forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

My issue is that the "combat hobbit" should not exist as an option. They should be worse, not on equal footing with other races here. Their really common access to combat rewards (lucky armor, kings blade, bow, small folk, fair shot, and even valor when there is no other option, since it allows you to roll for armor without the weary problem) is quite massive and it strains my suspension of disbelief to see hobbits that are as effective as experienced combatants.

Hobbits should be worse than other combatants of similar combat experience. They are supposed to be good adventurers, but not necessarily good fighters. IMO they should be great in other aspects of the game, and they are far from there: they have very few rewards dealing with these other aspects (exploring, sneaking, socializing) that is where hobbits should excel IMO. They have some rewards, yes, but they could have quite a few more of those and less combat-centric ones. Hobbits having 5 specific and one other reward usable in combat. This is quite massive, especially if the rewards are better than those of some other races. I would kill to have a long shafted axe rolling twice the quality die! Small folk, kings blade, those sound good to me, but the other stuff not so much.

But all this is an opinion of "gut belief" on what a hobbit should be able to achieve, and I assume that we will have to agree to disagree. For me hobbits have too much combat prowess, and for you not so much. No biggie, really

Xavi

Ok - that is changing your argument. Previously you explicitly stated your problem was that they were BETTER combatants; I've showed I do not think that is the case. It seems your problem is that they are combatants.

100% think this is not a problem. It opens up options to players; its fun to be good at combat, and it's fun to have a race that can be effective. At the same time a hobbit can choose not to be a combatant at all, if that is how they want to play there character.

But to give you hope it's not how all hobits will want to play their character; in our campaign one of the hobbits not buying a Short sword skill up at all - she's sticking at 2, as she see's herself like, well a hobbit. And while there could be more "non-combat" rewards for hobbits they do have quite a few, and a loremaster can doubtless come up with more.

The problem with having the rules MAKE bob's hobbit be worse at combat then Janes's dwarf is that sucks for bob... however the rules make them different at combat - and very different; the hobbits really do seem fragile and in trouble when souronded by orcs... and if bob dosen't want to be good at combat, the rules support that!

If Jane is pissed that bob's hobbit is as effective as her dwarf, then Jane has the issue. (BTW I don;t think your Jane - just the example to show how silly the annoyance is).

God bless,
j.

PS I missed the end of your post - I like it, yeah I'm ok with us disagreeing , and wouldn't have argued so much if I'd read it! Just be cheered there are hobbit players out there choosing to not be good at fighting - they are great to RP with... and very Hobbity... and this while discussion was probably my fault for erroneously stating Hobbits were combat monsters way back! Oops!

James Harrison wrote:Ok - that is changing your argument. Previously you explicitly stated your problem was that they were BETTER combatants; I've showed I do not think that is the case. It seems your problem is that they are combatants.

Yup. I stand corrected. I still think they are better than quite a few characters that should be better fighters than them (like a woodman with a long axe, even if that is a problem with the woodman sucking himself) and at low levels they are *the* killer character (totally counterintuitive) but I stand corrected none the less.

I like when rules make Bob the hobbit worse in combat. He will be excelling in other areas (as the rules should give that as well) so it is a trade off. No need to actually suck, he might be simply worse than the advantage but not a total ass there. Hobbits being good in martial footing breaks the "the game reflects Tolkien well" statement repeated over and over in all the TOR forums since IMO Tolkien did not say that about hobbits.

But yeah, we agree to disagree

Cheers,
Xavi

Angelalex242 wrote:Well, a Great Spear is probably going to be Keened, and Fell besides. Elves could make it bitter, and Beornings could make it Giant Slaying.

Actually, bitter can only be applied to a spear, not a great spear.

Eh. The text of the Bitter Spear is 'made from the wood of Dol Guldur.'

I don't see why it couldn't be used on any type of spear. A great bitter spear is just a bigger piece of Dol Guldur wood.

If you look at other text relating to the weapons, armour or shield to which a Reward applies you'll find mention of things like spear and Great spear separately. Where both the one and the two-handed version is meant it's clearly labelled as such. By implication as Bitter doesn't have the extra wording it only applies to 1H-spears.

Examples: Dalish Longbow (Great bow), Giant-slaying spear (Great spear), Spear of King Bladorthin (spear), Splitting axe (axe or great axe), Shepherd's Bow (bow or Great bow)

Could be an oversight. I see no reason why an elf couldn't just journey to Dol Guldur (with his brave companions, cause going there is suicide on your own...), cut down an Ash Tree, and carve it into a great spear if he darn well feels like it.

What logical reason does a Loremaster have to prevent the elf from doing this?

it's the (Spear) in brackets by the name. But if the loremaster would let it be any type of spear that would be fine...

... it would also make it mesh with the speamans shield, which would be nice...

...and the reason he "couldent make his own" isn't that he couldn't, but it is meant to be a cultural reward of a spear several hundreds of years old; or that's how i see it.

Spear of King Bladorthin (spear) <-- this is the strongest case for wht it means just a one handed spear; same formatting as this spear, which cant be a 2 hander as it's thrown.

Angelalex242 wrote:Could be an oversight. I see no reason why an elf couldn't just journey to Dol Guldur (with his brave companions, cause going there is suicide on your own...), cut down an Ash Tree, and carve it into a great spear if he darn well feels like it.

What logical reason does a Loremaster have to prevent the elf from doing this?

You can house rule it any way you like, of course, but the rules in the book are clear. It would just be a fancy great spear if you follow them. A Cultural Reward is more than just "I make it". If it was just a matter of the right wood, why not craft a bitter great spear without raising Valour? Why just Woodelves, if it just about the wood? A bitter spear is more than "just" made from the correct wood.

If this was the case you could buy most cultural and general physical rewards, since they are no more than well made items. This is not the case, so journeying to dol guldur would give you no access to the spear. The experience you get there might grant you one (and it would be great to justify it) but going there fast and returning without encountering odds that are a real challenge (so you get XP and AP)? Nope. Rewards are story elements earned for your perilous actions, not just a piece of gear.