Leech Craft & automatic action

[Crate123]

I agree with the others - you should be very hesitant before you nerf a trait or a distinctive feature. Unless a test is exceptionally difficult (and I would also probably go for a TN 18+) or very special circumstances exist, it is usually better to say yes than no. I once had a companion with Tall using it for every Travel test on journeys. Initially it irritated me a little, but then it occurred to me that I was being silly. The companion had sacrificed one of his 5 traits or distinctive features for something that would rarely apply to most skill tests, and as others have already, noted had given up his chances for AP's or Great or Extraordinary successes. Leech Craft is even more skill specific than Tall. If you house-rule an immediate 2 Endurance regained for a Great Success and a double recovery rate for an Extraordinary Success on a Healing test, then you will give the companion a much tougher choice...

cheers
Mark

Im curious what the justification your player gave for allowing Tall to influence a Travel test ?

[Deadmanwalking]

Im curious what the justification your player gave for allowing Tall to influence a Travel test ?

Long legs, I'd assume. Which would seem reasonable to me.

[Crate123]

Im curious what the justification your player gave for allowing Tall to influence a Travel test ?

Long legs, I'd assume. Which would seem reasonable to me.

Guess Im a hard LM then, no matter how long legs you have you get just as tired as anyone else carrying all that gear, being a little hungry, being wet and sleeping on the hard ground.

[Cawdorthane]

Guess Im a hard LM then, no matter how long legs you have you get just as tired as anyone else carrying all that gear, being a little hungry, being wet and sleeping on the hard ground.

As a shortish person I am inclined to agree, but the very helpful "A Guide to Trait Usage" by Rich H suggested this for Tall and early on in our TOR experience my group heavily relied on that guide and so it became habit (although in very poor or dense terrain I would not allow any notional 'stride bonus' for being Tall). So not quite RAW but very useful nonetheless. Interestingly, my wife (who is 4 or so inches taller than me) and I both use pedometers when we go for long walks and her step count is usually about 80% of mine. So over a long trek on reasonably flat going I would grudgingly admit that this is a more than fair use of Tall!

cheers
Mark

[zedturtle]

I´m very much of the mind that if someone wants to starve themselves of (almost) guaranteed APs, I´m okay with that. After all, if the LM accepts Tall as granting automatic success then it would grant an AP just as easily.

[Crate123]

I´m very much of the mind that if someone wants to starve themselves of (almost) guaranteed APs, I´m okay with that. After all, if the LM accepts Tall as granting automatic success then it would grant an AP just as easily.

I do see where you are coming from with that BUT for me traveling is a major component in this game and ignoring it because of a trait just feels wrong, its like having Hardy and claiming that you automatically succeed on all Protection tests or if you're Bold you succeed on all Fear tests.
I dont mind people doing it from time to time but I dont like them being able to totally ignore a skill, especially not one that is inherently dangerous and can produce Hazards.

[Rich H]

I do see where you are coming from with that BUT for me traveling is a major component in this game and ignoring it because of a trait just feels wrong, its like having Hardy and claiming that you automatically succeed on all Protection tests or if you're Bold you succeed on all Fear tests.

Leaving aside your dislike of ignoring/bypassing a major component of the rules, which I have more than a little sympathy for (see paragraph below), what you've described there with regard to Fear and Protection tests cannot be done. Trait invocations only apply to Common Skill usage.

Regarding bypassing major elements of the game... I've used a houserule where a trait can only be invoked for an auto success once per 'scene', classifying a scene as a journey or leg of a journey, an encounter, a battle, an extended task/project, or other such dramatic interaction. This seems to work for my gaming group as it avoids things like the 'trait tax' of every player selecting Hardy for their character in order to avoid being wearied during a journey. Another positive side-effect is that players selecting narratively similar traits (eg, Hardy and Tall) can use them once each in, say, a journey if they so wish so get more of a benefit from focussing their character in one particular area. It may be something worth considering for your game as a solution/compromise.

[Crate123]

I do see where you are coming from with that BUT for me traveling is a major component in this game and ignoring it because of a trait just feels wrong, its like having Hardy and claiming that you automatically succeed on all Protection tests or if you're Bold you succeed on all Fear tests.

Leaving aside your dislike of ignoring/bypassing a major component of the rules, which I have more than a little sympathy for (see paragraph below), what you've described there with regard to Fear and Protection tests cannot be done. Trait invocations only apply to Common Skill usage.

Regarding bypassing major elements of the game... I've used a houserule where a trait can only be invoked for an auto success once per 'scene', classifying a scene as a journey or leg of a journey, an encounter, a battle, an extended task/project, or other such dramatic interaction. This seems to work for my gaming group as it avoids things like the 'trait tax' of every player selecting Hardy for their character in order to avoid being wearied during a journey. Another positive side-effect is that players selecting narratively similar traits (eg, Hardy and Tall) can use them once each in, say, a journey if they so wish so get more of a benefit from focussing their character in one particular area. It may be something worth considering for your game as a solution/compromise.

That is a very good idea. I like traits being powerful but letting players ignore entire skills because of their traits is something I dont enjoy. I think I will try to use your suggestion in our upcoming campaign. Thanks for the input.

[Cawdorthane]

My own group applied a similar limit to multiple use of the same Trait/Distinctive Feature per scene or encounter and it worked very well. It also encouraged more creative Trait usage by the players rather than every companion usually defaulting to his or her main Trait/Distinctive Feature (Hardy, Bold, Determined etc). I guess the main thing to remember as LM is that it is usually better to empower companions where you can and they make a reasonable case for use of a Trait/Distinctive Feature whilst keeping a delicate balance with the frisson arising from challenge and risk. If you think that companions are over using particular Common Skills and Traits/Distinctive Features to thwart your fiendish plans, then the ball is in your court as LM to come up with problems that need other skills and other Traits/Distinctive Features to solve or overcome. That way rather than nerfing a particular Trait/Distinctive Feature, which may upset your companions, you are actually enhancing the utility of others, which they will probably appreciate.

cheers
Mark

[Crate123]

Can anyone link me to the ""guide to trait usage" ?
I can find the post linking all Rich H's documents but when I click on the link it leads me to an empty dropbox, have they been reuploaded anywhere ?