Help! My Wits score is 2!

[Deadmanwalking]

Huh. The passage in question is

When the protected character is attacked, the protecting hero may choose to spend 1 point of Hope and become the target of the attack in his place. The attack is resolved using the stance of the defending character to calculate its TN.

I never read that to mean that the Hope expenditure had to be made before the attack was rolled, but I can certainly see that as a valid interpretation. Of course, my thoughts are colored by running so much PbP, where players don't really have a chance to do an interrupt. I wonder what everyone else thinks...

For what it's worth, we've always done it as needing to choose before the roll (or at least before we know what the roll is...LM Screen). I'm pretty sure that's the way it works RAW, and doing it the other way while allowing Hope rebates for someone protecting their Fellowship Focus (which we do) is a terrible idea.

Frankly, if bending rules a bit, allowing either the Hope-free defense of their Fellowship Focus or allowing one to choose to take the hit after the roll is reasonable. Allowing both is ripe for rampant abuse and probably a terrible idea.

[zedturtle]

Oh yeah, agreed... I don't (anymore) let people spend Hope for free for their FF, but would allow a refund if they spent a second point of Hope on their Protection test. That's not RAW, but I think is close enough to the spirit (and unlikely enough to come up) that it's okay.

[Earendil]

The passage in question is

When the protected character is attacked, the protecting hero may choose to spend 1 point of Hope and become the target of the attack in his place. The attack is resolved using the stance of the defending character to calculate its TN.

I never read that to mean that the Hope expenditure had to be made before the attack was rolled, but I can certainly see that as a valid interpretation. Of course, my thoughts are colored by running so much PbP, where players don't really have a chance to do an interrupt. I wonder what everyone else thinks...

I've always had the same interpretation as Falenthal: "when the protected character is attacked" means, to me, when the LM says "The orc is attacking you" i.e. before any dice are rolled. Of course the LM is free to be more lenient, but that's my understanding of what the rules mean.

Also, you can't regain the Hope point you spend for protecting your companion, because it's not an Attribute bonus! And I personally wouldn't allow you to regain a Hope point spent on a Protection test, because that's definitely not directly benefitting your companion; it directly benefits you, which indirectly benefits them.

[Rich H]

I think as GM, I let the player decide whether to Protect Companion after I'd announced whether the attack had hit or not because I'm not sure Hope should be spent in potential circumstance that could get zero benefit. Hope can be spent to do things but in general it gets invoked to turn success into failure (eg, attribute bonuses) or provides an exception mechanic where something can be attempted. Not allowing someone to spend Hope to invoke Protect Companion after the LM declares the success of an attack seems wrong as Hope expenditure shouldn't always guarantee success but it should allow for the possibility (of success). However I can see why others would require it to be spent before success is declared and that may well be the intent of the RAW; although looking at how Hope is employed, I'm not sure that is the case.

[Glorelendil]

I think as GM, I let the player decide whether to Protect Companion after I'd announced whether the attack had hit or not because I'm not sure Hope should be spent in potential circumstance that could get zero benefit. Hope can be spent to do things but in general it gets invoked to turn success into failure (eg, attribute bonuses) or provides an exception mechanic where something can be attempted. Not allowing someone to spend Hope to invoke Protect Companion after the LM declares the success of an attack seems wrong as Hope expenditure shouldn't always guarantee success but it should allow for the possibility (of success). However I can see why others would require it to be spent before success is declared and that may well be the intent of the RAW; although looking at how Hope is employed, I'm not sure that is the case.

I'm with Rich. I can't think of any other place in the game where you are required to spend Hope without knowing for certain that it will make a difference.

I could see withholding the actual die roll to avoid some gaming of the system (e.g., only spend the Hope if the die roll is above the target's TN but below yours, or only do it on a Pierce because you have great armour) but I wouldn't even bother with that. Narratively it's fine either way, imo.

[Deadmanwalking]

I dunno, if you spend the Hope you do get something for it: The absolute certainty that the person you're defending will not get hit. You definitionally succeed at that.

That's not nothing, and about on par with several other Hope expenditures which can be successful but meaningless. I mean, hitting an opponent can be rendered meaningless really easily by a subsequent dice roll (if the next attack would've killed them anyway, for example).

The other way certainly works, too, but I don't see any inherent issue with having to invest in the defense before you know whether it'll hit them or not. And that really does seem to be RAW (not that it being RAW matters all that much, but still).

[Falenthal]

I dunno, if you spend the Hope you do get something for it: The absolute certainty that the person you're defending will not get hit. You definitionally succeed at that.

I'm fully with Deadmanwalking here.
The only objective of Protect Companion is to guarantee that your companion isn't in danger, in my opinion.

The attack is resolved using the stance of the defending character to calculate its TN.

Reading the bolded part, I understand that the attack isn't resolved before the protecting hero declares he does become the target of the attack.

Either way, I don't think allowing the Hope expenditure after seeing the roll would break the game and summon Valhalla upon Arda. It just will slow a little bit the combat resolution by having to calculate two attacks (different TNs, apply Special Abilities if needed,...) instead of just one.

[Deadmanwalking]

Either way, I don't think allowing the Hope expenditure after seeing the roll would break the game and summon Valhalla upon Arda. It just will slow a little bit the combat resolution by having to calculate two attacks (different TNs, apply Special Abilities if needed,...) instead of just one.

Right. I'm pretty sure this is technically a House Rule, but it's a minor and entirely reasonable one.

It's only a problem when combined with the other (less minor, but still reasonable) House Rule of allowing people to recoup the loss of Hope from Defend Companions if defending their Fellowship Focus. Those two House Rules allow for a seriously abusive synergy and should not be combined.

[Rich H]

I don't think an interpretation of a rule is necessarily a house rule unless we get an explicit example/confirmation of usage by someone who wrote the rule.

Personally, I can see how it can be interpreted both ways; considering the usage of Hope and how it is applied within the game, but can see why others think the Hope expenditure is enough just to stop your companion being attacked even if the attack would have missed.

When in doubt, which I am about this rule, I'd favour the players rather than not.

[Glorelendil]

Is there another example of any use of Hope where you're using it blindly and potentially wasting it?

A fair analogy would be if the King's Blade required you to commit the point before attacking, and if you hit it becomes a Pierce at the cost of the Hope point. Then if you roll a Gandalf the point of Hope would be wasted.

But, of course, that's not how King's Blade works: after you know if you've hit AND if you've rolled Edge you get to choose to spend the Hope.

I would be shocked if the intention for Protect Companion is any different. And certainly if that were the intent the language would be less ambiguous, given how different it would be from all other uses of Hope.