forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

A character is allowed to assume a rearward stance only if there are a least two other characters fighting in a close combat stance.

This rule makes no sense to me. First of all, what's the purpose of it? And secondly, if two adventurers are facing two orcs, none of them can use their ranged weapons, because you're only allowed to use ranged weapons in rearward stance. Am I missing something?

It means if you want to use a bow, then you need two buddies to cover you as you hang back and fire. Two characters in close combat using melee cover the one in rearward stance with a ranged weapon.

The rules say that you need two other companions, basically running interference for the guy in the rear with the bow. I've never really understood where the mechanic came from either. I guess in a game that combat is based on stances you had to make a concession for ranged combat. Personally I don't see what is wrong with dropping a bow and going to a sword once the enemy got too close.

My biggest question is how does a ranged ambush work in TOR?

Beran wrote:The rules say that you need two other companions, basically running interference for the guy in the rear with the bow. I've never really understood where the mechanic came from either. I guess in a game that combat is based on stances you had to make a concession for ranged combat.

Some of it is no doubt based on logistics. Some of it on common sense (it's hard to notch an arrow, pull back and aim while someone is swinging a bladed weapon at you or it). Some of it on game balance. Some of it is RPG methodology. Most games don't allow ranged in melee. D&D 3rd edition and beyond affords the target of the archer to get an extra attack (Attack of Opportunity) if they try a ranged attack while in melee. This then explains why

Personally I don't see what is wrong with dropping a bow and going to a sword once the enemy got too close.

My biggest question is how does a ranged ambush work in TOR?

There are rules covering this in the LM book for combat. Essentially you can have a free "ranged" attack. Furthermore, If the LM decides there's room for multiple rounds of ranged attacks (considering distance, terrain features - line of sight, etc), he can allow the heroes to have two rounds of ranged attacks.

Usually what I do in the latter cases is:

Bows can make multiple ranged attacks (if there's ample range, line of sight, and distance). Thrown weapons have shorter range and thus only can make their attacks in the last ranged round. Of course if it's a situation that difficult terrain and not range is that reason that a foe cannot get to the heroes in one round, then I would allow thrown weapons to be used in all rounds of combat until they can get to them.

I can imagine a case of a truly nimble warrior "tumbling backwards away from its attacker and firing". I would propose a new Virtue or something that is earned via XP that can allow this. The hero still gets attacked, but can avoid the whole two warriors protecting him. Since it's a rather lucrative ability, my game-designer mentality tells me that you should make it a two-step process that stacks. First, one allows the archer to only need 1 melee-oriented ally to avoid being attacked, and the second Virtue in that line would allow zero, but the archer still gets attacked (TN 12 though stays). In this regard the hero has two options - at his disposal, use 1 melee protector and not get attacked, or zero and risk being attacked.

Robert

I'll have a hard time explaining this rule to my players if the situation doesn't call for it. In the example of two orcs and two players, if both orcs go on the first player, and the other player hangs back firing arrows, there's no reason other than 'because rule' to disallow it.

Heilemann wrote:I'll have a hard time explaining this rule to my players if the situation doesn't call for it. In the example of two orcs and two players, if both orcs go on the first player, and the other player hangs back firing arrows, there's no reason other than 'because rule' to disallow it.

Well, in the rules defence I believe that the spirit of the RAW assume that the two other companions are close enough to make sure no one can flank the archer. There are rules, if I am not mistaken, stating that if an enemy out numbers the party by 2 then rear ward stances are considered untendable as the other party memebers just can't keep the enemy off the archer.

My over all point is why do you need a rule like this to begin with? In all the other fantasy based games my group has played in the archer types used their bows until the enemy came to hand to hand, dropped their bows and went to their secondary weapon (no changing of stance, no extra rules, etc.). I like the combat system in TOR, it has the virtue of being different. However, it can also be very constrictive.

I think the rule was probably put in place because TOR has no grid. And I applaud it for that, it reminds me of my younger years, before D20 turned RPGs into tactical miniature games.

However, that said, it also seems to have the potential to actually do just the opposite of what it seems intended to do. With the miniatures at least you interact with the specific surroundings the fight is taking place in, whereas in TOR it's very easy to completely ignore the environment and simply pick a stance. I guess it can be narrated around a bit, but it seems like a big potential pitfall.

Thoughts?

I've always assumed the rationale for the rule is that it's a simple rule of thumb to enable grid-less, TotM play. And I think it works well for that.

As for "I'll just use my bow until they get close then drop it and pull my sword" you can easily read the rules to mean that: if you have fewer than two companions in melee range then the enemies DO get close so you draw your sword.

You can easily LM the RAW without forcing the players to metagame:
Player: "Well if they are both attacking my companion then I'll take a couple steps back and draw my bow..."
LM: "One of the orcs sees you do that and decides he'd rather attack the guy with the bow instead of the guy with the sword and shield."
Player: "Drat. Ok, I'll draw my sword and use Open stance."

Elfcrusher for the win.

Also it seems like a thought experiment. When are there EVER 2 orcs?

It's a narrative game so narrative style. Lose the grid, that's the idea.

How does anyone expliain more than 2:1 is no ranged combat, it's all melee? Because they close in.

Same deal here. Similarly if the enemy gets ambush there is no ranged for the good guys. It's not a case of choosing stance so much as what stances are left, then decide.

If you are up to your neck in orcs, you go to your blade.

If you have a guy that's an elf, really great with a bow, "we'll hold them off, while you aim and shoot!"

if you are really toe to toe with only two orcs, they are already dead, from all the stuff going on in the pre-combat.

I may be showing my age here, but you don't need rules to allow for TotM play.