Topic: About canceling actions

[Doridian]

Hi all. I would like to know how strict is the common way of handling the canceling action rules. I give you two similar examples just to try to clarify my question.

A) Suppose there are two fighters, facing each other 20 feet away and keen to attack. Suppose also they can move 50' per round, so at a running pace they can move 20' in the Snap Action phase.

Both declare 1) Snap action, move 20', 2) Normal action Full Melee Attack.

Say fighter A wins initiative and moves first closing to the foe. So when it's B turn to have his Snap action to move 20', he has not to move anymore: they are engaged now, in contact.

My question is, then: having declared a (Snap Action) move and being not able anymore to do it, has Fighter B to cancel his action and melee at -40 in the Deliberate phase?

Or, in such a case, would you allow to simply skip the Snap action phase and melee (as declared) in the Normal Action phase?

B) Suppose, now, that Fighter A is a Monk instead. While Fighter B declares as before a (Snap) move to close and a (Normal) melee attack, the Monk declares a (Snap) Leaping III spell and a (Normal) Melee attack.

Again suppose that the Monk wins initiative and he's able to leap beyond his foe, landing behind him, ready to strike in the back (maybe an Acrobatic roll is needed to properly rotate the body in the air).

In this case Fighter B starts his Snap Action Phase not only with the adversary in contact but even at his back: the Snap move cannot simply be skipped, but it should be substituted with a rotation in place, to face the foe behind.

I see here that if the substitution is not allowed, he would not even be able to melee at all (and so he would be unable to parry): having to cancel his Snap move he should not be able to make a different move (to change facing) and also a melee attack (at least to defend himself).

Denying the Snap action conversion (not allowing to skip it, in the first example; not allowing to translate it in a change of facing, in the second example), would it be the RAW way of handling it?

How would you handle these situations?

Any suggestion/opinion is really appreciated!
Ciao
Alessandro

[yammahoper]

Two fighters closing: both fighters are moving to engage and obviously keeping a very sharp eye on each other.  Even though the action is resolved on the proper initiative, both are in the process of completing the mnv until their init, when it is resolves,  From that point, they begin to perform their next action and will keep doing so until it is resolved at their init.

In the case of two closing fighters, both rush each other and there is no reason to change anything just because fighter "A" resolves his movement first.  Since neither fighter declared a press mnv, it is unlikely they made straight line charges at each other anyway.  The statement of activity stands and both fighters begin to circle each other, testing defenses.

In the case of the monk, the fact the fighter lost init may well prove to be advantageous.  The fighter declared a 20% move to close but finds the monk has moved to outflank him. I would have the fighter make a mnv to react to the leap in the snal with his declared movement.  If he succeeds then he anf the monk are face to face, if he fails the monk gains flank (partial success or better) or rear (failure).  Likewise, if I know the fighter has combat awaremess skill, I would ask for a check to counter the move as above.

The only appropriate cancel action I see is the second fighter canceling his snap move and performing a snap attack (-40 to attack for cancel, -20 for snap, -20 for activity already used, +10 for full, - any parry).  If the second fighter does not wish to do this, he does not have to cancel (to attack, or run, or whatever).

[Ecthelion]

For A) I think that what both basically want to declare is "1) Snap action, move until closing to opponent, 2) Normal action Full Melee Attack." Therefore I think it is OK to simply skip the movement in the Snap Action Phase for the second fighter. Btw., we usually let both move 10' and then attack because we think that movement is not that "digital" as the initiative system pretends it to be.

For B) we usually allow Fighter B a Situational Awareness - Combat maneuver to react properly to the new situation. If he succeeds the maneuver, he may change his actions so that e.g. he turns and fights instead of having to cancel. If he does not, then he has no other option than to cancel to change his actions.

[MariusH]

For B), I think I'd allow the fighter to "move" in place just to face his opponent (not THAT hard to notice someone jumping over you from your front). I definitely want it to be much harder than that to get to attack your foe from behind. However, if the fighter wants to, couldn't he also just actually MOVE 20' away to avoid melee altogether, if he so desired? Move 20', they are no longer adjecent, and both will have to cancel their melee attack.

[MariusH]

Yammahoper: You cannot cancel an action and then attack in snap. If you cancel an action, you only get to act in the deliberate phase, either by melee or by movement. At least that's how I read the rules. (We house rule differently for certain instant spells, but that's another story).

[yammahoper]

For B), I think I'd allow the fighter to "move" in place just to face his opponent (not THAT hard to notice someone jumping over you from your front). I definitely want it to be much harder than that to get to attack your foe from behind. However, if the fighter wants to, couldn't he also just actually MOVE 20' away to avoid melee altogether, if he so desired? Move 20', they are no longer adjecent, and both will have to cancel their melee attack.

Once the first fighter moves, he has engaged the other fighter in melee.  The second fighter will have to perform a disengage mnv to move away from the first without being attacked.  All is moot if the first fighter just lets him run.

[Ecthelion]

Once the first fighter moves, he has engaged the other fighter in melee.

AFAIK he only has engaged the other fighter in melee once he has done the first attack. Just getting close is not enough.

[MariusH]

I agree with Echtelion. In order to be engaged in melee, an opponent must have attacked you in the current round, or in the previous round AND have declared an attack against you this round. So, in the current case, they are not yet "in melee".

[Doridian]

Some thoughts:

1)

The second fighter will have to perform a disengage mnv to move away from the first without being attacked.

A press and melee action would allow an attack anyway, wouldn't it?

I've always wondered the real meaning of the Disengage Action: in the RMSS rules nothing is written about, apart being a 25% activity... Any suggested ruling on how to handle the disengagement? I mean: there are two points - examples - where in the rules "disengagement" is somehow described, but it's treated as a normal (albeit conflictual) movement...

2) At the same time nothing as well is formally written in the RMSS to define being engaged. So I like the definition given by MariusH:

In order to be engaged in melee, an opponent must have attacked you in the current round, or in the previous round AND have declared an attack against you this round. So, in the current case, they are not yet "in melee".

3) Trying to relax the declaration/canceling mechanic (in order to make the round more fluid, departing from RAW) I too have thought about using Sit. Awareness - Combat to handle the reactions to unexpected maneuvers, in a way similar to the point of Echtelion:

For B) we usually allow Fighter B a Situational Awareness - Combat maneuver to react properly to the new situation. If he succeeds the maneuver, he may change his actions so that e.g. he turns and fights instead of having to cancel. If he does not, then he has no other option than to cancel to change his actions.

My concern here is that Sit. Awareness - Combat is an Everyone skill for Fighters only. So they have a clear edge here, compared to other fighting classes, above all the Warrior Monk. I was trying to devise a more "democratic" approach. Or, maybe, the same skill category (Everyman) should be granted to Warrior Monks too (and maybe Paladins, Monks, Warrior Mages, etc...? Perhaps Thieves and Rogues too?).

[Ecthelion]

My concern here is that Sit. Awareness - Combat is an Everyone skill for Fighters only. So they have a clear edge here, compared to other fighting classes, above all the Warrior Monk. I was trying to devise a more "democratic" approach. Or, maybe, the same skill category (Everyman) should be granted to Warrior Monks too (and maybe Paladins, Monks, Warrior Mages, etc...? Perhaps Thieves and Rogues too?).

Having a skill as Everyman is comparable to about a +20 bonus (unless you reach very high skill levels), which IMO is far from unbalancing. In other threads it was often argued that the Fighter is a relatively weak class and how powerful Martial Artists are. Therefore IMO it should be OK to give the Fighter an edge in some areas, e.g. in the area of combat perception.

Just my 2 cents

[MariusH]

Doridian: I agree that this could be better described in the rules. However, the following is written about using missile weapons in melee (18.2.7):

"Normally, a combatant cannot throw or fire missiles
while engaged in melee. For these purposes, a combatant
is engaged in melee if:
1) A foe attacked him in the previous melee phase, and
2) That foe is still within striking distance (i.e., usually
within 5-10'), and
3) That foe’s action for the current round is to melee the
combatant."

We rule that if you're under melee due to this definition (which is poorly written, but we interpreted it as stated earlier), you are not allowed to move away from the attacker without using disengage from melee. Moving "sideways", while remaining adjecent to your attacker (possibly to try to avoid being tareted by missiles) is another issue...

[Doridian]

In other threads it was often argued that the Fighter is a relatively weak class and how powerful Martial Artists are.

Does it hold true with Martial Arts Companion in force too?

[Doridian]

Doridian: I agree that this could be better described in the rules. However, the following is written about using missile weapons in melee (18.2.7)

Ah, yes, you're right!

[Ecthelion]

In other threads it was often argued that the Fighter is a relatively weak class and how powerful Martial Artists are.

Does it hold true with Martial Arts Companion in force too?

We use MAC and nevertheless have toned down MA a bit since we think that MA is still overpowered. But that's just the opinion in my group. YMMV

[Doridian]

We use MAC and ...

Just to know: in the MAC guidelines there are some quirks I would really like to know what do you think about.
One of them is exactly about Canceling Actions: in the MAC the suggested penalties to OB and maneuverings are -60 instead of -40. Do you think it's a typo? If not, do you use them or those original from RMSS?  TIA

[Ecthelion]

We use -40 but don't add the modifications for Full Melee Attack or Deliberate Action Phase.

[yammahoper]

Doridian, one method to smooth out the phases I was taught was to apply initiative mods to represent the phases instead.

So, PC rolls init: all snap actions occur at iinit +10, normal at init +0, and deliberate at init -10.

The GM starts countig down the round at init 40 and resolves each action at its init.

So the Human fighter rolls a 10 +5Qu mod for 15, the troll rolls 14 + 0Qu for 14, the trolls pet battle cat rolls 6 + 16Qu mod for 22, high elf mage rolls 16+ 10Qu mod for 26

troll 14, snap at 24, normal at 14, deliberate at 4
fighter 15, snap at 25, normal at 15, deliberate at 5
battle cat 22, snap at 32, normal at 22, deliberate at 12
high elf 26, snap at 36, normal at 26, deliberate at 16.

You will note the high elf is able to finish his round before the fighter or troll even have their snap action.  This system keeps the mods and attack types of the phase system but loses the rigid application.

High Qu mods are very dangerous.  Blindingly Fast foes from C&M will BE blindingly fast.

[MariusH]

In my opinion, Initiative is more than important enough as it is. I do not like the idea that you can be at a distance, react and melee in snap to move and attack, then move away again in normal phase, without your opponent getting a chance to attack you even in snap phase, if you have high enough initiative.

However, I assume you use this for a reason. What do you consider the advantages? What other implications are there from implementing such a rule?

[yammahoper]

After someone attacks, they normally do not have any activity left to move away with.  With react and melee, the attacker may move up to 50' and then attack, but still suffers a penalty to the attack for activity used to move.  For a full attack and a press attack, the target must be declared.

To move away after an attack, the attacker must save 25% activity to disengage with, then additional activity to actually move away with or he will just be attacked anyway.  Your scenario is not likely unless the attacker is hasted.

I find melee rounds are smoother and less jarring using this method.  No longer can the -3Qu snail act before the _12 Qu PC just cuz it snap attacks.  It does favor very high Qu monsters and PC's, which I like.  It also removes the feeling of three melee rounds the phase system creates.

[Doridian]

Doridian, one method to smooth out the phases I was taught was to apply initiative mods to represent the phases instead.

Yes, I knew it and I like it. I remember something like trading a penalty for quickness: -20 penalty for a +20 initiative (Snap action), 0 penalty for normal initiative (Normal action) and +10 bonus for a -10 initiative (Deliberate action).

After someone attacks, they normally do not have any activity left to move away with.  With react and melee, the attacker may move up to 50' and then attack, but still suffers a penalty to the attack for activity used to move. 

How do you handle the fact that React and Melee is a 80-100% action? I mean that you should not be allowed to move more than 20% of your movement allowance anyway. Running could be 20' by average: how can a character move up to 50'?

To move away after an attack, the attacker must save 25% activity to disengage with, then additional activity to actually move away with or he will just be attacked anyway.

Can you explain further? I mean: do you rule that a "Disengage from melee" action somehow voids any "Melee" action from engaged enemies? Otherwise, would not it be more effective to directly move away, without losing time (i.e. % and a phase) in "disengaging"?