forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

That's grand, if that's how you guys like to play it Mark. It's not wrong when rules are open to interpretation, as they often are in the 1st Ed.

As I said, in my games the Combat between groups of opponents is fluid. There are six Orcs and two Barding swordsmen in the second round of the example. Following the very basic rule, the third Barding can use his bow. It's really just as simple as the LM and the Player adjusting the narrative to suit the situation's needs and Escape Combat doesn't ever need to come into it, unless the character is attempting to hightail it.


I have no difficulty at all with envisaging a situation where the Barding swordsmen, despite facing other foes, have manoeuvred themselves into a position where they can obstruct their full quota of opponents, allowing their third companion to retrieve his bow and enter Rearward Stance.

I just think that it makes for a better game. Purely my opinion, of course.

Halbarad wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:43 pm

I just think that it makes for a better game. Purely my opinion, of course.

Well, of course you should go with whatever you think makes the game better! Personally, I think it actually feels more D&D-esque, but whether that's a good or bad thing is a matter of taste: I dislike D&D and like the ways in which TOR is different from it.

I think it may just be the way I have worded it there Mark. I actually favour that style of play because it's completely abstract and doesn't rely on positionality. It's one of the things that make it less like DnD to me. No need for extra rules, no attacks of opportunity or five foot step style manoeuvring, just pure narrative.

Halbarad wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:26 pm

I think it may just be the way I have worded it there Mark. I actually favour that style of play because it's completely abstract and doesn't rely on positionality. It's one of the things that make it less like DnD to me. No need for extra rules, no attacks of opportunity or five foot step style manoeuvring, just pure narrative.

Fair enough! I find that combat requires fairly tight rules (but not overcomplicated ones like in D&D), otherwise it becomes chaotic and impossible to keep straight. But that might just be me.

I just want to point out that the difference between a Close combat stance and Rearward stance is more than just fighting attitude or TN. It also affects whether a ranged weapon could be used, gives certain adversarial Special abilities like Great Leap and Fell Speed real power, and affects the ease of the Escape combat task, which all imply positional considerations.

Absolutely, but only in a very abstract way. There's no 'actual' positionality required to be in any particular Stance(even Rearward).

jamesrbrown wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:11 pm

I just want to point out that the difference between a Close combat stance and Rearward stance is more than just fighting attitude or TN. It also affects whether a ranged weapon could be used, gives certain adversarial Special abilities like Great Leap and Fell Speed real power, and affects the ease of the Escape combat task, which all imply positional considerations.

Which is part of why a not-uncommon house rule is a melee-shot action.

I put it at Open... Make one TN12+Parry shot, while being 9+parry to be hit, in lieu of a melee weapon attack.

Yeah, melee shooting is pretty cinematic...