Rasmus Nord
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed 06 May 2020, 09:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Fri 03 Dec 2021, 11:48

I written a two-page combat example for players and potential Loremasters, based on my own little test of the game.

It was one of the few faults I found with the core rules - the extremely brief combat example didn't really show how the rules actually worked. I hope that other LMs might find it useful. And should you notice that I made an error, don't hesitate to write.

The example is embedded into my new review of TOR 2nd ed., but I don't think most people here will need to read that :)

You can download the combat example as PDF here:
https://mindlands.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ample.pdf
 
Niallism
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:56

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Fri 03 Dec 2021, 17:06

I written a two-page combat example for players and potential Loremasters, based on my own little test of the game.

It was one of the few faults I found with the core rules - the extremely brief combat example didn't really show how the rules actually worked. I hope that other LMs might find it useful. And should you notice that I made an error, don't hesitate to write.

The example is embedded into my new review of TOR 2nd ed., but I don't think most people here will need to read that :)

You can download the combat example as PDF here:
https://mindlands.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ample.pdf
There's a lot of good here, but also some big issues. Firstly, adversaries don't choose a stance. Only player-heroes choose a stance.

Also, there's a bit of debate about this, but it doesn't seem that wounded and zero endurance means you are dying, in 2E. That was the case in 1E, but the rules on p 101 don't say that.
 
Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Fri 03 Dec 2021, 18:23

And a minor point, if the wound severity is 12, that is a Gandalf and is a Good thing for the PC s.
On the other hand an 11 is the Eye result, which would be dreaded, and a potentially fatal Wound. (I have not actually checked this but I think I am right)

Edit: Gyrovague below makes a much better point. Narrating a realistic conclusion, without expecting the PC s to execute everything ( you don't get any extra XP/blood money for chopping up the last orc), is one strong illustration how this is NOT the D n D style of game. Further, the example does it very nicely.

Credit to the OP for including that last bit: and a No-prize to me for nit-picking on the typo!!
Last edited by Dunheved on Sat 04 Dec 2021, 10:54, edited 2 times in total.
 
gyrovague
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue 28 Apr 2020, 16:52

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Sat 04 Dec 2021, 08:25

My favorite part is where the LM decides there's no need to roll dice to conclude the battle, and just narrates the demise of the orc.
 
Rasmus Nord
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed 06 May 2020, 09:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Sun 05 Dec 2021, 13:21

I written a two-page combat example for players and potential Loremasters, based on my own little test of the game.

It was one of the few faults I found with the core rules - the extremely brief combat example didn't really show how the rules actually worked. I hope that other LMs might find it useful. And should you notice that I made an error, don't hesitate to write.

The example is embedded into my new review of TOR 2nd ed., but I don't think most people here will need to read that :)

You can download the combat example as PDF here:
https://mindlands.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ample.pdf
There's a lot of good here, but also some big issues. Firstly, adversaries don't choose a stance. Only player-heroes choose a stance.

Also, there's a bit of debate about this, but it doesn't seem that wounded and zero endurance means you are dying, in 2E. That was the case in 1E, but the rules on p 101 don't say that.
Thanks for the feedback. You're right about the stances. I missed that. 0 Endurance means you drop, only if you are wounded or poisoned for example are you dying.
Will edit and update. :)
 
Rasmus Nord
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed 06 May 2020, 09:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Sun 05 Dec 2021, 13:35

I written a two-page combat example for players and potential Loremasters, based on my own little test of the game.

It was one of the few faults I found with the core rules - the extremely brief combat example didn't really show how the rules actually worked. I hope that other LMs might find it useful. And should you notice that I made an error, don't hesitate to write.

The example is embedded into my new review of TOR 2nd ed., but I don't think most people here will need to read that :)

You can download the combat example as PDF here:
https://mindlands.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ample.pdf
There's a lot of good here, but also some big issues. Firstly, adversaries don't choose a stance. Only player-heroes choose a stance.

Also, there's a bit of debate about this, but it doesn't seem that wounded and zero endurance means you are dying, in 2E. That was the case in 1E, but the rules on p 101 don't say that.
Funnily, I ran into a bit of an issue when correcting the example. If the adversary wants to flee from combat, but can't take up a defensive stance, then what? I would argue that you would use the same mechanics, but it is a bit contradictory...
 
Rasmus Nord
Topic Author
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed 06 May 2020, 09:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Sun 05 Dec 2021, 13:42

An updated combat example can be found here: https://mindlands.files.wordpress.com/2 ... le-1.1.pdf

Thanks for the feedback so far.
 
baldrick0712
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri 28 May 2021, 12:29

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Sun 05 Dec 2021, 15:36

If the adversary wants to flee from combat, but can't take up a defensive stance, then what?
From p104 under heading "Fly, You Fools!"... "They can first assume a Rearward stance, and then choose to escape when their turn to act comes. No roll is required to do so. The same applies to adversaries who chose to stand back and thus remained unengaged.
 
Themadviolinist
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2021, 16:01

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Sun 05 Dec 2021, 16:33

Is there a way to disengage if you've been fighting, but wish to withdraw?
 
User avatar
Rafamir
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 04:23

Re: A more comprehensive combat example for players and LMs

Sun 05 Dec 2021, 22:25

Is there a way to disengage if you've been fighting, but wish to withdraw?
Adventurers who've been fighting in Forward or Open stance require an additional round to position themselves for retreat. The reference above to page 104 outlines the only two options for player-heroes:
- Adopt Rearward stance (if there are enough other adventurers in Close Combat stances) and flee when your turn comes
- Adopt Defensive stance, then rolling your attack normally. On a success, you get to disengage and leave the battlefield, rather than damaging your foe.

The same applies to adversaries who chose to stand back and thus remained unengaged.
I cannot find where in the rules this is spelled out, but I would play it similarly to how you suggest: foes seeking to flee would avoid engaging adventurers in Close Combat and simply flee, or follow the steps for Defensive stance, rolling successfully for an attack to disengage and run for it. In the first case, this may only be available if those adventurers are already engaged by other foes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 9 guests