Topic: How do you handle "Disengage from melee"?

[Doridian]

The RMSS has no definition for Disengage for melee, apart from the 25% activity cost (allowing to move 10’ away) and an example (for a conflicting action) where an Orc declares a disengage action first (snap) to a run away (normal). So there’s no definition for being Engaged either.

I would consider a character to be Engaged if adjacent (i.e.: assuming a 5’ hex or square, being in adjacent hexes/squares) to a hostile character/creature and not having a positional modifier against that character/creature (so a character with proper styles/skills could engage enemies in his/her flanks/back).

I would like to know in your games what usually happens if:

• a character is Engaged (whatever it means for you) and moves away without “disengaging”: is it allowed? Which kind of "bad things” should/could happen to him/her?
• a character "disengages from melee”: which kind of facing is assumed to have after moving those 10’?
• a character “disengages from melee” (or just moves away in front of an attack): do you roll to resolve the conflicting action with the attacker a) in any case, b) only if the attack and the fleeing are declared in the same phase, c) only if the attack and the fleeing are declared in the same phase and the (modified) initiative rolls are equal?

Thank you in advance!

Ciao
Alessandro

[Doridian]

The above question came in my mind as I was evaluating choices when a character would like to break from melee. In the RMSS there’s just an example (disengage + run away), but I think that it’s a really risky choice: you need to hope both to roll initiative higher than the opponent and that the opponent has not chosen press & melee. So I would select a normal Full Melee attack at -25, with Parry 100%, and a deliberate "Disengage from melee”.

So my questions can be expressed as:
Why not simply run away for a % less than 25 (even taking in account some % to turn in place or the fact that you are moving backward)?
Does the 25% activity imply that you are moving backward? Or that you need to turn? Or either one of the two? In other words: in the beginning of the next round how are positioned the opposing characters (how far are they from each other - they should be at 10' - and which relative facing do they have)?

P.S.: is there anyone that plays RMSS this way?

[RandalThor]

As Rolemaster has 10-second long abstract combat rounds (something that is always a fun topic of discussion on these forums), I have decided to handle it on a case-by-case basis, taking into concideration each participants actions as well as their combat capabilities including their combat perception (basically, how well they keep their heads in the middle of a fight). Example: a highly skilled and capable fighter would generally be able to dictate the flow of a fight with a mage who is very limited in combat ability, so if they wanted to disengage, they would have a great chance to do so without a problem. I know I don't do it like most who play RM but I am just over having to make a dozen rolls to get things done. I want my combat fast & fluid.

[intothatdarkness]

As Rolemaster has 10-second long abstract combat rounds (something that is always a fun topic of discussion on these forums), I have decided to handle it on a case-by-case basis, taking into concideration each participants actions as well as their combat capabilities including their combat perception (basically, how well they keep their heads in the middle of a fight). Example: a highly skilled and capable fighter would generally be able to dictate the flow of a fight with a mage who is very limited in combat ability, so if they wanted to disengage, they would have a great chance to do so without a problem. I know I don't do it like most who play RM but I am just over having to make a dozen rolls to get things done. I want my combat fast & fluid.

I've always handled it pretty much like this, actually. It also helps when you use phases instead of the whole % action thing, at least in my view.

[Hurin]

Disengaging is a bit of a problem. I've thought a lot about it, and offered some suggestions when I laid out my own action/initiative sequence for RMU here (sorry, the thread is very long):

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12469.0

The issue also came up several times in another long thread on Bladeturn and declaration of actions:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=14614.0

Right now, I think I would go with one of two options, depending on whether you are using an initiative/action system like standard RM, where there is a declarations phase and then actions are handled more or less simultaneously within the phase, or whether you are using a system more like Dungeons and Dragons, where each individual character takes his/her turn all at once.

If using the former, then you might not need a disengage action at all. Since characters are taking their moves all at the same time, they can chase down someone trying to disengage, and if they spend enough % of their activity moving to catch up with the person they are chasing, then the other person will not be able to disengage. I don't know as much about this system, though, so correct me if I am wrong.

If you are using the other system (where characters take each of their turns one by one), you can do away with declarations altogether (which I like), but you also have to give players a reasonably realistic opportunity to react to other players movements. For me, I make disengage a 20% action (1 point, in my system), but one that requires concentration, which makes it in effect a 40% (2 point) action. After a character makes a disengage action, s/he can then move normally, but the disengage action itself at least requires concentration; if a character just moves away from another character without concentrating, that provokes an opportunity attack (a free attack).

That's the way I handle it, anyway. It is actually a more complicated issue than you might think when you really look at it. Good luck!

[markc]

 This question has come up before and if you do a search of the Archives you should get the posts (as long as they were not lost).


Also as you said many GM's do things differently and combat actions can vary with different GM's combat systems.



 In the past it was ruled that when you disengage you are backing up until you get to a point of 10' and then you can turn and run after that, where as if you just run then your combatant would get a swing at you backside.


 How do I do it in my game, well if you turn and run I would give your opponent a % chance to swing at you back side at 50% OB then I would allow them to have their normal attack action ( even if multiple attacks) at your backside also. So they could potentially be getting 1 extra attack besides all of their attack actions for that round at your rear arc.
MDC

[Doridian]

In the past it was ruled that when you disengage you are backing up until you get to a point of 10' and then you can turn and run after that

I'll assume that, then.

if you turn and run I would give your opponent a % chance to swing at you back side at 50% OB then I would allow them to have their normal attack action ( even if multiple attacks) at your backside also.

I like the 50% OB attack.

Thank you.

[Doridian]

It is actually a more complicated issue than you might think when you really look at it. Good luck!

Seeing that RMU is still "declarative" I assumed that it is viable. I'm a little bit surprised in reading that it may not work instead. I give an example to try to explain what I mean.

Keeping momentarily aside istantaneous spell and referring to melee (and sticking to RMSS), in my opinion even just the basics of melee are not obvious when paired to the repeatedly stressed (in the rules) need to parry. Parry must be declared at action declaration. Assume you have a +80 broadsword skill. You declare a React & Melee (-10) Action. So you only have 70 OB to split; assume you split it 50OB/20DB. Following the very same example in the RMSS book, it happens that you act in the deliberate phase: At the beginning of the Deliberate Action Phase, Dral declares his action to move and attack. Since Dral's running movement rate is 100' and he has to cover 30', Dral uses 30% of his activity to reach the Orc. So his attack on the Orc is modified by -30 plus 10 because it is the Deliberate Action Phase. What does it happen to the OB/DB split? Does it mean that it is now 30OB/20DB? And if the split were 0OB/70DB would it still be -20/70?

I would rule that you must keep the proportion (-30*50/70 to OB, -30*20/70 to DB). Or, alternatively, that you must apply the penalty first to the OB, until it goes to zero; then, if there's still a penalty left, you must reduce DB until it goes to zero; then,if there's still a penalty left, you must reduce further the OB (attack) below zero. Or, third method, you split the penalty evenly, provided you do not go below zero with either portion of the split, then you reduce further the other, until both figures are at zero; and then further reducing the OB (attack) portion of the split (below zero), if there's still a penalty left. In any case, if the DB has been already committed to defend, the penalties could be applied only to the OB portion of the split.

I see that in RMU you can cancel a declared action and, say, having lost Phase I, you have left 70% to act. What does it happen to the original OB/DB split? Maybe I've missed it, but I've not seen any suggestion. Am I wrong? As it's due to canceling, in this case I would rule that you can rearrange it as you see fit (your overall OB is at least at -30 now).

I supposed that this kind of things has already been ruled in a way or another. Maybe they should be officially suggested (in RMU, rules can still be updated; for RMSS there are the FAQ somewhere, but I've not seen anything about these issues; maybe I'm wrong, have I missed them?).

Now I'm turning to the suggested threads and I'll let you know what they tell me.

Thank you.

[Cory Magel]

Most the time we don't use hard and fast facing.  If you are making multiple attacks in a round it is assumed that due to the movement of combat you could potentially be facing any foe during the course of the round.  For purposes of multiple attackers we simply say: First two attacks no position mod.  Third and fourth attack get Flank.  Fifth and sixth attack get Rear.

Keeping that in mind this is how I would handle it with and without facing.

a character is Engaged (whatever it means for you) and moves away without “disengaging”: is it allowed? Which kind of "bad things” should/could happen to him/her?]

1) Without set facing rules: It would draw an attack from anyone engaged in melee with them that they then move one or more squares away from so long as the foe being disengaged from wants that to be their attack for the turn.  No penalties on the attack aside from whatever phase change is at hand (i.e. if you flee in snap and draw an attack that attack is at -20).
2) With set facing rules: It would draw a free attack from any melee combatants currently facing the target moving away (i.e. front three squares/hexes).  Same phase rule as above for possible phase penalties.

a character "disengages from melee”: which kind of facing is assumed to have after moving those 10’?

It would depends on the actions of the target disengaging from melee.
1) If it is a full on "run for your life" I would assume those being fled from would be looking at the fleeing targets back, however I would also assume that the fleeing target is looking back over their shoulder on occasion.  I'd likely give a flank bonus to attackers being fled from.
2) If it is merely to back off then I would assume a facing towards those being disengaged from.  This might be the case if the disengaging target is simply trying to use their environment to gain move favorable positioning (so they could not be surrounded, getting out of the line of sight of a ranged attacker, etc).

a character “disengages from melee” (or just moves away in front of an attack): do you roll to resolve the conflicting action with the attacker a) in any case, b) only if the attack and the fleeing are declared in the same phase, c) only if the attack and the fleeing are declared in the same phase and the (modified) initiative rolls are equal?

Here's where things get complicated and I say "Just depends on the situation".

If the target being disengaged from doesn't want the disengaging foe to move then you have a moving maneuver roll off of some kind.  Use whatever skills seem appropriate.  Tumbling, blocking/tackling, wrestling, etc., or if it comes to it an agility/quickness roll off.  However such an attempt by the target being disengaged from is an action and would require possibly cancelling their current action and taking those penalties.  All this happens in the phase the disengage movement occurs.   So, your best bet to disengage (mere movement) is in snap, because that causes the attacker to take a -20 penalty in addition to possible cancelled/changed action penalties if they want to try and stop you.  Otherwise the target being disengaged from does not make their attack and uses leftover action at the end of the round to follow (whatever movement is left after a cancelled action or 100% movement if assume not attacking and doing nothing else does not qualify as a cancelled action).

Does all that make sense?

[Doridian]

Does all that make sense?

To me it does.

Most the time we don't use hard and fast facing.  If you are making multiple attacks in a round it is assumed that due to the movement of combat you could potentially be facing any foe during the course of the round.  For purposes of multiple attackers we simply say: First two attacks no position mod.  Third and fourth attack get Flank.  Fifth and sixth attack get Rear.

I was trying to devise something similar by myself. Your solution seems sound. I'll do it this way. This means that Engaged is just a state of being “adjacent”, I suppose.

It would depends on the actions of the target disengaging from melee.
1) If it is a full on "run for your life" …
2) If it is merely to back off...

I’d name “disengage from melee” the second option only. I would referee that the first one translates to a normal movement action (triggering free attacks; but see below).

Here's where things get complicated and I say "Just depends on the situation”.
If the target being disengaged from doesn't want the disengaging foe to move then you have a moving maneuver roll off of some kind.  Use whatever skills seem appropriate.  Tumbling, blocking/tackling, wrestling, etc., or if it comes to it an agility/quickness roll off.  However such an attempt by the target being disengaged from is an action and would require possibly cancelling their current action and taking those penalties.
All this happens in the phase the disengage movement occurs. 
So, your best bet to disengage (mere movement) is in snap, because that causes the attacker to take a -20 penalty in addition to possible cancelled/changed action penalties if they want to try and stop you.  Otherwise the target being disengaged from does not make their attack and uses leftover action at the end of the round to follow (whatever movement is left after a cancelled action or 100% movement if assume not attacking and doing nothing else does not qualify as a cancelled action).

What you’re writing makes me think that the mechanics you are describing overlap with the - trying to give it a name - "free attack on careless fleeing from melee”. And I’ve got some more doubts. Trying to express them I've faced other doubts and I started to "develop" some ideas (Huring war right in saying good luck). So I stop here, and I’ll try to be more on focus in a following post.

(Caveat: maybe I’m not fully understanding how core RMSS rules work! In general I believed that action sequencing should be governed first by phase then by initiative).

[Ecthelion]

I would like to know in your games what usually happens if:

• a character is Engaged (whatever it means for you) and moves away without “disengaging”: is it allowed? Which kind of "bad things” should/could happen to him/her?

We do allow this. But the opponent would be allowed to change his desired Actions for the round and might e.g. declare to attack the fleeing character during the Snap Action phase instead of doing whatever he originally planned.

• a character "disengages from melee”: which kind of facing is assumed to have after moving those 10’?

If the character who disengaged is turning to move away from the combat, then we assume that an attacker gets a +15 bonus for attacking from the side against him.

• a character “disengages from melee” (or just moves away in front of an attack): do you roll to resolve the conflicting action with the attacker a) in any case, b) only if the attack and the fleeing are declared in the same phase, c) only if the attack and the fleeing are declared in the same phase and the (modified) initiative rolls are equal?

When a combatant disengages from melee we allow the opponent(s) to make a Situational Awareness - Combat maneuver to detect this change. If they are successful they can change their desired Actions for the round. And, as mentioned above, without a Disengage from Melee Action they are always successful. Therefore we don't have a situation of conflicting actions.

[Cory Magel]

Here's where things get complicated and I say "Just depends on the situation”.
If the target being disengaged from doesn't want the disengaging foe to move then you have a moving maneuver roll off of some kind.  Use whatever skills seem appropriate.  Tumbling, blocking/tackling, wrestling, etc., or if it comes to it an agility/quickness roll off.  However such an attempt by the target being disengaged from is an action and would require possibly cancelling their current action and taking those penalties.
All this happens in the phase the disengage movement occurs. 
So, your best bet to disengage (mere movement) is in snap, because that causes the attacker to take a -20 penalty in addition to possible cancelled/changed action penalties if they want to try and stop you.  Otherwise the target being disengaged from does not make their attack and uses leftover action at the end of the round to follow (whatever movement is left after a cancelled action or 100% movement if assume not attacking and doing nothing else does not qualify as a cancelled action).

What you’re writing makes me think that the mechanics you are describing overlap with the - trying to give it a name - "free attack on careless fleeing from melee”. And I’ve got some more doubts. Trying to express them I've faced other doubts and I started to "develop" some ideas (Huring war right in saying good luck). So I stop here, and I’ll try to be more on focus in a following post.

(Caveat: maybe I’m not fully understanding how core RMSS rules work! In general I believed that action sequencing should be governed first by phase then by initiative).

Sorry, the yellow text is something we do as a house rule.  I believe RMSS rules would simply leave it at: You use 25% to disengage 10' with reprisal then are free to do as you please.  We just didn't like that being so cut and dry... so, I believe, other than the RMSS rule, all of us are simply saying how we've changed that.

Our primary GM allows a completely free attack (no action required) when you flee combat without officially disengaging.  But I personally make you use action to do it (I didn't fully edit out the "free attack" from my comment).  With me you'd also need to have an attack already declared, I just allow you to make that action in a different phase without penalty (otherwise you have to cancel what you were doing and try to attack at the changed action penalty).

So, regarding your question about Phase and Initiative.  You are correct, RMSS goes by phase first and initiate second.  However if someone is trying to remove themselves from melee we, as a house rule, allow another combatant to make an attack on someone not using 'disengage' and even if they are, we still allow the opportunity to try and 'block' that movement (although you are often at quite a disadvantage to do that as you're probably having to cancel your declared action, take that penalty, then make an action at less than 80% (which is another -20).

[Doridian]

When a combatant disengages from melee we allow the opponent(s) to make a Situational Awareness - Combat maneuver to detect this change. If they are successful they can change their desired Actions for the round. And, as mentioned above, without a Disengage from Melee Action they are always successful. Therefore we don't have a situation of conflicting actions.

Ohh... I think I would love it! This completely fits in what I was elaborating in answering to Cory in one post above (where I wrote that I was seeing some overlapping). I think I would rule in general that after action declaration, having seen the other characters declarations, any character can try to change his/her actions rolling successfully on Situational Awareness - Combat. I would put Routine (or even Mundane if not automatic) the difficulty in front of a character moving away without disengaging first, Medium when s/he disengages, say Hard in any other case (maybe it could also be be allowed to change... in reaction of a changed Declaration, but I would set an Extremely Hard difficulty for that and one level harder for any level of reaction after the first).

[Doridian]

Here's where things get complicated and I say "Just depends on the situation”.
If the target being disengaged from doesn't want the disengaging foe to move then you have a moving maneuver roll off of some kind.  Use whatever skills seem appropriate. ...

What you’re writing makes me think that the mechanics you are describing overlap with the - trying to give it a name - "free ...
(Caveat: maybe I’m not fully understanding how core RMSS rules work! In general I believed that action sequencing should be governed first by phase then by initiative).

Sorry, the yellow text is something we do as a house rule.  I believe RMSS rules would simply leave it at: You use 25% to disengage 10' with reprisal then are free to do as you please.  We just didn't like that being so cut and dry... so, I believe, other than the RMSS rule, all of us are simply saying how we've changed that.

Actually the example in the RMSS regarding conflicting actions seems to go more toward your house rules than toward my supposition (on action ordering). Anyway I would say that Ecthelion suggestions should resolve my problems regarding the differences between disengaging and just fleeing.

[Doridian]

Let me thank you all for your patience and opinions. I've found them very useful and enlightening.

In one of the first posts I've written that I've put momentarily aside instantaneous spells (as they do not have anything to do with disengaging). I'll eventually open a new topic after reading through the really interesting threads suggested by Hurin.

P.S.: Hurin, please accept my excuses for having put a typo in your nickname in one previous post. I've noticed it only now and I cannot correct it anymore.

[Marrethiel]

In one of the rulesets there is an exmple (from probably incorrect memory) of a player leaving a combat through a window and the contested MM's involved.
We use this as a basic idea:
The maneuvre difficulty is based on circumstance, so if there are two duelists in an open area then it would be say, hard to dissengage and Medium to stay in combat (you don't have to turn arund and show your back). So if you are trying to dissengage as above, you are backing up, waiting for an opening. this is like the classic duel in Princess Bride where the combatants move around.
If there are multiple combatants and you have a window to jump out of then it might be easier or harder; do you have an ally getting in the way for you, is it a big wide open window?.
As I type this, I wonder if it could also be used to get an OB bonus some how.

[Hurin]

P.S.: Hurin, please accept my excuses for having put a typo in your nickname in one previous post. I've noticed it only now and I cannot correct it anymore.

No apology is necessary-- I never took offense.

[MariusH]

We use the "disengagement" rules as follows:

a) You are "engaged in melee" if and only if someone made a melee attack against you earlier this round AND he would still be able to attack you next round (i.e. he's not stunned or dead), OR if someone made a melee attack against you the previous round or AND that same opponent is still able to make a melee attack against you this round.
b) When you are "engaged in melee" you may NOT fire missiles or move normally (you need to "disengage" first).
c) Disengage from melee is a 25% action that gets you 10' away. Note that you can declare this action even if not in melee, if you expect to be attacked.
d) If you still have at least 60% action left, you can cancel action to disengage from melee in the deliberate phase. Otherwise, you must wait until next round and declare a disengage action then.

I think both a) and b), and at least the first half of c) is explisitely stated in the RMSS standard rules book.

As for facing, we play that the first time you're attacked in a round, you can set your facing any way you like (unless you're surprised). The rest of your round, your facing is determined.

[Holdner]

This is a very good post doridian.

I will pick up some of the ideas exposed here to make the rules of disengaging easy.
combination of cancelling actions and the spatial situation awareness are the best in my opinion

I don't like the opposite maneuver rolls it complicates the matter and I think must be used as an exception