"...directly protect or favour..."

[Glorelendil]

I don't recall a thread specifically about this, but how about we compile a list of examples/ideas for how you can "directly protect or favour" your Fellowship Focus with an action for which spending Hope to invoke an attribute bonus could occur.

The example in the rules has one hero making a Craft check to free his imprisoned Focus. And certainly that's a pretty clear cut case: you are using a common skill to directly benefit your focus. What other similar examples are there? In general as I look through the skill list I can imagine specific scenarios, but very few that commonly occur. I.e., how often do you have to use Craft to free an imprisoned companion?

The one obvious exception is Healing to treat a Wound. How about using Healing to treat a Woodman's Hound?

One thing I've heard proposed is Rally Comrades when your focus can benefit. What do folks think of this? I'm torn: restored Endurance seems like a pretty obvious protection/favour, but the fact that you're really benefitting the entire Fellowship brings into question whether it's "direct" or not.

How about attacking a target that's attacking your focus? I might rule that if your blow kills the adversary then you've directly protected your focus, but mere damage (or a failed Pierce) does not. Disarming with a called shot might also qualify.

And how about using Intimidate Foe to drain Hate from the adversary attacking your focus? Do the circumstances matter? For example, if you drain the last of its Hate that makes it Weary, which would favour your focus. But what if it only drains some of its Hate? Or what if there are multiple Adversaries and the LM randomly determines that the one attacking your focus is affected? Is that "directly"?

It's pretty clear from RAW (even if it's often house-ruled otherwise) that the point of Hope spent on Protect Companion is not eligible, but I could see an argument for it being "directly protecting" if you then spend another point to pass your own Protection test. It's really one action that happens to involve multiple dice rolls: you're taking the hit to protect your companion. But I could see it being argued both ways.

One good use could be Dunedain with Endurance of the Ranger: spend the Hope to pass your Fatigue test, then use a Tengwar to help your focus.

And here's one that might seem a little cheesy: you spend a point of Hope to succeed at a Preliminary roll, and then you immediately give at least one of your bonus dice to your fellowship focus. That's a pretty clear 'favour', imo. The grey area is in the timing. The rules state:

When a player is about to make a roll, he may add 1 bonus Success die to the roll. To add the die, he may spend 1 of his own bonus dice, or another player may spend it to give it to him.

That means you don't technically give the other player the bonus dice until they are about to make the roll. The time between the Preliminary roll and the bestowing of the die makes 'directly' a bit dubious, in my opinion.

Eager to hear feedback on the above, and suggestions for other common uses.

[uhu79]

I'd allow none of your suggested other than the initial straightforward common skills roll.

Persuade to gain favor for focus
Athletics to come to aid in battle
Stealth to sneak up on an enemy that's threatening your focus
Surprise rolls are good
Same for ambush rolls
Craft, Healing as mentioned

Also any social rolls where you intervene to save your focus from harm

Basically it's a lot about intent and description of motivation for your action. If a lot of your activities are inspired by doing sthg for your focus, you will see some refund - at least with me as your LM.

[Rich H]

The example in the rules has one hero making a Craft check to free his imprisoned Focus. And certainly that's a pretty clear cut case: you are using a common skill to directly benefit your focus. What other similar examples are there? In general as I look through the skill list I can imagine specific scenarios, but very few that commonly occur. I.e., how often do you have to use Craft to free an imprisoned companion?

I think a lot of the social base skills could work; if a character's focus is under some kind of duress in a discussion. Also, physical pursuits would come into play; so things like using Athletics to support a focus when climbing or swimming would work.

I mean this really depends on how easy-going you want to be with the favour part of the "protect or favour" statement. Forging or repairing a weapon (craft) or cooking a comforting meal (also craft) for your Fellowship Focus when ill could fall under the "favour" element of the statement. LM's will likely be scared that this makes getting those spent Hope points back too easy, and that could well be the case, but it would make bonds of friendship and comradeship front and centre which feels very in keeping with what the game is trying to portray within the source material.

Personally, considering the above, I'm not sure how far to go; my heart says all the way but my brain tells me to not be so rash as it would just make Hope usage trivial.

The one obvious exception is Healing to treat a Wound. How about using Healing to treat a Woodman's Hound?

I'd say 'no' to that, personally as it doesn't feel direct enough for my liking. Although even just typing that, I'm already questioning it, as such a Virtue is intrinsic to the character and therefore should qualify. I'm going to change my mind and say 'yes' but always like to show my working out where possible!

One thing I've heard proposed is Rally Comrades when your focus can benefit. What do folks think of this? I'm torn: restored Endurance seems like a pretty obvious protection/favour, but the fact that you're really benefitting the entire Fellowship brings into question whether it's "direct" or not.

I think you'd have to look at the intent here. If the Fellowship Focus is the one that would benefit the most, or they're the driving reason for using Rally Comrades, then I'd be okay with it.

How about attacking a target that's attacking your focus? I might rule that if your blow kills the adversary then you've directly protected your focus, but mere damage (or a failed Pierce) does not. Disarming with a called shot might also qualify.

Feels like a 'no' to me; your attack is directed to the Adversary and not your Focus so isn't being spent directly on them.

And how about using Intimidate Foe to drain Hate from the adversary attacking your focus? Do the circumstances matter? For example, if you drain the last of its Hate that makes it Weary, which would favour your focus. But what if it only drains some of its Hate? Or what if there are multiple Adversaries and the LM randomly determines that the one attacking your focus is affected? Is that "directly"?

As the LM would allocate the Hate point loss it would be rare to hit all the requirements to qualify for the Hope refund that I think the circumstances of allowing this could almost never happen. I'm not sure about this one; perhaps a cautious 'no' except in the most extreme/rare of situations as it feels like you're directing this to an Adversary rather than your actual Focus so it isn't ''direct'.

It's pretty clear from RAW (even if it's often house-ruled otherwise) that the point of Hope spent on Protect Companion is not eligible, but I could see an argument for it being "directly protecting" if you then spend another point to pass your own Protection test. It's really one action that happens to involve multiple dice rolls: you're taking the hit to protect your companion. But I could see it being argued both ways.

I'd say 'no' to that as you're using it to protect yourself from a Wound. The fact that you've risked it protecting your focus isn't something I'd consider.

One good use could be Dunedain with Endurance of the Ranger: spend the Hope to pass your Fatigue test, then use a Tengwar to help your focus.

I'd go along with that in the same way as Rally Comrades above; the character's Focus would need to be the main beneficiary.

And here's one that might seem a little cheesy: you spend a point of Hope to succeed at a Preliminary roll, and then you immediately give at least one of your bonus dice to your fellowship focus. That's a pretty clear 'favour', imo. The grey area is in the timing. The rules state:

When a player is about to make a roll, he may add 1 bonus Success die to the roll. To add the die, he may spend 1 of his own bonus dice, or another player may spend it to give it to him.

That means you don't technically give the other player the bonus dice until they are about to make the roll. The time between the Preliminary roll and the bestowing of the die makes 'directly' a bit dubious, in my opinion.

No, I wouldn't allow this, for the reason you state.

This is another great example of the TOR system where there is a rule but each LM has some scope and wiggle room for deciding how to apply it within their games.

[Falenthal]

As you state, I think the main problem is wether saying "yes" the first time any of those situations arise will drive into abusing the mechanic.
If a player uses a Hope point to Protect his Focus for the first time, it could be accepted that he gets his Hope point back. But what if, after that, they decide to make a combo (front attacker as focus, defensive defender with uberparry getting his Hope point back every round) and abuse the mechanic? How can you tell them, at some point, that the Hope point is not coming back when you said "yes" in the first place?

As Rich seems to points out, I would consider a default "no" with anything that is outside of the direct use of a Common Skill, but considering a case by case to avaluate.
Maybe protecting a focus that is at full Endurance against a Snaga tracker attack wouldn't qualify.
But I might consider that it does, if your focus is already Weary, low on Endurance, and receiving the attack of massive Troll that everyone knows would kill him in one blow.

It might depend not in the mechanic itself, but if the moment and action feels heroic or just "abusing the rules".

[Glorelendil]

I do think in those gray cases it comes down to the narrative. As observed, you want to avoid any "rinse and repeat", such as Rallying Comrades every single round (think of a Rider with his/her cultural armour!). Hopefully (get it?) you've got the player on board and only asking for the refund when it's appropriate, but ultimately it comes down to LM adjudication.

[zedturtle]

I do think in those gray cases it comes down to the narrative. As observed, you want to avoid any "rinse and repeat", such as Rallying Comrades every single round (think of a Rider with his/her cultural armour!). Hopefully (get it?) you've got the player on board and only asking for the refund when it's appropriate, but ultimately it comes down to LM adjudication.

Totally agree. I'd rather have the conversation each time than assume that something is verboten. Of course, allowing certain things are no-goes because they break the economy, but edge cases are always interesting to talk about. I wish all of my players did more with their FFs.

[Earendil]

Interesting to see people's opinions on this. Some useful thoughts here for me to consider for my next campaign.

Earlyish in my (just-finished) campaign, the question came up of whether attacking an enemy who is attacking your Focus counts as "directly benefitting" your focus. I ruled that it did, and have slightly regretted that since!

I think the idea of saying you'll only get the Hope point back if you actually put down the enemy concerned is good; I may go with that in the future.

Similarly, I think intimidating an enemy shouldn't count unless it actually causes them to flee. (And only if they were attacking your Focus.)

I don't mind having flexible case-by-case rulings to some extent, but I think consistency is also important, so it's better to have clear rules, or at least principles, that can be stuck to, or used as a basis to judge when an exception is warranted.

But I definitely agree with Rich that it's better to encourage use of this rule, as it makes your Fellowship Focus more a part of your story, and really helps bring out the sense of friendship/camaraderie that's so important to the game.

[Cawdorthane]

I personally favour a purposive test of each time such a Hope use occurs. If a Fellowship Focus is ensnared by an Attercop etc, then I would have no difficulty in allowing the auto-Hope regain for attacking the Attercop. But conversely if there was a general melee and the Fellowship Focus was in no greater or lesser peril than anyone else, I would be quite disinclined to allow the auto-Hope regain for attacking his foe. Basically, if a Hope use occurs directly (and at least primarily) for the benefit of the Fellowship Focus, then I would almost always allow it. As others have commented, it promotes the spirit of TOR and makes the bond with a Fellowship Focus a primary factor in most players' decisions.

I would not endorse a one sized shoe fits all approach to differing types of Hope use at all - rather as LM concentrate on the individual circumstance in question and the spirit and the motive of its particular use and not merely its mechanics, and if you have to think too hard about whether or not to allow it, err on the side of generousity always!

cheers
Mark

[Glorelendil]

I think the idea of saying you'll only get the Hope point back if you actually put down the enemy concerned is good; I may go with that in the future.

The language does say "directly favour or protect"; there's no "try to" in there. So I might argue that attacking an enemy who is attacking your FF and not preventing it from attacking (e.g. by killing it) then it was a nice attempt but didn't actually directly favour or protect.

[Earendil]

I think the idea of saying you'll only get the Hope point back if you actually put down the enemy concerned is good; I may go with that in the future.

The language does say "directly favour or protect"; there's no "try to" in there. So I might argue that attacking an enemy who is attacking your FF and not preventing it from attacking (e.g. by killing it) then it was a nice attempt but didn't actually directly favour or protect.

Let's assume that you hit the enemy attacking your focus and cause it to lose Endurance. Then your focus also attacks that enemy, and the Endurance loss thus caused puts it down. You didn't put it down, but you did directly contribute to doing so. If you hadn't hit it, it would be able to attack your focus once more. That could count as directly favouring your focus...

I'm being a bit facetious of course; in fact I basically agree with you. I'm just pointing out that there's room for interpretation.