Forum

Also unexperienced adventurers should use a forward stance to compensate for their lack of skill (which makes sense).

How does it make sense for inexperienced combatants to take greater risks?

"Ok, the four Hobbits take Forward stance. Boromir and I will stay Defensive. We got this."

I guess the same way we are used to justify for 1e

Also unexperienced adventurers should use a forward stance to compensate for their lack of skill (which makes sense).

How does it make sense for inexperienced combatants to take greater risks?

"Ok, the four Hobbits take Forward stance. Boromir and I will stay Defensive. We got this."

Well the four Hobbits were surely not mowing down enemies in the book.
If you are not a skilled fighter and you are facing an opponent you need to take same risk to hope of landing an attack. How is that strange?

Hobbits get some boosts to combat though. Send them into combat Weary or Miserable and they will kick arse ("Brave at a Pinch"). Also good in rearward ("Sure at the Mark").

Also unexperienced adventurers should use a forward stance to compensate for their lack of skill (which makes sense).

How does it make sense for inexperienced combatants to take greater risks?

"Ok, the four Hobbits take Forward stance. Boromir and I will stay Defensive. We got this."

Pippin did take a Forward stance with the Thing-in-the-deeps and the well from Moria...

Look, I'm not criticizing the rules (in this case!) or saying that 1e did this differently/better. I was just raising my eyebrows at the statement that it "makes sense" for combat noobs to take the greatest risks.

Look, I'm not criticizing the rules (in this case!) or saying that 1e did this differently/better. I was just raising my eyebrows at the statement that it "makes sense" for combat noobs to take the greatest risks.

If they *actually* want to hit something, it makes perfect sense: if you're a noob and make every effort to hit your enemy, you attack awkwardly and recklessly, making yourself more vulnerable to counterattacks.

If you don't want to kill enemies because, well, you kinda suck at it, you may simply stand in Open stance to Rally your comrades, or in Defensive stance to Protect them, interfering with the enemies' blows instead of attacking, or just stand in the Rearward shooting arrows (and I've always wondered why none of the Hobbits in the Fellowship chose that option... ).

So, while Aragorn and Boromir fight in Open or Forward stance to do what they do best (rally, intimidate and split Orc heads), the Hobbits stay in Defensive stance to distract the enemies and deflect their attacks, letting the two Dunedain deal the decisive blows.

Ok, fair enough. I was reading it as "it makes sense for the least experienced combatants to charge to the front", which is a dubious assertion. However, "It makes sense that IF the least experienced combatants want to pull their weight, they are going to have to take greater chances" seems more reasonable.

After watching a few "let's play" games on YouTube I can't help but worry how many hope points are used and yet still fail. I was wondering about allowing players to spend hope points after rolling to give the player a +3 to their total but are still limited to spending 1 hope point per skill attempt.

Would this unbalance skill attempts?

Now everyone has received the finished pdf what's your thoughts on hope points?

That is how I have ran it the couple of sessions I've been able to get done. No issues thus far.