Melee question on HTH

[hcobb]

What's the best defense against a mixed wolf-bear force?

For wolves you want your back against the wall, but not against bears.

[Shostak]

Bears have a ridiculously low MA in TFT, but that's another issue.

If you want to keep wolves and other beasts from engaging PCs in HTH, you could go with the RAW solution of simply carrying torches (see ITL 124). This strikes me as overestimating fire's effect on animals.

[BobP]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Bears have a ridiculously low MA in TFT, but that's another issue.

TFT bears are obviously arena animals, captured and ill-kept beasts in no wise as fit as their wild kin.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Shostak

If you want to keep wolves and other beasts from engaging PCs in HTH, you could go with the RAW solution of simply carrying torches (see ITL 124). This strikes me as overestimating fire's effect on animals.

If Molly's instant Brands don't provide magical protection against wildlife then why add her to your party?

The one-hour torch is about right, the problem is that a two-hour lantern would be burning so hot it that counts as a weapon in its own right.

In any case a torch shouldn't protect against the wolves jumping you from behind while the humans are slowed by snow on the ground. (counts as fallen body hexes for humans, no penalty for the wolves?)

[tomc]

Stand back and finish off the winner?

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by hcobb

If Molly's instant Brands don't provide magical protection against wildlife then why add her to your party?

Brands are not instant; they have to be lit.

As for torches not protecting against an animal HTH attempt from the rear, that's your call as GM house rule.

[hcobb]

ITL 124: "An ordinary animal attacked with a torch will fight at -2 DX due to fear of the flame, and will not initiate HTH combat"

Is "attacked with" different than engaging?

[Shostak]

Strange wording, indeed. One would think it should say, "An animal making an attack against someone wielding fire or into a fire hex is at -2 DX..." rather than predicating the DX penalty on the animal's being attacked by fire. One more reason to just house-rule it all away.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Strange wording, indeed. One would think it should say, "An animal making an attack against someone wielding fire or into a fire hex is at -2 DX..." rather than predicating the DX penalty on the animal's being attacked by fire. One more reason to just house-rule it all away.

I think it makes some sense as written... simply holding a torch above your head or passively by your side shouldn't prevent a wild animal attack. It only becomes a deterrent when the fire is pushed into the animal's face or waved in a threatening manner at them.

Of course, never having been put in that scenario, I can only rely on what I've seen in movies or on TV. ;)

[Shostak]

If the DX penalty is founded upon the animal's being attacked, there are questions that the rules don't give guidance on but which require answers:
Does the penalty apply to attacks the animal makes against any figure, or just the one that made the fire-based attack? What about ranged fire attacks? How long does the penalty last?