Storms Are Battles

 I've been thinking, lately, or ways to engage players with weather in my campaign. 

Specifically, bad weather. Catastrophic weather! This is partly a result of my being obsessed with making real-world, mundane events and phenomena important to the characters and players. In our own world, when there is a serious storm, it can be scary. Terrifying, even. Without any supernatural or magical agents taking part at all. Yet it hardly ever impacts a game.

I also enjoy naval adventures. I love the sea and the shore and I enjoy incorporating them into my adventures or campaigns.  A big part of sea travel in the age of sail is the unpredictability of weather and the catastrophic effect it can have on fragile, wooden vessels. Having personally experienced a number of storms on the Irish Sea (while at sea), I can tell you, they are some of the most terrifying experiences of my life. I should think only warfare, comes close. 

So I wanted to come up with a way to make a storm at sea both scary, with real jeopardy for the players, and engaging and interactive, where there are things the player can do. And I figured... a battle...

To do this, I considered the following sections of the Tales of Argosa rules: Ships (p208),  Mass battle (p162) and Elementals (p181), specifically Water and Air Elementals, but more on that later. In addition, I considered the roles players might take onboard the vessel, what storm damage might look like and, of course, how to win.

Why is it a battle?

Well, it's not. Not really and literally. You can't kill a storm and it doesn't have Hit Dice and you can't charm it or magic it dead. Consider it a template. 

Imagining a storm as a battle is just a fun way to make a storm interactive and dynamic, following an already familiar format. It means I can use the same language as combat, but a few things are clearly going to be different. The storm can't be attacked. But it can be Mitigated. The damage a storm is likely to cause can be limited. By the actions of the players.

For the most part, a storm's attacks, or pseudo-attacks, will be against the ship. There shouldn't be any intention behind the storm's attacks, or any strategy of plan or intelligence. The GM should always narrate these events as a storm. An elemental fury, random, destructive, sure, but without purpose. It should englulf the ship and the party in a literal maelstrom! And where a pseudo-attack succeeds, it should be taken to be bad luck o the part of the player and when one fails, the player character was quick on thier feet and got out of the way. But there will be collateral and human damage, nevertheless. A storm may well destroy a ship, if not mitigated properly.

Turns

A 'turn' in this context isn't a regular turn - t would take far too long. Instead, each Turn represents something like an hour. Or whatever length of time is useful. Maybe the highlights or worst moments. Storms eventually subside, or simply pass. This takes 2d12 hours. Alternatively, use a d12 Usage Die, so no one knows how long it will go on for. That will mean your average storm lasts 19 hours or so - long enough for the players to feel like they've been through the mill.  

Skills

If the system you are using has skills then its a good idea to decide in advance which ones you're going to focus on for crewing the ship and mitigating the storm. Tales of Argosa, my current go-to, has Watercraft, which is okay. For most adventures, its fine. But if I were running a whole nautical-themed campaign, I might introduce the Seafaring or Sailing skill early on, just to allow players to distinguish between professional seafarers and people who live on a river. 

Navigation isn't a skill in Tales of Argosa, but it is in some other systems, and the Captain needs to have it, I think, so I will again add to my houserules for a nautical campaign. I might also add Rigging if somebody wanted to play a specialist. I will probably Command, too, as a way of getting people to do scary, dangerous or other unappealing stuff.

Roles

It isn't absolutely necessary but its useful for the players to have roles on the ship. Some roles might include Captain (chief decision-maker), First Mate (chief giver of commands), Bosun or boatswain (in charge of anchors, rigging, ropes, boats, flags, etc), Head Carpenter (chief mender of wood), Crewman (climbing rigging and hauling sail), possibly Navigator and maybe a military role, such as Guard or Marine. Taking one of these roles both increases pay and gives the players greater interaction with the ship and its crew. These roles can just be roleplayed, or represented by a generalise skill, or made a spacial or unique ability. 

Mitigating the storm

A storm can be mitigated in basically one of two ways: navigating away from the storm, or managing the ship to minimise damage within the storm. 

Navigating comes down mainly to the Captain or Navigator making appropriate skill checks at suitable intervals. As soon as the storm is spotted, the Captain has to decide what to do and skill checks should be made. It is possible that a ship might outrun a storm. It is also possible that the process lasts for hours or even days. Navigating away from the storm is not the same as continuing towards your destination and doesn't necessarily even involve knowing where you are going. 

Managing the ship will be the responsibility of the whole crew, including the player characters. The GM tells the players what the storm is doing, where it is making its pseudo-attack, etc. Then the players describe how they react to that and what they do to minimalise damage to the ship. They make skill checks to see if their characters succeed in their plan. If they do, either the damage doesn't happen, or it is reduced. That is going to come down to the GM's discretion a lot of the time. Mitigating actions might include actions like dropping the sail, mending damaged rigging or hull planks, securing items and cargo, etc. 

The Captain

Complications. One of the cool things I hope will happen when I use this system, is that complications will arise to the main journey. A crewmember might get swept overboard, a door might get smashed. As a result, cargo might get damaged or 'passengers' might get loose. 

Elements

 Elements  the storm represent situations where the storm's effects are felt. they are not intended to be separate from the storm, or individual entities. Thety are simply aspects of the storm that are felt at any given time. If a Storm Element (Wind) attacks a door, it means the wind is battering at the door and if it breaks and the Wind Element gets inside, then it just means the wind got in. The stats are there to resolve what happens. 

 

Example Elements 

STORM ELEMENT (WIND)
Wind Elements batter the crew with powerful gusts, tear sails and rigging, fling objects about and can even push crewmembers overboard, They don't usually do direct damage but can hurl objects in such a way as to cause harm like an attack. Players and NPCs always get a luck (Dex save to avoid these pseudo attacks, but they are sometimes at Disadvantage.
WIND ELEMENT AC - HD 5/10/15 Batter 2d4/2d8/3d8 Nat 19 Prone & Stunned 

S17/18/19 D23 C- I- P- W- Ch- L-.

Immune to weapons. Hold(1) Close targets move at half speed until the Wind Element is defeated or driven off (Luck (Con) save resists). Omnipresent. Wind Element can attack as many individuals as it can reach (walls and doors block until attacked and destroyed. Hurl object. The Wind Element can throw objects threw the air and can do so as many times as there are loose objects available.

No Reac. 

 

STORM ELEMENT (WATER)
Water Elements batter and beat their victims with torrents of rain hurled with tremendous force, or waves of icy sea water.
WATER ELEMENT AC - HD 5/10/15 Blind. Close targets cannot see and are drummed with cold rain or sea water. Swept Away. Targets are swept across the deck, englufed so that tyey cannot brath or thrown against the mast or other parts of the ship. 2d6/2d8/3d6 Nat 18-20 Special. Prone and Stunned

S18/19/20 D14 C- I- P- W- Ch- L-

Immune to  weapons. On a Nat 18-20 Engulf Automatic Batter damage on Element’s turn unless Str contest to break free . The GM decides how many targets
may be engulfed at once. 

No Reac 

 

That's all I've got so far. Let me know if you have any thoughts.  

Social Encounters, Conflicts and Locations

 I'm writing this after developing a bit of a fascination for the idea of social combat and so-called 'social' or 'roleplaying' encounters and a long-standing question I have about why so many RPGs, especially the d20 based ones, have such developed rules for physical combat but so little for social conflict. I mean it seems obvious to me that this stems from Dungeons and Dragons' roots in wargaming and that culture. But we've had these games for a while; why hasn't more changed?

And I want to be clear: I'm not critisising the idea of having fairly developed combat rules. And I don't necesarily mean complex rules when I say that, just games that have noticeably more developed rules for fighting and killing things than for other forms of interaction. I love me some complex and involved combat rules, certainly more complex than most d20 systems. I love hit locations, parrying rules, sacrificing armour, etc. But I also love being able to do something more or less equivalent with social conflict.

I know many OSR-style players will say that they prefer this sort of interaction to remain 'unmechanised'  (a term I just made up), i.e. without rules. Because the social interactions are for roleplaying. And that's sort of fair enough. But its also sort of bullshit. I don't mock-fence when I'm roleplaying, mainly because there isn't room. Also because there would be collateral damage. Also because I don't have a wide assortment of medieval or other weaponry and armour and don't want them (ahh, the clutter!). 

But I would also be shit at it. I didn't grow up in the middle ages, riding a horse from the age of six, learning to use a spear from seven and being knocked down bloody by 'tutors' until I was old enough to point out that I was now the lord of the manor and they had better show me some goddam respect! (Ahem...) Not was ever a navy seal, a fighter pilot for Star Force Earth or a ninja. I can solve puzzles and follow clues to a clear-cut conclusion, but not under the kind of time-related pressure good detective mysteries are made of. 

I can however, argue, persuade, sooth, seduce, encourage and barter. Not an expert, but I can do it.

Actually, as a former teacher, I kind of am an expert. And that's the issue. 

Because not everybody can do those things well. In fact, plenty of people seem to struggle with all these things, at the table. And when they do, in my experience as a player, they often get handwaved; the GM doesn't want his game sidelined by the social ineptitude of his players. And players who know they are not good at this, don't always want to have to play a class that doesn't do those things. 

 And this leads to the further consequence that the same player end up in those situations all the time. 

People who enjoy that sort of thing (which I think Gygax once described as 'LARPing' - yikes!) will always looks for ways to do that and if they do it well, it will usually be in the hope of either getting what they want out of the interaction, which is fine, or getting some kind of bonus to any subsequent skill test, which I think is also fine. 

But I don't think there is anything wrong with codifying some of those interaction options, so that players can think tactically either while roleplaying or while relying on skills they have invested in to to get them the outcome they want. And I don't think there is anything wrong, either, with the GM using those same rules to enable his antagonists to put one over on the players without raising a hand against them.

Below are my suggestions for some actions that might be taken, the skills that might facilitate that and the success or fail states that might ensue. Most of them appear as skills in rulesets that have skill systems. In other systems, they can perform the function of an action, to be achieved by a charisma test, perhaps with a circumstantial modifier. It definitely doesn't matter if you want to conflate some of these into fewer items, either, whatever works at your table. 

But I try to be mindful of when different actions might pick up/represent different modifiers in diffierent situations and also when a failure might lead to a Reversal. A Reversal in this context means that by trying an action and failing, you actually benefit your target or enable then to achieve a goal opposed to your own interests. Attempting to lie, for example, can go wrong. If you are caught out, the other party might like you less, but they also know you had reason to lie and therefore have gained insight. Opening up a conversation in which you try to persuade someone might lead to them enlightening you on their reasons to such good effect that you change your mind. 

Persuade - changing an NPC's specific course of action/alerting an NPC to the player's own goals

Insight - understanding motivations, goals or intentions/giving aay your own

Charm - making an NPC like you more, thereby influencing their future behaviour generally, usually in small ways/making the NPC dislike you or giving them insight into what the PC is like or wants.

Seduce - I think this one speaks for itself

Deceive - to mislead or misinform an NPC/give away the PC's motives for attempting deceit

Bargain - to get a good price for something/getting a worse price for something

 

As always, if you try it, let me know what you think! 

 

 

What Even Are Hobgoblins, Anyway?

This post was written partly as a response to the post 'Orcs vs Hobgoblins... Why Have Both?' over at Dragonsfoot. And partly because this kind of stuff interests the shit out of me...

I wanted to respond, despite the thread being from 2022, because I had found myself pondering the nature of Hobgoblins and in part because none of the responses I saw spoke to the element of mythology in the original post.

Basically, it strikes me that there are two reasons for having both orcs and hobgoblins, both good to a point, depending on whether you approach the question from a game-play or a mythology perspective.

Orcs are ubiquitous in fantasy RPGs. They are an easy villain and the whys and wherefores and moral impreratives of that have been written about elsewhere at length and I won't go into them here, except to say that I generally don't use them, because they are over-familiar and one dimensional. If I did use them, I am the kind of GM who would probably just have to go ahead and develop a culture of some sort for them and I just know that at that point, they would probably stop being inherently, unsalvagably evil, because that is the only way to stop them being one-dimensional. Orcs are strong and not very clever. they almost always get a substantial bonus to their strength and are competent combatants for low level foes, and in some systems take a penalty to intelligence.

Hobgoblins also get a write up in the bestiary of nearly every fantasy RPG that has ever seen the light of day. Yet often, they are disappointing in the vagueness of their initial appearance. They rarely rule the world, often don't even have a homeland , and almost never get a part in the world or associated adventures, beyond getting smacked down. Exceptions include Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's Old World setting where something called the Hobgoblin Hegemony set my imagination ON FIRE for about a decade, Eberron, which is actually pretty awesome in that regard, with its fallen Dhakaani Empire, and Greyhawk, where they inhabit the Empire Of Iuz, an evil god (who'd have guessed?). In Exandria (Critical Role), they have a homeland on the Beynsfal Plateau. That probably isn't an exhaustive list. But generally speaking the hobgoblins in question will have a high dexterity/agility and constitution. This makes them, in theory at least, different from orcs, able to use different tactics, such as ranged attacks and possibly magic.

In other words, all too often, hobgoblins are like orcs, only with slightly different stats. What this means exactly varies by edition or ruleset. In 1E AD&D I believe hobgoblins may have been tougher than orcs. In 3E they get a boost to Dexterity and Constitution instead of Strength, with no intelligence penalty. Which, ironically, made them a bit more like Tolkien's orcs... 

But ultimately all of these variations are unsatisfying to me. Modest attribute modifications don't have a huge impact on the gameplay experience - mainly because the range produced has such a big overlap with other races/species/types of character in the world. So in terms of gameplay, yeah have both, for slightly different tactics in combat, or whatever, but lean into it and create a different culture around it like the best published settings do. 

Or...

That relationship between hobgoblins and Tolkien's orcs is probably at the heart of the fundamental problem. Hobgoblins entered the modern fantasy genre through Tolkien, as his 'first draft' orcs, before he came up with the latter word, which, in case you didn't know, comes from the latin 'orcus', a god of the underworld, via Italian 'orco' for demon or monster and Old English 'orcneas' meaning much the same. In The Hobbit, they are presented  as large goblins. 

"Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds)2"

The Hobbit, Author's Note

The Hobbit is much more of a child friendly or 'fairy tale' type story than The Lord Of The Rings, intended as a children's bed-time story, with goblins, elves and the eponymous Hobbit as familiar echoes of similar characters in folk tales. And when I read some of the more developed hobgoblin cultures in RPGs (and I do kinda like what I've read about these in Exandria, where hobgoblins are under a divine curse by the evil god, Bane), I do still find myself thinking yeah, this is what orcs should be...

But there was a reason Tolkien changed his mind: he realised that the 'hob' in 'hobgoblin' didn't mean 'big'. 

It is, in fact, a fairly common prefix, and is thought to refer to the original 'hob' of a fireplace, which in the medieval period meant either a large hook over the fire, to hang cooking pots on, or possibly a kind of seat beside the fire, part of the hearth itself.

In other words, a hobgoblin  in British folklore was a goblin that lived in the hearth. A hearth spirit. A household spirit. They were tricksters, protectors, given to getting upset if not paid sufficient respect. And largely invisible.

So to wrap up, hobgoblins are for the most part, what orcs were to Tolkien, after orcs 'wus robbed' by the RPG industry. And there's nothing wrong with that. But you could, instead, go in a different direction altogether, and make them agents of supernatural, not always antagonistic, possibly magical, and beings to be negotiated with, instead of slaughtered.

I would probably go with:

• goblin stats
• a handful of modest spell-like abilities, possibly including invisibility
• witty, lively personas that love to bargain
• access to supernatural or at least far-ranging knowledge the players value
• a network across the 'hearths of the land', to be supportive of or antagonistic towards PCs, depending on their behaviour

 And that's nothing like an orc...

The Apstrae

 The apstrae haunts wetlands and damp forests, the wooded edges of freshwater bodies, river crossings. They can sometimes be heard singing from teh shadows, especially at dusk, but if the otherworldly humming that accompanies that almost-human voice dulls your senses and lulls you into a docile state, be warned: you may not be long for this world.

The apstrae may look human at first glance, as it peers from the darkness btween the trees, with its near-human face and near-feminine features, but it is not. Those eyes you cannot quite see the whites of, have none and the twinkle that may appear to glitter there is but the dying light catching the multi-faceted surface of insect eyes. That hair is long and wild and may appear bushy and unkempt, but in truth is the wiry bristle of insect, flat against which lie a pair of downy antennae, that have sensed your warmth, your breath, your blood.

The apstrae creeps from cover on six legs and even if they appear at first to be pale, human limbs, protruding from its odd, segmented body, with its leaf-litter wings, they are nothing of the sort. Those pale hands with their long fingers will not caress, but grasp and tear, the toes of those four feet will claw and scratch and cling to your back while the apstrae seeks a kiss. 

The kiss of the apstrae though, is not kind; the nose that may seem a little long in the dim twilight is monstrous when it unfurls, a probiscus that seeks a vein, that punctures flesh and drinks deep of its ruby treasure. When the apstrae bites, it costs its victim dearly...

The apstrae are like a hybrid of mosquito and human. Like an insectile harpy, they sing to their victims from the shadows as if courting them, when in truth they seek their blood. And when they have supped their fill, they momentarily gain sentient, awareness of the cost to their victim of what they have done. With it, they gain certain fleeting fragments of memory and knowledge of any languages their victim spoke. And any spells. Now articulate, they spend the next hur muttering regretful thoughts about the life they have taken, which they are cursed now to appreciate. It is at these moments that the watchful traveller might have most to gainfrom an apstrae encounter, hearing perhaps enough of their confused chatter to extract knowledge of a spell or magic charm. An apstrae engaged thus and treated sympathetically will indulge a curious stranger in the repetition of a charm or spell, knowledge of the life their victime lived, a few arbitrary facts.

Apstrae evolved to hunt large mammals and are used to puncturing thick hide; their armour-piercing bite reduces all armours by -1. They drain a d8 hp per turn once they have bitten and unless they are wrested free, drain such damage each round without needing to attack again. Pulling an apstrae free requires an opposed Str test. Apstrae have a Str of 10 but attack with Advantage when in flight. 

 

AC 11 (leathery hide) HD 1 Blood Drain1d6+1, Nat 19 Blade Trauma (1d10) 

S10 D14 C11 I10 P10 W10 Ch10 L4. Reac 2-6 Ravenous 7-8 Sorrowful 9-10 Confused 11-12 Chatty

Homebrewing Skills In Tales Of Argosa

 The skill system in ToA is simple. It is easy to learn, straightforward at the table and fast.

But I like a bit more in my skills systems. I like to be able to distinguish between a character who can do a thing, and one who is really good at it.

And I like the Traveller system.

The ToA system , RAW, is basically to add +1 to your Attribute when you make an aatribute check, if you have the skill. And there doesn't seem at first to be a lot of scope for fiddling with that, because of numbers and scope and 1-20, and so on. There's an option to make the skill a necessity for trying in some circumstances.

But there is another rule, in the character progression system, which kind of runs alongside this skill system. That rule is that every time a charcter levels up, they gain +1 to an attribute of their choice. Every time they level up. That's actually very generous. It isn't a bad rule, but it's probably open to abuse, if a player just keeps piling it onto the same aatribute every time. Basically, I think it is more generous than necessary. 

Every time an attribute increases, of course, every skill check you every make with that aatribute, wether you have the skill or not, also gets easier.

So my homebrew version of this rule will be to swap out some of those attribute increases for a skill point instead, and have a scale of skill level from 1 to 4.

I'll keep attribute increases, because everyone enjoys that buzz, but only at levels 3, 6 and 9.

On all the other levels, you get a skill point to put into an existing skill. Maybe characters will only get a new skill at the points where the Rules as they stand already give one and I'll award an improvement skill point at every level, so characters can develop a few skills. I'll have to play around with it. But either way, not increasing attributes so often ought to balance that out. Mostly.

I'll have to playtest this, to see how it works, of course. As an optional extra, I may even go full Traveller mode and award a penalty to trying something that requires a skill the character doesn't have. That's a but tough and I'll only do it if players are happy with it. After all, there is already the option to put a bar of Great Successes if oyu don't have the skill (which i totally use already).

Anyway, as always, if you get around to trying this out, please let me know how it goes.  

Seven Types of Fighter for Tales of Argosa

 The Adaptable feature of the ToA Fighter class is cool. Every level, you get a new 'thing' and they are just about enough to help distinguish a couple of fighters from each other within the same group.

But how can we use this to help define the world we are setting our campaign in?

It seems to me that this is a useful tool. I don't want to re-write anything here, or make anything more complicated: simplicity is important to me at the Table. But I think by considering the way we use the Adaptability table, we can squeeze just a little more flavour out of it.

Below are my suggestions for types of fighter you might find in a fantasy world and which Adaptability feature they would need. There are two ways you can use this idea. The first and simplest is to use the table as normal. Whichever version of Adaptability a player selects dictates what kind of fighter the character is currently employed as. Alternatively, you might ask the player to roll on the table even at generation, when they would normally chose, to randomly select a current career. 

New combat style: Shield Wall. 

New entry for the 'Adaptable' on p31. Use on a 6 in place of  'Ranged' for all non-archers. This style means that as long as you are standing shoulder to shoulder with an ally, and armed with a shield, you or they gain +1 AC (fighter's player's choice).

Contacts. These are NPCs a player may start out knowing. They should be advantageous - a source of information, adventure seeds or geographical knowledge in a world where most people don't travel very far. Where possible, they should be recurring characters who the players might get to know well, and they ought to be embedded in the local setting. They are the first steps in fleshing out the nearest town, the player's faction or the local community. If Fighter characters elect to have a specific job attached to their class, they should gain a contact as listed below in the Jobs and Roles section. 

Below is a simple list of the kinds of jobs or careers each Adaptable style implies. Further below are some ideas on how to develop these roles further. 

 

Charger                                    Assault Troops

Dual Weapon                           Outlaw, Marine

Long Reach                             Guards, of temples, palaces, etc.

Opportunist                             Gladiator

Protector                                  Militia, Town Watch

Ranged                                    Archer

Single Weapon                        Duellist

Two Hander                            Specialist (Bridge-holder, etc) or Judicial Champion

Unarmed                                Pugilist or bare-knuckle fighter

Brutal                                    Assault troops, Marines, Raiders

Rearguard                              Caravan Guard      

Expert Guard                         Guards, of temples, palaces, etc            

 

Jobs And Roles 

Archer (see my Archers In Tales of Argosa post, here).

Depending on the setting, either trained from a young age or part of a standing army or other fighting force. Gain Ranged. Equipped with a short bow, a light axe and dagger instead of long sword and shield. 

Archers are a breed apart in many ways. They have a very specific skill set, which it helps to have someone teach you. An archer is likely to know the person who helped them develop as an archer, or taught  them to fletch arrows or even to craft a bow. Contacts might include a fellow archer, a bowyer, a fletcher or their sergeant.

Assault Troops

Frontline troops in any attacks on enemy positions. Often veteran who lead the charge.  Contacts might include fellow veterans, a mercenary captain, or even a lord.

Caravan Guard

Used to defending a caravan, they begin with Rearguard. Often well-travelled. May have additional Contacts in other settlements or towns. Contacts might include merchants, wagoners, horse breeders or even outlaws. 

Champion (or Bridge-holder)

Champions are participants in judicial combats, hired to fight on behalf of the accused or the accuser. Bridge-holders (my term) are specialist wielders of two-handed swords, used to hold strategic positions, such as bridges, courtyards or doors. Take the Two Hander style. Contacts might include those they have defended in the past, members of the judiciary, or whoever taught them to wield that weapon.

Halbadier 

Soldiers specifically trained in the use of the halberd. Gain Long Reach style. Contacts are likely to include veterans or officers.

Infantry

Soldiers paid or otherwise engaged to defend the realm. Level 1 would be like peasant levy, followed by various ranks of officer. Only one step up from a civilian in many ways and Contacts are likely to include camp followers (e.g. Rogues), officers, and people from home. 

Militia

Sometimes paid, sometimes volunteers, their job is to protect members of the community. They take Protector as their default style. Might come from any of several walks of life so potential Contacts vary, but many will be middle class and know a lot of merchants, other members of the Watch or Militia and members of the town council 

Palace Guard

Specialist guards, usually taller than average and well equipped, often with polearms, such as halberds, long spears/pikes or partizans . They take Expert Guard or Long Reach as their default style and must take the other at the next opportunity. Contacts may include those they protect, as well as their rivals. 

Pugilist

Bare-knuckle fighter. Takes Unarmed. Contacts will be other fighters, trainers, people associated with other jobs they have, and particular fans (which might include much wealthier peple, such as lords). 

 

Archers in Tales of Argosa

 Archers are not a class in most RPGs. But they should be. IN ToA, the closest you'll get is probably a Fighter with the Ranged combat style, or a Ranger. Rangers start out with a longbow. But their class abilities are not as martial as a Fighter. 

I like Rangers. But they're not Archers. 

This is the entry for the 'Ranged' combat style on the Adaptable table (number 6) on page 31 of the ToA Rulebook:

 

When you make a ranged or thrown attack, targets lose any AC bonus due to cover. Additionally if you miss your target you never reroll the attack against an ally in the same melee. 

 

On the whole, I like the Adaptable entries, but  there are a few reasons why this entry stands out from the others as a bit weak.

Firstly, if you don't want to play an archer, its useless. A lot of folks play Fighters specifically to enjoy melee combat. 

Secondly, it dicourages the use of cover, which is a cool thing to have; its a free, easy thing any player or NPC can do to improve their chances of survival. It engages the players with the terrain and NPCs using it makes players think about alternative routes of attack. 

Thirdly (slightly repetitious, I know, bit valid, I think), it removes a rule (cover), instead of adding something. 

Fourthly, it doesn't really do archers justice. There is lot more to being an archer than shooting through cover and most of them are more fun. 

Finally, I actually think Archer ought to be something closer to a class, and I'll finish with some ideas about how to adapt the Fighter class to be more archer friendly, without re-writing a whole thing. 

 

Adapting the Adaptable.

I suggest that if you want to give players the option of playing Archers that are distinct from Fighters, you replace 'Ranged' in the Adaptable table altogether. I replace it with 'Shield Wall', which gives any Fighter armed with a shield and standing shoulder to shoulder with an ally an additional +1 AC bonus, which , if they choose, they can lend to the ally. Only one of them gets the bonus, but if two Fighters do this, obviously, they'll both get it. I allow this to be taken as a unique Ability by non-Fighters, IF there is a fighter in the group that has it. I figure a trained fighter would explain it.

Ranged Styles.

I decided I needed a new table of styles, suitable for Archers.  Some of these of course, you could just take as Unique Abilities. But my feeling is that players either want to play a full-on Archer type, or they don't bother with ranged weapons unless they are playing a Rogue or a Ranger (in which case these work as unique Abilities). I only have ten, so far. 

1. Fast Shot - once per combat round, take an additional shot as a free action with a penalty of -2. 

2. Arrow Storm - shoot two arrows at a time, at the same target, with Disadvanatge. Take twice to reduce the penalty to -2. Wether it can be take three times is up the GM.

3. Long Shot - reduce Range by one band. 

4. Sniper Shot - as long as you take no other action in a round, attack with Advantage. 

5. Deadly Shot - increase damage die by one die type. 

6. Moving Shot - move and shoot at the same time with no penalty

7. Moving Target - half penalties for shooting at a moving target.  

8. Mounted Shot - take no penalty for being mounted. 

9. Arrow Snatcher - on a successful Dex test, snatch an arrow from the air that was aimed at you. 

10. All Weather Arrow - ignore penalties for weather.

Archer as Class

 Key Attribute: Dexterity

Hit Points: Equal to Con score + (Level x2)

Weapons: All

Armour and Shields: All 

Class Starting Gear: Longbow (1d8), Light Axe (1d6), Dagger (1d4), Reinforced Leather armour (new) (+2 AC), a quiver of arrows (20).

Continue to use the Fighter class abilities, but any class ability that begins with 'When using a weapon' now should be read as  'When using a melee weapon' for Fighters and 'When using a ranged weapon' for Archers.

 

As usual, if you use it, let me know!