Topic: Ambush Rules Clarification

[awesomesauce]

My apologies if this has previously been asked. I did a search on the forums, but couldn't find an answer.

What I would like clarification on is this:

1. The Ambush roll (the static action prior to the attack) does this count as an action? RMFRP Core says it is a 0% action. Does this mean it takes up one of your three possible actions for the round? For instance, does a player need to state: Snap action: Ambush, Normal: Attack, Deliberate: Whatever. Or can a player just say: Snap action: Ambush attack!, Normal: Run away! (or whatever)?

2. In RMFRP Core, if someone ambushes into melee, it states they can only use half their skill ranks to modify the critical. It does not mention that the actual ambush static action is any more difficult to achieve (which seems odd to me). In SoHK, Ambushing into melee is described differently, it states: "...ambush skill is halved if an ambushed foe is in a melee situation". Both the static action and the ranks for the crit? That almost seems too harsh. Is this just a lack of clarification in SoHK, and the RMFRP Core book is what I should be going by? Personally, I feel like there should be some modifier to the ambush static action roll if attacking into melee, such as a flat -20 or some such, in addition to the limit of using half your ranks when it actually succeeds.

3. The standard modifiers for an ambush static maneuver (from what I can tell) are:
Position (flank/rear) +
Target's awareness (OR sense ambush, whatever is higher) -
Lighting (or invisibility?) +/-
Is there nothing else that would rationally and regularly affect an ambush static action roll?

4. In the case of using precision talent, or the magent's spell 'open ambush,' that both allow ambush attacks even when the target is aware of the attacker, I assume that lighting would no longer effect the ambush difficulty, as there is no requirement to remain in the shadows. But would awareness/sense ambush still function? I feel they would - as these skills would still help the defender recognize and attempt to avoid such a deadly attack? But I'm not sure.

[awesomesauce]

  No help...?

[jdale]

I would say:
1) It does not count as one of your actions, it's just part of your attack action.
2) I think the intent is to use your full bonus on the ambush maneuver, but increase the difficulty (i.e. apply a penalty if the target is alert or very active). Halve the bonus to the critical roll if the maneuver was a success.
3) As a GM you can always apply a difficulty adjustment based on any other aspect of the situation. But those are the things that are listed.

It's not really clear how you apply the target's awareness. The bonuses for alertness and sense ambush are pretty low so you could just apply them. In RMU, when dealing with opposed skills, you would make a maneuver for one skill and then apply any amount over 100 as a penalty on the other skill (and conversely any amount under 100 as a bonus). But in RMU you'd be using Perception with a higher bonus, and Ambush doesn't need a maneuver roll of its own.

4) Judgment call. Open Ambush I still requires a positional advantage. One interpretation of the spells is that the attack is hidden from the target so that, even though they are aware of the attacker, they are unable to see the blade coming in. Poor lighting could obscure it further. But you could also decide that it's sufficiently obscured so lighting doesn't matter.

Sense Ambush seems like it could still work. You are trained exactly to deal with situations of unseen attacks.

In general, I don't think that Alertness and Sense Ambush should provide the same benefits. If they did, why develop Sense Ambush, which has the same cost and the same progression? You would always be better off only developing Alertness. Sense Ambush should apply to more situations, or it should get an additional roll, or the difficulty on the maneuver should be lower. (This sort of thing is why we reduced the number of skills so much in RMU.)

[MisterK]

In general, I don't think that Alertness and Sense Ambush should provide the same benefits. If they did, why develop Sense Ambush, which has the same cost and the same progression? You would always be better off only developing Alertness. Sense Ambush should apply to more situations, or it should get an additional roll, or the difficulty on the maneuver should be lower. (This sort of thing is why we reduced the number of skills so much in RMU.)

One option could be to have Alertness be only useful if the character specifies they are wary of being ambushed (so, not active skill, but requires intent), while Sense Ambush would be useful as a purely instinctive skill not requiring any intent.
Another option could be to have the effects of a successful Sense Ambush manoeuver be more beneficial to the victim than the effects of a successful Alertness manoeuver (e.g. Alertness would provide only half the modifier to the Ambush skill check).

If you are resolving opposed skill checks with a single roll (using the passive/reactive skill as a difficulty modifier instead of rolling twice), then Alertness would provide a lower modifier (e.g. half the skill bonus applied as difficulty, instead of full skill bonus for the Sense Ambush skill).

[awesomesauce]

Thank you. I appreciate the answers!

[doktorjoy]

We use Ambush quite often in our campaign. We generally play it as follows:

1/ The ambush roll does not count as an action. The roll is made in the same phase as the attack itself at no cost (unless some sort of spectacular failure occurs) and simply modifies the outcome of the attack itself. (So, much the same as Spell Mastery where you make the Spell Mastery roll before you cast the spell).

2/ We play the former - use half the ranks to modify the critical. I guess it simply reflects that the target is moving unpredictably.

3/ We don't play Flank/Rear or Surprise bonuses for the Ambush roll itself (it's a static manoeuvre not an attack roll) - but of course we apply them to the actual attack roll if the positioning indicates that (and by definition in our campaign, see below, surprise almost always applies). About the only modifiers we apply to the Ambush roll itself is the difficulty (from School of Hard Knocks). We don't use Sense Ambush to modify the Ambush roll. The logic we have here is that the 'Ambush' roll is actually more of a "can I deliver a surgical strike?" roll. In order to use Ambush in our game, you have to have surprise - the target has to be either unaware of the attack (or rather more rarely, somehow incapable of avoiding - it trussed up for example). So we play that in order to ambush an opponent, you have to get into position without them being aware of you. Almost always therefore, an Ambush attack has been preceded by some kind of Stalking rolls also - and we subtract the target's Sense Ambush and/or Alertness from those rolls instead. We essentially play Sense Ambush as a wider skill that notices you're about to walk into a more conventional ambush or trap. The Rolemaster 'Ambush' skill is badly named in my opinion and should be more like 'Surgical strike'.

4/ From the way we play it, the lighting affects stalking rolls to get into position, not the Ambush roll itself. The Ambush skill more reflects the PC (or NPC)'s ability to identify a critical spot on the target and deliver a strike to it. Effects that permit ambush rolls without surprise we would look at the skill difficulties again in Hard Knocks. We don't actually have any Magents in our campaign, but I think the way I'd rule on this if that spell (or Talent) came into play would be to treat the target as being aware of the attack (so the Ambush roll would certainly not be routine). I might allow the target to use Alertness in this case to mitigate the ambush roll - and I'd certainly allow the target to parry the attack and use shield and full DB against it. This would mean the severity of the critical would likely be quite a bit lower on average than a successful conventional Ambush attack carried out with surprise.