Topic: Hi all & some rule questions

[Elder]

Hi all I am new of this forum and i salute you all.

I have some questions regarding Rolemaster rules. Please answer only if you are absolutely sure regarding the answer. And sorry for my english.

1. If a player put himself in a Opportunity Action in snap phase (fire the crossbow when the enemy run from a hide to another one), and the enemy run out in the normal phase, the player and the enemy should make initiative roll or not? The opportunity action player may fire immediately in normal phase?

2. Lets say a player declare this in the Action Declaration Phase: React & Melee and all OB to parry, and he charge adrenal speed in deliberate phase, if someone attack him in deliberate, he still have his OB in parry?

3. Turning for facing another target use a percentage?

4. Disengaging from melee use a 25% and let you move 10'. This mean i can virtually do this (say to me if correct): Disengage from a enemy, move 10' near another enemy, use the 75% i still have to full melee the other enemy (obiviously i declared all thias action in Action Declaration Phase).

With regard, waiting for response.

[Kristen Mork]

Hi all I am new of this forum and i salute you all.

I have some questions regarding Rolemaster rules. Please answer only if you are absolutely sure regarding the answer. And sorry for my english.

1. If a player put himself in a Opportunity Action in snap phase (fire the crossbow when the enemy run from a hide to another one), and the enemy run out in the normal phase, the player and the enemy should make initiative roll or not? The opportunity action player may fire immediately in normal phase?

When the enemy runs out in the normal phase, the player attacks as soon as he can see his target.  No initiative roll needed.

2. Lets say a player declare this in the Action Declaration Phase: React & Melee and all OB to parry, and he charge adrenal speed in deliberate phase, if someone attack him in deliberate, he still have his OB in parry?

Absolutely!  Clever use of React & Melee to establish a parry against an unspecified target.

3. Turning for facing another target use a percentage?

This is a gaping hole in the rules.  I generally assume that a player is facing the target they are attacking (or most recently attacked).  Basically, you're going to need to improvise like the rest of us.

4. Disengaging from melee use a 25% and let you move 10'. This mean i can virtually do this (say to me if correct): Disengage from a enemy, move 10' near another enemy, use the 75% i still have to full melee the other enemy (obiviously i declared all thias action in Action Declaration Phase).

With regard, waiting for response.

Yes!  And, with luck the first enemy has declared a Full Attack and won't even be able to attack you.

[Ynglaur]

For #3, and facing in general, I apply things very loosely.  Melee combat is very fluid and dynamic.  Watch a good boxing match and you'll see what I mean: 1 vs. 1 the combatants rarely turn away from each other...but even then, they sometimes do.  Facing changes are just part of the "approximately 10 seconds" of the round when attacking.  Remember that attacks in RM represent multiple swings, parries, feints, etc.  In my opinion, "facing" is less a hard and fast rule, and more a way to abstract positional advantage.

[Cory Magel]

For facing we use some loose house rules (as many people do).

Firstly, if a character is in combat we do not assume a character is completely static in his/her maneuvers simply because they do not have movement declared.  People do not stand in place and take swings at each other in true combat, it (just as the rest of the round) is a process of continuous movement, not "Take action. Wait. Take action. Wait... etc".  Therefore it is assumed a combatant will do it's best to position itself in a manner which provides the least amount of bonuses granted to foes for positional modifiers.  So "facing" with us is whatever the player says it is at for the given round and they do not need to spend any movement unless they are actually moving from one hex/square to the next (or 10 feet if you're not using a mat).  Much of these house rules come from actual experience in fighting multiple foes in melee combat on a 'battlefield'... although I have to say it is in a 'light fighting' style (i.e. no heavy armor to limit your peripheral vision).

If you are fighting up to 2 foes they do not get a positional bonus on you (unless you allow it for some reason).
- This is because in most cases you can maneuver in a way that will keep them both off to your left and right forward flanks.

If you are fighting 3 foes you can opt for 1 foe to get a back attack (with the other two not getting positional bonuses), or for two foes to get flank attacks (with one not getting a positional bonus).
- This is because either...
...you are positioning yourself as in the example above (and therefore the third attacker can get directly behind you.
...you are reversing the situation by facing one and maneuvering so the other two are flanking your left and right rear sides.

If you are fighting 4 foes you can opt for 2 to get flank attacks (with the other two not getting positional bonuses), or if for some some weird reason you really wanted to 2, with flank attacks and 1 with a back attack.

Obviously if you can use your environment to protect your back (or even flanks) you will do so, in which case you just need to eye-ball the situation and use your best judgment.

[Kristen Mork]

I agree with Cory, except that if there are two opponents, one of them should get a flank bonus (IMHO).

[MariusH]

I agree with Cory in 2 opponent = no flank bonus. That is, if you're willing to move around. And basically the opponents dictate how you have to move in order to not give them a flank bonus, which means they to some extent get to control which direction you have to move in.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Yeah, that. You can deny both of 2 opponents a flank bonus... but only if you are willing to let them drive you in whatever direction they choose. In open, flat terrain you can get around that if you are noticeably faster on your feet than both of them... but only then.

[Cory Magel]

It's true that the two opponents essentially force you to move around, but we have the 'rule' somewhat generic since it is rare that you can't either move to keep them from flanking (in the open) or can back up to an object or ally that prevent it.  We just forgo the free 10 foot action and assume it is a part of the melee for simplicity sake unless there is something specific that changes the situation.  If you're using 10 foot 'spaces' I think this is the better way to handle it.

Now, if you are using 5 foot spaces it becomes more of a situation where you're probably going to want them to actually move a hex/square.  We have been using 5 foot spaces for a couple campaigns (our campaigns last roughly a year in most cases if you average them out), but we haven't run into any scenarios that weren't pretty straightforward.

The one piece of it that is where you have to decide how detailed you want to get is if two foes are driving a foe in one direction they'll need to stay to one side mainly to do so (so no flank).  You could, given enough room, pretty much move in circles, essentially keeping one foe close to your forward flank and backing away from the other.  Until you come up to something that is going to stop your movement... then they could try to move to opposing sides, however at that point you could quickly move between them and start heading the other direction.  So for a very brief moment you will have your back exposed to one of them.

All this is why we skip reality for simplicities sake.  Which is actually kind of unusual for us.  We're very tactical and enjoy combat to the point that many gamers would call our campaigns 'hack and slash'.  One particular GM we joke that his campaigns are a series of fights loosely tied together by a plot.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I was thinking more that tactically minded opponents can put you in the position where you have to choose between being flanked and being driven toward the "killing ground".