Forum

I am trying to figure out how hate is used.

Page 144 states that "an adversary may use a fell ability in addition to attacking, so long as they have the necessary points to spend".

Does this mean that in addition to making an attack, an adversary can use 1 fell ability or as many as they have points to spend?

I read it as the former, because "a fell ability" is singular, but it's opened a conversation due to the High Elf ability "Might of the Firstborn" (which allows a player to cancel the effects of a hate/resolve fuelled ability).

Example: a Barrow-Wight attacks and then uses 1 hate point to cast Dark Sorcery. The High Elf player spends a point of Hope to cancel this. Can the LM continue to try to cast Dark Sorcery again and again so long as the Barrow-Wight has the hate points to do so OR is that his fell ability used for that turn?

Logic and the way it is written would dictate the latter, but it doesn't appear to be clear so i'd be interested in seeing how other people use Hate points - and in particular how they interact those abilities with the High Elf's ability to counter them.

The problem of the Hate spending limit does not arise for most Fell Abilities, as they are triggered by other events that are themselves limited (for example, Fierce Folk can only be activated during an attack, Thick Hide can only be activated during a Protection roll, etc.).

Of course, to make this argument we assume that Fell Abilities are not cumulative with themselves (i.e., a creature with Thick Hide cannot spend 2 Hope on the same Protection roll to gain (4d), for example).

The fact that there is no limit to the amount of Hate/Resolve that can be spent over the same turn, or to the activation of the Fell Abilities, is a deliberate choice: opponents should be able to potentially spend more Hate/Resolve in the course of a turn, for example to gain (1d) on their attack roll and then to gain (1d) on their Protection roll in the same turn.

The problem essentially arises for abilities like Strike Fear and Dreadful Spells, since the rules don't explicitly prohibit a creature from triggering these abilities multiple times during the same turn. In this case, it is up to the Loremaster to decide how to use these Fell Abilities, not to make the monster more effective, but to make it more credible: would it make sense for example that a Troll roars 3 times in a row during a round, triggering Strike Fear each time? Maybe that would sound a bit cheesy. But would it make sense for a Barrow-wight to cast its Dreadful Spells on 2 companions at a time, instead of just 1? Well, maybe so, depending on the narrative effect the Loremaster wants to achieve.

As in many other cases, it's essentially a matter of common sense, and of using the rules in a way that works well for the story you want to tell.

Only one activation of a Fell Ability per turn would be my interpretation.

Thanks for the replies. I agree that there should be no limit to the use of spending hate per turn. That was never in question. Spending hate to gain 1d on a die roll in combat (for attack or protection) is allowed for as many attacks and as many hate points as the creature has. Those 1d bonuses are not fell abilities so that is not the issue.

I personally don't think there should ever be a situation where an Orc shouts more than once in a turn or a barrow-wight shoots multiple targets (or the same target multiple times) in the same turn. That doesn't really fit with the "1 action and 1 bonus action per round" limitations of combat. Defensively, of course every time a creature is attacked their abilities may trigger, so that makes sense, but other than that - i'd have to take a different view.

Having discussed and reviewed this our group came to a decision that defensive fell abilities should have no limit (so a barrow-wight is not restricted from returning to life again and again so long as they have the hate points to do so. Same for trolls and their thick hide). Non-defensive fell abilities can be used once per round, which fits with the 1 action/1 bonus action rules. Just sharing that here as an idea if people want an alternative.

I wanted to take the opportunity to highlight that there is an issue with not providing a limit, which is the removal of player agency. With no limit, the LM can effectively defeat the players at any time by Alpha-striking them with hate-fuelled abilities. Now, if the LM wants to field overwhelming odds that the players cannot overcome as part of the narrative, of course they can do that, but the rules shouldn't allow a creature such as a Barrow wight to effectively use all of its hate points during the first round of combat to "machine gun" the players with dreadful spells 6 times in one round. There should be a limit on non-defensive fell abilities, IMHO.

I wanted to take the opportunity to highlight that there is an issue with not providing a limit, which is the removal of player agency. With no limit, the LM can effectively defeat the players at any time by Alpha-striking them with hate-fuelled abilities.

But why would a Loremaster want to do that? Sometimes I feel like there's this weird approach to roleplaying where the gamemaster thinks he's playing against the players, instead of with them. Unless this has a well-defined narrative purpose, trying to defeat player-characters by abusing an opponent's special abilities isn't fun for anyone.

The Loremaster is there to tell an interesting story and provide an appropriate challenge to players: just because the rules don't say how many enemies he can field, for example, doesn't mean he has to create overwhelming encounters every time he can.
The same approach should be taken for the use of Fell Abilities: the Loremasters should consider on a case-by-case basis whether to place limitations on them or go all-in, depending on how strong players are in combat, for example, or whether they are equipped to deal with certain challenges better than others: have the characters invested more in Weapon Proficiencies, or in Valour and Wisdom? On average, do they have higher Wisdom than Valour, or vice versa? Did they choose offensive or defensive Virtues/Rewards? Etc.

But why would a Loremaster want to do that? Sometimes I feel like there's this weird approach to roleplaying where the gamemaster thinks he's playing against the players, instead of with them. Unless this has a well-defined narrative purpose, trying to defeat player-characters by abusing an opponent's special abilities isn't fun for anyone.

Thanks for the reply Michele. I agree with a lot of what you said. Everyone is participating in the Loremasters game/scenario together and the objective should be to have a fun time. Individuals playing characters within the Loremasters setting should feel like they have achieved something of their own making - that despite the best laid plans, schemes and scenarios that the LM has developed the players still manage to succeed via strategy (and no doubt a few lucky rolls!).

To answer your question - it's not about if the Loremaster actually wants to kill the players, it's the fact that fell abilities with no limit allow the Loremaster to kill them at any given time unless he chooses not to. That is what I meant when I said it removes player agency - players knowing that the Loremaster is not playing to full capacity and that any achievement they earn in combat is not because of their good strategy and lucky rolls, but because the Loremaster let them succeed. That isn't fun.

This was why we introduced a very basic system in our game. Unlimited use of defensive Fell abilities (so long as the creature has points to spend) and 1 other Fell ability per round. And obviously, the bonus attack or defensive die use as required with no limitation other than those already in the book. So a Barrow-Wight can cast his sorcery once per round, attack and use an extra d6 once per round and regenerate as often as he has to, spending hate points as required. But in our game, a Barrow-Wight can't pepper spray everybody in the first round of combat with 6 uses of his sorcery and an Orc boss whose yell to restore hate to other Orcs is cancelled by a High Elf's virtue can't just keep shouting in the same round. He shouts once. It's cancelled once. It all feels very thematic that these things all happen once during the round and not multiple times.

The system we use for Fell abilities definitely doesn't give players a free pass but it works for us. So long as everyone enjoys themselves that's all that matters!

But why would a Loremaster want to do that? Sometimes I feel like there's this weird approach to roleplaying where the gamemaster thinks he's playing against the players, instead of with them. Unless this has a well-defined narrative purpose, trying to defeat player-characters by abusing an opponent's special abilities isn't fun for anyone.

A lot of tables do play that way, and both GM and players enjoy it. It's not how I personally prefer to play, but it exists. And criticizing that playstyle as a lesser form of RPGing doesn't solve the problem that for those who engage in it, the Hate system seems to be insufficiently defined.

The question seems to come up repeatedly. One sentence added to the book would have resolved it.

So long as everyone enjoys themselves that's all that matters!

For sure, but I'm having trouble with your point about "player agency". If I understand correctly, players might feel cheated if they know or suspect the LM is pulling their punches (in this case, with the expenditure of Hate). But the LM is *always* pulling their punches, aren't they? Or put another way, the LM, if they were ever so inclined, could wipe the players whenever they wanted. The LM could field overwhelming and superior numbers, just as easily as they could "machinegun" the use of Hate. Do the players feel cheated when they only fight equal numbers, rather than a dozen, or two dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand?

Hate is a resource at the LM's disposal, just like the number of adversaries fielded in a given combat scene, or the specific environmental conditions and so on. The LM, for the sake of telling a compelling and dramatically fun scene, will tweak their use of Hate, along with the other factors. Placing a hard cap on the expenditure of Hate in what you're referring to as "offensive" Fell Abilities just handicaps the LM, the way I see it.
To use one of your examples, what if that Barrow-wight is down to their last few Endurance and they will most assuredly be removed from play by the next successful hit, so in desperation on its presumably last turn, it uses its Dreadful Spell not once, but twice (perhaps against the strongest Player-hero, plus that hero's Fellowship Focus), as a last figurative wailing gasp before it is obliterated into oblivion.

I'm with Michele on this one. Story/narrative is the key with this system. Sure, as gyrovague points out, there are tables and systems that lend themselves to a competitive approach between LM and players (and they're a lot of fun!), but The One Ring feels like it's spiritually not initially configured as one of those systems. But again, thanks to the LM, it can be made to feel as such and if everyone is on board, have at it!

What if that Barrow-wight is down to their last few Endurance and they will most assuredly be removed from play by the next successful hit, so in desperation on its presumably last turn, it uses its Dreadful Spell not once, but twice (perhaps against the strongest Player-hero, plus that hero's Fellowship Focus), as a last figurative wailing gasp before it is obliterated into oblivion.

Well, it can't do that in our game so it wouldn't be an issue. Instead it would cast it once during it's turn and then if reduced to zero endurance or wounded, the Barrow-wight would use a point of hate on its deathless ability to return back to full endurance.

I've never understood this adversarial approach to being a GM.

Though I have switched to a more open style of Gming in recent years. The players can see the rolls I make in The One Ring. Getting a few eyebrows raised at the amount of 3 dice attacks coming their way from my players.

I haven't used Hate to boost the adversaries chances to hit yet, not needed to. Came close to TPK against the Marsh Dwellers in the adventure that comes in the book. 8 against 4, with all but 1 player getting wounded (1 put into the dying state) If it wasn't for the one player rolling hot then it was looking pretty desperate.

I didn't use ANY of the Marsh Dweller's Hate in that fight (other than 1 use of Strike Fear at the start of the fight that really put the players on the back foot - all of them were daunted and couldn't spend Hope*).
I also didn't use many bite attacks (3-4 If I recall).

It was a memorable fight - without using all the abilities that I could have used)

*They've been relying on Hope to get them through fights as three of them only have 2D in a combat skill and one of these is a Breelander who hits on an 18).

I've played 4 sessions of 2nd edition (six combats) and wounded 1 player 3 different times, and 1 player wounded and the put in the dying state, combat is plenty dangerous enough without going full fury on the company.