New combat rules from Adventurer's Companion

[Falenthal]

I'm imagining a one-card-per-combat-task/called-shot scenario, so a player can fan out their options and lay down the one their actually going to use that turn, if applicable.

It could be practical, although several copies of each card should be printed: every character in a given Stance should have all cards corresponding to his weapon and Stance available. Could end up being a bit of a mess.

LM: Ok, next turn of combat. The Orc-captain...
Player 1: Wait! I sheath my sword, take my bow, and change from Open to Rearward position.
LM: Ok, let's swap all your cards and for the new ones.
Player 2: I'll go grab a coffee... and to the bathroom...

[Rich H]

Do you think this would be too many cards?

Ouch, yeah I do!

Players have 4 cards (one for each stance) and I just put the effects of the combat tasks/options relating to each stance on those cards rather than any detailed mechanics; that seems to be enough. I may do one card for each role now as well although I'm not really convinced they (the actual roles and rules, not cards of them) add any real value to the game so will likely not bother. Need to consider them a bit more as they are adding a layer of complexity but I'm not sure of the benefits as these things are the types of stuff we role-play naturally within the game so don't really need mechanics that ultimately restrict my options as a GM etc.

[Falenthal]

Regarding the Two-weapon Attack new Combat Task, which cultures do you see as most prone to use it?
Some combinations of Starting Weapons seem weird to really take profit of it. I can see a Dwarf with a Hand Axe and a Short Sword, for example.
But a Wood-elf with a Spear and a Sword seems weird, for example: too much Encumbrance, in my opinion. Maybe Spear and Dagger could be better, but it's the potential damage of a dagger worth it?

What do you think?

... although I must say, Jon Hodgson already thought positively of it when illustrating the very first TOR book! And none of us catched the spoilers...

[Borri]

While I'm a big fan of visualizing and enhancing game experience with cards like these, I still have in mind the harsh reactions (read: shitstorm) Warhammer 3rd received for going the highly card and token enhanced gameplay way.

[Elmoth]

I do not have the book yet, but the option of 2 weapons breaks Middle Earth suspension of disbelief for me. Sorry, but someone had to say it. Fancy wording will not change that 2 weapon fighting in the middle ages was something unheard of, not a common feature.

Those 2 illustrations are not those of COMBAT with 2 weapons. These characters are just using one at the time, if at all.

[cuthalion]

suspension of disbelief for me

Noooo! Don't say it!

Fancy wording will not change that 2 weapon fighting in the middle ages was something unheard of, not a common feature.

Yeh, but it will make some people happy. Plus, you could always just allow it's use in a realistic way--2 swords is totally a bit much, especially if you imagine swinging them simultaneously. But don't forget that attack rolls aren't meant to simulate a single sword stroke, so what if a player attacks with their spear, tussles, then draws a dagger and strikes again. We're talking 30 s of combat here, seems feasible.

I'm not a big fan of the two weapon thing, and won't defend it more than this, but I think C7 have done a good job of the rules for it, and I wouldn't stress that it's going to become a big part of the game.

[cuthalion]

Do you think this would be too many cards?

Ouch, yeah I do!

LM: Ok, next turn of combat. The Orc-captain...
Player 1: Wait! I sheath my sword, take my bow, and change from Open to Rearward position.
LM: Ok, let's swap all your cards and for the new ones.
Player 2: I'll go grab a coffee... and to the bathroom...

Fair points.

Need to consider them a bit more as they are adding a layer of complexity but I'm not sure of the benefits as these things are the types of stuff we role-play naturally within the game so don't really need mechanics that ultimately restrict my options as a GM etc.

Yeh, I suppose I see some of the benefits as (1) allowing players to have that say in some of the set pieces that the GM would normally have the run of (and don't forget, players won't always choose to use them)---this seems dynamic; (2) codifying some of the decisions made by players with some benefits and drawbacks---again, different GMs might handle someone acting as a champion better or worse, but I think players might like to see that they have some agency in the process and realize some real benefits from acting heroically or strategically; (3) supporting mixed-level fellowships--and therefore ones that feel more like they are in the books; (4) encouraging asymmetrical engagements; (5) feeling LOTR-y---love the challenge to single combat thing, feels like it would evoke the books a lot.

Having said that, yet to play it. But it's nice in theory! Will be interested to hear from people who do implement it.

[Otaku-sempai]

I do not have the book yet, but the option of 2 weapons breaks Middle Earth suspension of disbelief for me. Sorry, but someone had to say it. Fancy wording will not change that 2 weapon fighting in the middle ages was something unheard of, not a common feature.

Uncommon surely. Unheard of? Maybe as a formal fighting style, but that doesn't preclude it. What about gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome (actually pre-dating the Middle Ages)? And then there is the simple reality of the chaos of warfare: one might begin with one weapon and a shield, but by the end find oneself with two, completely different weapons.

In any case, there is a false equivalency here. Middle-earth is not the Europe of the Middle Ages, though there are locations in Arda that closely resemble that time and place. I can easily imagine noblemen of Gondor trained in a two-weapon fighting style and engaging in formal duels using sword and dirk.

[bluejay]

For Saturday's game I made a Dunlending that fought with axe and dagger and I thought that fit really well. The character had Wild Onset so it was a particularly optimal choice (with her favoured Body stat of 8). Of course her brother had to spend a significant amount of combat in Defensive Stance using Protect Companion.

[Mythicos]

I do not have the book yet, but the option of 2 weapons breaks Middle Earth suspension of disbelief for me. Sorry, but someone had to say it. Fancy wording will not change that 2 weapon fighting in the middle ages was something unheard of, not a common feature.

Those 2 illustrations are not those of COMBAT with 2 weapons. These characters are just using one at the time, if at all.

I don't want to derail this thread too much (and two-weapon fighting, as I remember, as been debated at length, here and in any RPG Forums one cares to visit.

Having said that, saying something to the effect of :"[...] 2 weapon fighting in the middle ages was something unheard of [...]" is, like most broadly-stroke generalizations, wrong.

For those interested, two interesting debates on Quora regarding this subject:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... ded-weapon

https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-fighting ... r-than-one

(that 2nd link has middle-age drawings of two-weapon fighting that are from manuals on fighting)

[TL;DR] Two-weapon fighting is not unheard of, far from it. But the wisdom of using such a fighting form is highly dependent on one's circumstances and proficiency.

Against melee-wielding multiple opponents when you're proficient with your off-hand? Great idea. An off-hand weapon can parry (same use as a shield) and prevents opponents from choosing a flank where they know you will be unable to counterattack.

Missiles are involved? Dumb ass idea: shield is the only thing that helps your odds of surviving a ranged attack. And since any battlefield with armies will likely involve missiles, going two-weapon is simply suicidal.

[/off topic]

All of this to say that, of course, two-weapon fighting might be a suspension-killer; to each their own. But there's no objective reason for it to be so.