Topic: About canceling actions

[yammahoper]

I thought react and melee was an 80-100 action.  I could not find the page in my book though.  Same result: there is no attacking then running using init mods instead of set phases.

Disengae seems to be misunderstood by lots of people.  Basically, disengage represents how hard it is to get away from someone intent on attacking you after they have already gotten within range to attack and kill you.  Most of the time, this requires your full attention!

Now, I allow disengae and movement with a successful disengae in the same melee, unless performed in the snap phase because movement is limited to 20% and the PC has already moved that much escaping his attacker range/reach, which all disengage does.  But if performed in the normal phase, I allow 30% move, followed by the remaining 45% in the deliberate, with no post phase movement required in this example.

Exceptions occur.  A 00 would mean auto disengage as a 0% action and full move allowed, while a 66 might be auto disengage but snag weapon on foe and leave it behind (or abort and stay, snicker).

I know GM's that just charge 25% and disengage is automatic.  There have been circumstances were I allow auto disengage (foe is stun no parry, knoocked prone, mounted attacker versus a human sized foot soldier, etc).  Generally I ask for a roll on one of the M&M colums I judge appropriate, cuz I like that table and have used it for SO many years.

React and melee states you may move UP to 50'.  If you as GM feel they can't move more than 20% of their base rate (I typically do not allow movement faster than a jog/run IN melee), and this is less than 50', I think thats an appropriate call.  Base rate 70 would be 28 feet at a run and that sounds reasonable to me to perform in a few seconds followed by an attack.

[MariusH]

I'd say disengage is automatic, but is an action and requires 25% action. Also, it obviously must be declared in the declaration phase. So if your opponent is using full melee, as opposed to press and melee or react and melee, he's not getting an attack on you (if you manage to disengage before he attacks, that is). This simply means you should be careful about when you use full melee, which I consider a good thing. Using press and melee, you're always sure of getting your attack (at a certain penalty).

Another thing: You are not in melee simply because YOU have attacked an opponent. You're only "in melee" after your opponent has attacked YOU. So I'd allow react and melee in snap (80% action) to move adjecent to your opponent and attack (this obviously gets lots of penalties: -20 for snap, -20 for being an 80% action, -10 for react and melee, and -x depending on movement; -10 for 10% movement, max 50ft or 20%, whatever is smallest). Then I'd allow a 20% move away in normal phase, without the need to disengage, if your opponent has not yet attacked you. If he DOES manage to attack you before you move away, though, you'll need to disengage - which you'll have to declare in the declaration phase of the next round.

The percentages is listed in 20.0; the different kinds of melee is described in 23.4.2.

[MariusH]

Oh, I forgot one thing (sorry): The disengage action allows you to disengage AND move 10' away (still section 20.0), at a cost of 25% activity. So you are no longer "in range" for your opponent after that, and he can't strike you unless he has declared a "press and melee" (or "react and melee"). See example under "press and melee", section 23.4.2. I like the way this works, but of course, anyone who doesn't can just adjust it to his preferences. Like we always do, right? 

[Ecthelion]

Another thing: You are not in melee simply because YOU have attacked an opponent. You're only "in melee" after your opponent has attacked YOU.

This is a very narrow interpretation of the rules from section 18.2.7. Of course, if we are just strictly sticking to the words on the given page of the rules, you are right. But personally I tend to the interpretation that both combatants are "in melee" after one opponent has made an attack. Otherwise players might abuse the option to just pass by an opponent that is e.g. Must Parry for one round, doing one strike and getting out of range again.

Just my 2 cents

[MariusH]

This MAY be an unintended effect of the rules (I doubt it), but personally, I like the way this works. YOU are held in melee only if an opponent is attacking YOU. If you're two on one, for example, that allows for the person not being attacked to simply move away. It also allows you to move away if your opponent has "must parry" or is stunned. It also allows you to attack an archer or mage without being held in melee. All of these are effects I like. I do not see this as "abuse". I see it like this: If you want to hold a person in melee, you've gotta attack him.

Of course, anyone who prefers to do things differently can just adjust the rules to his needs.

[Doridian]

This MAY be an unintended effect of the rules (I doubt it), but personally, I like the way this works. YOU are held in melee only if an opponent is attacking YOU. If you're two on one, for example, that allows for the person not being attacked to simply move away. It also allows you to move away if your opponent has "must parry" or is stunned. It also allows you to attack an archer or mage without being held in melee. All of these are effects I like. I do not see this as "abuse". I see it like this: If you want to hold a person in melee, you've gotta attack him.

Of course, anyone who prefers to do things differently can just adjust the rules to his needs.

I like it too! 


Wrapping up all the interesting things that I've learnt here, I bring home the following "house rule".

A character can change his/her mind if the round unfolds in a different way as planned (and as declared) without being obliged to Canceling Actions and this is governed by the use of Combat Situational Awareness.

If the character succeeds in the skill roll (with difficulty given by the GM) he/she can act in a different way (in respect of planned actions): if a melee action is chosen it must be a React and Melee Action, allowing to move and fight in the same phase, but with the standard -10 penalty for that melee choice; if a different maneuver is chosen a -10 penalty is added to the roll resolution; if a spell is chosen it's not automatic and a SCSM roll has to succeed (with a -10 added penalty for non-instantaneous spells).

If the character does not succeed, he/she is allowed to Canceling Actions only. MAC penalties are in effect (i.e. -60 OB modifications for melee), but remember to apply Full Melee and Deliberate bonuses. To the options granted by Canceling Action rules I would add that an instantaneous spell can be cast, with a SCSM roll and a added -10 penalty.

Thank you all!!!

Any further considerations are obviously welcome.

[markc]

  If two people were in combat with one person IMHO it would depend on the facing of each attacker if I let one of them disengage without a penalty or a free attack by the one they were attacking.


MDC

[yammahoper]

I only apply deliberate bonus to declared actions performed in the deliberate phase.  React and melee and aborted action are not deliberate but reactionary.

[MariusH]

That sounds sensible, Yammahoper.

As for allowing actions other than those normally allowed when cancelling actions for players who make a "situational awareness" roll, I'll have to think about it, but at first sight it seems to make that skill very, very powerful.

[Doridian]

I only apply deliberate bonus to declared actions performed in the deliberate phase.  React and melee and aborted action are not deliberate but reactionary.

It seems reasonable to me too. Yet, on the other hand, I'm sure that React and Melee, that already suffers for a -10 by itself, if used in the Snap Action Phase would be further penalized by a -20 by every GM.

So, for React and Melee I would allow the deliberate bonus, at least when it has been properly declared. Instead in the specific situation of a new action after aborting a declared one I would not allow it (but, then, as written by Echtelion I would revert to standard RMSS penalties instead of MAC ones; in the end I think I would use MAC ones and leave the bonuses).

I agree with MariusH that at first sight the SAC skill seems very powerful. This was the reason for my concern about the Fighter as the only profession that has it as Everyone. And this is the reason I'm thinking to give that -10 penalty to the ensuing action (now I think there's no need to oblige the React and Melee choice for a melee action; I would keep the remainder of my proposed house rule). But I'm willing to give it a try before expressing a final judgement.

----

One more question regarding Canceling Actions arose in the meanwhile: when a character cancel the declared action(s), either via successful SAC roll or simply Canceling, do you usually allow to change the OB/DB split declared for the round?

[MariusH]

First: You are not allowed to cancel an action if you have already used the DB from the parry of that action.

Second: We don't allow cancelling due to SAC (tell me how it works out!), only ordinary cancelling. The cancelled action has to be at least 60%. If you then choose a melee attack (to be conducted in the deliberate phase), that attack gets a -40. No bonus for a "full melee" attack, and I think no bonus for deliberate phase. We have discussed whether previous action should give a penalty or not (if you planned to move 20% during snap then attack with 80% in normal, you move in snap, then cancel your attack, and you get a -20 in ADDITION to the -40 for cancelling action). Also, after cancel action you can EITHER move OR attack (and both only in the deliberate phase), so we DON'T allow "react and melee" after a cancelled action.

But given all this, YES, we allow a change of OB/DB split. For instance, if you planned an all-out attack against the orc in front of you in normal phase, and he was killed before you could act, you can cancel action and IMMIDIATELY declare what your new action is. If that is a full parry against the ogre you see charging you, that's fine. Apply all penalties, calculate what's left to parry with (probably not as much as you'd like), and the parry is valid from the time of declaration (only against the declared opponent, obviously).

[Doridian]

Second: We don't allow cancelling due to SAC (tell me how it works out!), only ordinary cancelling.

I need to try it. I'll let you know. Yet I'm more attracted to remove most of the need to cancel anything, allowing to resolve actions without declaring them first.
I mean:
1) using initiative as a countdown
2) allowing up to three actions, one in each phase
3) having each phase as a modifier to initiative (+20, 0, -10)
4) having to declare at the start of the round only OB/DB split as a "mode" of approaching combat in the round
5) leaving in play the three combat options
6) resorting to the conflicting actions resolution suggested by the system rules for every such a situation. I would use the action phase modifier as a modifier to the reacting character roll.

Example: A and B start the turn Engaged. A wins initiative and as a first (Snap) action executes a Disengage. It leaves A with 75% activity and 10' away from B.

B may react with a Snap Press and Melee action at -25 (suppose a 100' running capability, the movement turns to be a 10% activity, -5 OB being a Press and Melee). Being the melee action in conflict with the disengage maneuver, both characters roll on the MM table under the Medium column, modified by respective MM penalties and B with a further -20 (as B conflicting reaction is resolved in the Snap action phase).

B may react with a Normal Press and Melee action, skipping the Snap action phase. But A, in its Normal action phase, will move first, further away. If 50% of A running movement (+10' already moved) is more than 20% of B (running) movement, B will not be able to reach A and fight (Press and Melee is 80-100% action; maybe B should try to sprint/fast sprint/dash to reach A and still keep inside 20% activity). Otherwise, B's attack will be modified by up to -10 (half of up to 20% movement), but first the conflicting actions have to be resolved. In this case no further penalties (other than MM penalties) are applied to both combatants (as B conflicting reaction is resolved in the Normal phase).

B has no point in trying to react with a Full Melee attack as B would have to declare a Snap move action only to see A move further away in the Normal phase.

B could react with a React and Melee action, but in this case it would yield only worse penalties in comparison with a Press and Melee option (having the OB being further penalized by -10).


The above is just an example. I'll let you know how it works after playing it with a friend of mine.

Ciao!
Ale

[Doridian]

...
6) resorting to the conflicting actions resolution suggested by the system rules for every such a situation. I would use the action phase modifier as a modifier to the reacting character roll.
...

The "reacting character" is the loser of the initiative determination.

[MariusH]

Personally I much prefer actions to have to be declared first, in a declarations phase, but that's just my personal opinion. This causes "Full melee" to have to be used sparingly, and also makes for more interresting combat, I think.

Second: React and melee. YES, that is an 80-100% action. But that action INCLUDES movement (up to 50'). So I have always interpreted this the following way: Let's say you have base movement of 50' (=100' with run). If you have used 10% activity in snap (maybe an instans spell), you can react and melee in normal phase with 90%. I would then allow you to move up to 50' before attacking. The penalty would be -10 since it's a 90% activity, -10 for being react and melee, and in addition there's another penalty of -x, where x is the percentage of running movement used in the react and melee action (with a 100' running movement, moving 50' would be another -50). So I'd allow you to move up to 50' and attack at -70 in this case.

[Doridian]

I see that it can be read the way you suggest. And I like it. So React and Melee allows for up to 50'.

Anyway I'll try the method I've proposed and I'll post some feedback on it.

Note that, with this actions resolution method, Full Melee turns to be relegated most of the times to already Engaged combatants, as it's actually at risk of being ineffective against a combatant you need to move to before striking.

I would also shift OB/DB split declaration at the very first moment in a round a character needs it (either to parry with or to attack with). From that moment on (in the same round) it cannot be further modified (voluntarily).

[MariusH]

Regarding "react and melee": I guess I should point out that despite playing the way I mentioned in my previous post, we still don't allow a player using react and melee in snap phase to move more than 20% before attacking, even if this is less than 50' (which it usually is). So you can't use "react and melee" to move further than you could have moved using ordinary movement.

[Doridian]

It makes sense.