Topic: Melee vs Missile initiative

[pastaav]

I agree; initiative does not determine when an action starts, but rather when it "takes effect".

Anyway: How do people who use the "melee vs melee" bonuses to initiativ solve the cases mentioned earlier, where A and B uses melee, and C uses missile. A rolls 12 for initiative, B rolls 10 for initiative, and C rolls 11 for initiative, but B gets a +5 "melee vs melee" bonus to initiative?

My answer would be init-modifications only apply during resolve between individual characters. Character A's attack gets delayed until after B (and C) is done attacking. The init-modification forces A to delay his action but does not make B move "faster".

[Marc R]

Problem is that purely on the init result, the C should go between A and B.

Including all "Global" modifications:

Dagger rolls a 12

Spear rolls a 10

Crossbow rolls an 11

The +5 for longer weapon is not global, it is just a relative bonus between Spear and Dagger.

It does create an interesting situation, since effectively you end up with an order of actions of:

Spear before Dagger

Dagger before Crossbow

Crossbow before Spear

Which isn't apparently resolvable.

Likely, in the spirit of the fact that the reason there's no missile mod, is because when the longer weapon mod rules were devised spells went before missiles went before melee, (and all spells and missiles were simultaneous) I'd resolve the crossbow first.

In terms of a general melee of these 3 people attacking each other, I think if you need a rules justification I'd go with this:

Dagger is 9" long
Spear is 9' long
Crossbowman is 20' away, his attack radius and thus "Weapon length" is 20'.

So the crossbowman then has the longer weapon on both the spear and the dagger.

Once you make that call, the order of resolution becomes easy.

[pastaav]

Problem is that purely on the init result, the C should go between A and B.

So...the problem is what? If there had not been any init modification C would have been between A and B. That is not case since B uses a weapon that has the game mechanical effect of forcing the opponent to go later.

Looking at realism it takes no big effort to rationalize this benefit as coming from the huge problem of closing distance on somebody with a longer weapon. There are tons of youtube videos that demonstrate how difficult this is. Trying to close the distance without being extra careful is like suicide.

Your idea of saying that dagger is always the shortest weapon...isn't the dagger a crappy weapon enough already? I think the polearm weapons need longer weapon rules since these attack tables are generally rather weak. Extending the concept to all weapons is IMHO problematic since that would create further unbalances.

As for the missile weapons the bowmen can fire first as snap action if the other character need to declare a movement as his snap action. The only problematic situation is if the declared attack mode allow enough movement to close the distance. That the archer should stand waiting while the attacker runs towards him is not realistic. The init modification rule due to movement exist to solve the problem. At least if you apply the rule as written and not read it wrong like some people did earlier in this thread.

It is most certainly possible to have a different set of rules to solve this problematic situation but the only real problem here seem to be that people have been ignoring or miss reading some of rules so basically we are talking about house rules that don't work at not anything wrong with the rules in themselves. 

[mightypawn]

RMSS PG 40

INITIATIVE DETERMINATION PHASE
...
Declared Movement ................... -1 per 10% of maximum
movement activity (based on declared pace)

RMSS PG 41

SNAP ACTION PHASE
.....
• 20% is the maximum activity for a movement action.

NOTICE...  20%  EQUALS Maximum activity!!!
Thus 20% Movement = 100% activity for the phase in question (Snap action)
 
Example:

If Guy Rufus is capable of 50'/round normal movement, he is allowed 10' movement as a snap action.  AND...

 10' is 100% of his Maximum Activity for moving actions in the SNAP phase!.

Thus By clear definition... -10 to initiative...  Period


by my calculations, and in my game... -20 to initiative.    Again, Initiative is determined by 2d10, not 1d10...  no matter how many seconds, minutes, hours, days or years you are considering, it is being divided into 20 parts, not 10.  Therefore -20 to Initiative, not 10.

[RandalThor]

NOTICE...  20%  EQUALS Maximum activity!!!
Thus 20% Movement = 100% activity for the phase in question (Snap action)
 
Example:

If Guy Rufus is capable of 50'/round normal movement, he is allowed 10' movement as a snap action.  AND...

 10' is 100% of his Maximum Activity for moving actions in the SNAP phase!.

Thus By clear definition... -10 to initiative...  Period

I don't think that is right. (Except, that how you want to do it at your table is right for you.  ) 20% may the maximum you can move in the snap action phase, but I don't think that makes it equivalent of a 100% action to get a -10 initiative modifier. Of course, I never really did like how RM did the phases so I never really dug into them, but just reading Part III (pg. 38, RMFRP) makes me think that calling the action in each phase 100% is incorrect.

It does say that the percentage of action throughout the 3 phases cannot exceed 100%. That makes it sound like the total action - added up from the individual phases - cannot exceed 100%. So, I do a 20% (-2 initiative) action move in the snap action phase, a 70% attack action in the normal phase, and cast an instantaneous spell, 10% action, in the deliberate phase (to assist me in the next round), for a grand total of 100% action. Each of those actions do not count as 100% action for their phases even though they are the "only" things I am doing in those phases. (It seems weird to me to say "only things" as I am doing 3 different things that round......) The only initiative mod I see is the -2 for the 20% snap-move, the rest are just actions.

[Marc R]

So...the problem is what?

effectively you end up with an order of actions of:

Spear before Dagger

Dagger before Crossbow

Crossbow before Spear

Which isn't apparently resolvable.

The original poster was not asking a stupid question, it does indeed create a circular logic problem in the RAW (unless you let the spear longer weapon bonus to apply against C so you get an order of spear, crossbow, dagger. . .but IMO the longer weapon melee vs melee bonus either doesn't apply vs the crossbow as it's not melee vs melee.

And there's no need for movement equal to any % of action. . . .A and B can be closing to attack for the first time starting from within their melee range (non consequential movement of a step or two), while C is 20' distant. . .and so "You need to move first" wouldn't come up.

I'd house rule out of that per above. . .the crossbow range, treat it as weapon length in the rare instances where you need to compare missile vs melee to resolve a circular logic. . . .though, that raises problems too, if ten-foot-spear and crossbow are standing 5' apart, technically that would give the spear the bonus to init vs the crossbow, which doesn't seem right.

[RandalThor]

.though, that raises problems too, if ten-foot-spear and crossbow are standing 5' apart, technically that would give the spear the bonus to init vs the crossbow, which doesn't seem right.

While I can see that they may not get an initiative bonus, but I can definitely see where they could easily be able to attack first.

[MariusH]

mightypawn: You play it the way you see fit, ofcourse, but I definitely read the rules very differently from how you do.

pasaav: I, too, would probably apply this as negative mods rather than positive mods, if I were to use them at all. Which I probably won't.

The PROBLEM, however, is that this is NOT what the rules say at all. They say nothing at all about how to handle this situation. The rules only say how to handle a one-on-one melee situation ("melee vs melee"). Being VERY kind to the rule book, and interpreting this as "situations where you attack a person in melee and this person also is attacking you, you get this general bonus to initiative", the bonuses is POSITIVE, meaning that if I am the stronger opponent, have one hand free and longer weapon, I get a +3 bonus to initiative. Which would give the opposite effect from what you describe; it would indeed cause the spear guy to go before the dager guy before the missile guy.

Had the rules stated "if you attack a person in melee, and that person is also attacking you in melee, you get the following negative modifications to initiative:", everything would be easy to understand, and take effect as you described. Wheter or not I'd agree with the mods is another issue, but at least it would be clear.

Another thing: does the init bonus, be it positive or negative, apply only to that phase where you execute your attack, or to all actions that round? And what if I attack in another phase than my opponent, do I still get the mods? And what if my opponent cancel actions before attacking me - do I still get the bonus? What if this cancelling happened AFTER I attacked? I think there are indeed MANY problems with these rules.

[providence13]

That is an understatement. We decided that we wouldn't have much time to play if we used all the rules. This probably stems from misunderstanding the rules and that's ok with us.

Find what works in your game.
Does init mean when you go or when you resolve or when you start the round or also involve the recovery for that action?
Do phases give an impartial meta-game experience that isn't based on RL? You have to sacrifice something when we put it into definable game terms that everyone can understand. (Sometimes I sure don't.  )

Dropping Phases helped us but, it won't help everyone. Scalable Init and %Act are pretty much it for us.

[Marc R]

Keep in mind the "longer weapon" bonus dates back to RM1, where only melee vs melee (or rarely MM vs MM) mattered in terms of initiative, all other actions were in phase order, and simultaneous within their resolution phase.

Using RMFRP or RMC IMO requires some form of tweak, per the discussion above, to fit the longer weapon bonus into melee vs MM or melee vs spell or melee vs missile situations.

[providence13]

If we took RM and gave it a good shaking... we wouldn't have much left to work with. 

[mightypawn]

If we took RM and gave it a good shaking... we wouldn't have much left to work with. 

I disagree Providence....

If you weigh Rolmaster against any rpg system out there, Rolemaster just works the best, provided the use of a little common sense.

A lot of players out there want to have all the rules stacked in their favor.  I guess that's cool for them, but it definitely takes the strategy and suspense out of the game. 

In the scenario that started this thread, a whiney fighter didn't like the archer having position on him.  Ya know what I say?  TOUGH! 

It's not like he doesn't have options.  Use full OB to pary whille he moves in...  take cover.... whatever gets the job done....  But I'm not going to let him teleport across the room... That's just dumb! 

If you have a player like that, use my favorite line!

GM:  Hey, wanna play Rolemaster?
Player:  Heck yeah!
GM:  You win!  Good Job!  Great Game!
Player: ? ? ? ?
GM: You like the rules stacked in your favor right!  Well, there ya go!, You win!

[providence13]

mightypawn, I wasn't clear in the above. What I intended was IMHO, with so many versions of "RM" (RM1, RM2, RMSS, RMFRP, RMC, RMX, iirc), that if we tried to separate them, there would be little left to use.

But I still could be wrong.

[RandalThor]

Another thing: does the init bonus, be it positive or negative, apply only to that phase where you execute your attack, or to all actions that round? And what if I attack in another phase than my opponent, do I still get the mods? And what if my opponent cancel actions before attacking me - do I still get the bonus? What if this cancelling happened AFTER I attacked? I think there are indeed MANY problems with these rules.

I think that this is why, a long time ago, my group dropped the individual phases and just went with a flat initiative bonus for snap, normal, deliberate actions. I mean, it does make sense that at times you are going to hurry (snap), and at other times you might hold/take a little extra time (deliberate) doing something, so keeping the idea of them was fine.

One thing I had worked on a bit was using Situational Awareness: Combat as your way to check for initiative. You have a base Reaction number, rolled your SA:C on the static, and the result determined the modifier to your Reaction (along with other, situational modifiers) to get your initiative for the round. The bonus could be 1/10th the percentage action listed (+2 for Partial Success, +8 for Near Success, etc..) or it could be the percentage is the percentage of your Reaction that is used (20% for Partial Success, 80% for Near Success, etc...). This would result in a far less random and fluctuating number than the present system. Which I like. I think the gaming community puts too much stock in the god of randomness.

[markc]

RandalThor;
 That is a very interesting way to do it and gives the pure arms a leg up in most cases. IMHO it would also mean a lot of PC's are going to be dumping DP into SA:C.
MDC

[pastaav]

The original poster was not asking a stupid question, it does indeed create a circular logic problem in the RAW (unless you let the spear longer weapon bonus to apply against C so you get an order of spear, crossbow, dagger. . .but IMO the longer weapon melee vs melee bonus either doesn't apply vs the crossbow as it's not melee vs melee.

The original poster is talking about snap actions and similar and is thus most likely talking about RMSS/RMFRP. In that case it is a non issue since the init penalty of movement balances things quite nice. The melee vs melee penalty clearly does not apply to missile weapons so I fail to see the circular weapons problem.

Possible you might have an issue with RMC if you failed to revise the rules to something sensible. Still I most point out that I think calculating a artificial "crossbow length" should be driven by that it solve a real gaming problem and not because the previous editions had awkward concepts like missile phases.

And there's no need for movement equal to any % of action. . . .A and B can be closing to attack for the first time starting from within their melee range (non consequential movement of a step or two), while C is 20' distant. . .and so "You need to move first" wouldn't come up.

In some situations the "You need to move first" does not apply, in others it do apply lots. I fail to see the "problem" with C going before A and B due to their weapon length. Things are changed by the involved rules, but change does not equal problem.

I'd house rule out of that per above. . .the crossbow range, treat it as weapon length in the rare instances where you need to compare missile vs melee to resolve a circular logic. . . .though, that raises problems too, if ten-foot-spear and crossbow are standing 5' apart, technically that would give the spear the bonus to init vs the crossbow, which doesn't seem right.t

I don't think it makes sense at all. I am still waiting for a good reason why comparing missile ranges with weapons length is a good idea. From my point of view the houserule only creates more problematic situations. The crossbow user would in reality fire his weapon at first possible point to not get entangled with the forbidden to fire missile weapons in melee rules so the length of the weapon matters little compared to the concept of melee length.

[RandalThor]

RandalThor;
 That is a very interesting way to do it and gives the pure arms a leg up in most cases. IMHO it would also mean a lot of PC's are going to be dumping DP into SA:C.

True, and actually the right thing to do. Contrary to popular belief (or desire) there are certain skills/abilities that are more important than others in order to stay alive in such highly violent settings. My personal belief is that a variety of good (very good) awareness skills - or just perception as an overall term - are paramount. Just like, for your average orc, the ability to fight is critical for survival. Which means, if you are an orc and not endowed with excessive magical/clerical abilities, you had better "dump" a lot of "DPs" into fighting skills. Otherwise you die a much earlier death.

The "average" adventure usually has several different types of encounter, though one thing they nearly all have in common is how different they will be treated depending upon how perceptive the adventurer happens to be. Meaning, does s/he notice anything, or not? If so, they stand a much better chance of survival. If you don't notice that you are walking into a trap, then the trap is just going to be that much more effective.

[GrumpyOldFart]

My son, who started playing RPGs at age 7, is fond of putting it:

"Perception is God."

[RandalThor]

My son, who started playing RPGs at age 7, is fond of putting it:

"Perception is God."

Your son is perceptive.

[Kristen Mork]

The original poster was not asking a stupid question, it does indeed create a circular logic problem in the RAW (unless you let the spear longer weapon bonus to apply against C so you get an order of spear, crossbow, dagger. . .but IMO the longer weapon melee vs melee bonus either doesn't apply vs the crossbow as it's not melee vs melee.

The original poster is talking about snap actions and similar and is thus most likely talking about RMSS/RMFRP. In that case it is a non issue since the init penalty of movement balances things quite nice. The melee vs melee penalty clearly does not apply to missile weapons so I fail to see the circular weapons problem.

I think Marc laid it out quite nicely. There are three combatants: Spear w/ 10 initiative, Crossbow w/ 11, and Dagger w/ 12.
Clearly, the dagger attack is resolved before the crossbow.
Similarly, the crossbow attack is resolved before the spear.
Comparing the dagger to the spear, the spear gets a +5 bonus, so the spear attack is resolved before the dagger.

Thus, if the melee vs. melee mods are used in combats with a mix of actions, then you can observe a conundrum like the one above.  But, if these mods are only to be used when everyone is performing a melee attack, then a) they're not very useful because interesting fights involve more than standing around swinging and b) a tactical player can avoid the mods by declaring a non-melee action.