Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: Doridian on March 13, 2011, 04:26:07 PM
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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?).
-
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
-
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...
-
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: 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!
-
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
-
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
-
We use -40 but don't add the modifications for Full Melee Attack or Deliberate Action Phase.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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, 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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :D
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I only apply deliberate bonus to declared actions performed in the deliberate phase. React and melee and aborted action are not deliberate but reactionary.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
It makes sense.