering the coverage in small fights wound not unbalance too much. But I would advise away from letting someone use a bow in close combat when outnumbered.

It's your game, so you can set up the situation for them to try new things. I have been running a campaign for a while, and I found that clever players can find ways to use bows more frequently anyway. Have you bowman climb a tree or get up high, out of melee range. Start fights at greater distances. They might enjoy having to plan out their battles more.

[Otaku-sempai]

I'm not experienced enough to comment on your possibilities, I shall leave that to the White Council of our boards. But I did notice you mentioned that 2 Adversaries need to be in a Close Combat stance to allow a Rearward stance. Thought I would add that in the RAW it actually states that it is 2 Adversaries PER Hero in Rearward Stance. So with 5 heroes, 2 go close combat, that enables 1 hero to go Rearward, the other 2 would also have to go close combat, as there are no heroes 'protecting' them. With a sixth hero, a 2nd one could go rearward.

Gazery

You've stated the situation incorrectly. It is at least two Companions, not two Adversaries, who should be in close-combat stances. Adversaries do not take stances in the manner of PC combatants.

A Loremaster can make common-sense exceptions to the rules as written, based on specific factors, that would allow an archer to make ranged attacks when he otherwise could not. For instance, the company might have a particularly advantageous position that limits how many adversaries can approach at once.

[Majestic]

gazery is correct, it isn't just two (of your five) that have to be in Close Combat, it's all four (of the others). It isn't until the party gets a sixth member that you get to have two characters in Rearward. In other words, it's two front-line fighters for every archer.

Another option could be to wait 5 months for D&D One ring. Now your elven character woulod be able to shoot in melee, at disadvantage

Not trying to be pedantic, but I don't think we'll ever see "D&D/ One Ring". What C7 is making is Middle-earth for D&D; from what they've said it will be entirely separate and distinct from The One Ring.

[Deadmanwalking]

Option #2 seems the more workable one. Heck, you could probably tack it onto Deadly Archery without it being unbalanced, since that Virtue is rather weak (as these things go).

Note, however, that the Rohirrim version restricts you to Open or Forward Stance (given how riding in combat works). this is relevant because going to one of those stances is a much bigger sacrifice for an archer than Defensive, due to the lower TN of attacks against you. You might (or might not) want to similarly restrict any close combat archery options you allow.

All that said, I just wouldn't do it. If he's the only ranged character in the party, he should have no trouble staying in Rearward stance at basically all times. Very rarely are the Company outnumbered by more than two to one, especially after opening volleys (if multiple people are good at those).

What's the Company composition? This really seems likely to be a non-issue the vast majority of the time.

[Falenthal]

Possibility #2: Create a new Elven Cultural Virtue called 'Close Combat Archery' or something. "You are allowed to use a bow from any Combat Stance, as if it were a close combat weapon". This is essentially what the Rohirrim can receive as a Cultural Virtue, in Horselords of Rohan, except theirs is from horseback. This option requires an investment from the player in the form of XP spent on a Cultural Virtue, and has precedent from an official supplement.
Thoughts?

I'd go with this, as an addition to Deadly Archery.
A Bow is just a "ranged but two-handed" Short Sword in numbers, so that even though the character will gain the ability to use a ranged and melee weapon for the same skill points, he'll only do that with a medium-low weapon.

If you're ok with it, and the group will have more fun, it shouldn't break the game at all.
Besides, he won't be able to use a shield but his TN to be hit will be lower than when in Rearward (unless in Defensive).
Maybe in the end it will be himself who doesn't want to shoot from a melee stance and always try to go Rearward.

[Corvo]

I agree with the general gist.
-Try to find a way to fit that elf, but don't bend backward to accommodate a player that maybe is getting in the game with the wrong expectations.
-Don't have another PC spend Hope points to shield that archer. There are no "tanks" here: nobody got the exclusive duty to defend the "damage dealer". Dispel that notion.
-5 heroes? Have an experienced Woodman take the Hound, and you can fit 2 archers
-As soon as I read the horse-archery rule for the Rohirrim I thought: that is my new "Deadly Archery".
Just Open and Forward stance, no defensive (you aren't that good at parrying with a bow). I would limit it to normal Bow (not Great Bow), to reinforce the idea that the shorter bow makes for an more mobile fighter. It would justify the trope of Legolas armed with just bow and knife. Being unable to use Defensive stance (and the low damage) are hard enough limitations, IMO

[ThrorII]

What's the Company composition? This really seems likely to be a non-issue the vast majority of the time.

We have a Hobbit Treasure-hunter, Barding Warden, Barding Treasure-hunter, Woodman Wanderer and Elf Scholar.

Both the Hobbit, Woodman, and Elf have ranged weapons (for volleys), but the Elf is our Range specialist.

The problem (for the Elf player) was that they were up against 10 Attercops and a Great Spider (exceeding the 2:1 for Rearward Stance), and the Attercops have Great Leap, forcing the Elf out of Rearward stance when they attacked him.

The player had heavily specialized in bow skills, and felt nerfed by the spiders.

So yes, it was a specialized situation (great leap was involved).

As I said, I'm not planning on capitulating on this, I prefer Rules As Written. I was just looking for some guidance on if I DID decide to change things.

I also agree with your consensus that a Racial Virtue (either separate or tacked on to Deadly Archery) allowing firing in Open or Forward Stance would be the way to go, should I decide to. It just makes Elves that much more distinct and quintessential as archers.

Thanks guys!