Topic: Melee vs Missile initiative

[Marc R]

Indeed, if you check above I touched on the movement issue. . .if the three are standing 30' apart, indeed the melee attackers need to close in and movement takes activity thus giving the crossbow a chance to fire first. . .but if all three combatants start at melee range. . or if dagger and spear are within melee range attacking each other, but the crossbow is standing 30' off firing at the spear attacker, then you do indeed run into the circular order of action the original poster was pointing out.

It's a great post, one I'd never considered, but so obvious once it was.

[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.

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.

I read that from the beginning and I do really fail to see the problem. Different rules changes the resolution order and I fail to see the great harm gamewise of realisimwise if the daggerusers attack gets delayed. The dagger user is challenging a spear user and in reality that would spell doom for the dagger user, that the action order changes it as worst a minor issue.

As for the matter that a tatical player can avoid mods by declaring other actions. I agree and still fail to see a problem here. If the spear user uses a spell instead his spell goes first, but he also avoids the critical need to move within the spearusers striking distance while still being out of melee range himself.

[MariusH]

I think I was first to mention the "circular problem" in this post. Pastaav, I think you're missing the point. It's not a problem that the dagger user attacks after the spear user. The problem is that the book gives initiative bonuses in "melee vs melee" - as opposed to a GENERAL initiative bonus. That screws up the order when there are non-melee users included as well (and possibly also with three melee-users, where two are attacking each other and the third is attacking one of the two).

How does one interpret this "melee vs melee" bonus? Pastaav, I think you interpreted it as a GENERAL initiative modifier - and as a PENALTY to the (shorter weapon/weaker fighter/not one-hand free/not pole-arm) person. That may very well WORK (not sure I agree, but that's beside the point), but it's definitely not what the rule book describes. The rule book gives BONUSES in "melee vs melee" situations, and does not say anything about how to solve the "circular problem".

Personally, I think this belongs in the errata. And I think that either:
a) The "melee vs melee" bonuses should be dropped entirely; or
b) The bonuses should be made GENERAL bonuses, some possibly positive (like one free hand), and some possibly negative (shorter weapon?)

Of course, some could be dropped and some could be made general, but ANY modifier to initiative HAS to be made a general modifier, not a modifier against one spesific opponent, or a specific type of opponent (having +3 to init vs orcs would cause the same problem, of course).

Another similar problem arises with crit results saying "you have initiative". Great! But what if I attack another target - do I still get init? Or if I DO attack the same target, we could get another "circular problem" when a third player intervenes. In our games, we have changed all "you gain initiative" to "you get +10 to initiative" (assuming this is because you're "on a roll" or something), and "you lose initiative" to "you get -10 to initiative".

[pastaav]

A number of days has passed while I have been busy doing other stuff. I find the topic boring...but I want to put my two cents into play.

I think I was first to mention the "circular problem" in this post. Pastaav, I think you're missing the point. It's not a problem that the dagger user attacks after the spear user. The problem is that the book gives initiative bonuses in "melee vs melee" - as opposed to a GENERAL initiative bonus. That screws up the order when there are non-melee users included as well (and possibly also with three melee-users, where two are attacking each other and the third is attacking one of the two).

I agree about it changing the order. I don't agree that it screws the order...that would require there to be a true order that is violated.

How does one interpret this "melee vs melee" bonus? Pastaav, I think you interpreted it as a GENERAL initiative modifier - and as a PENALTY to the (shorter weapon/weaker fighter/not one-hand free/not pole-arm) person. That may very well WORK (not sure I agree, but that's beside the point), but it's definitely not what the rule book describes. The rule book gives BONUSES in "melee vs melee" situations, and does not say anything about how to solve the "circular problem".

The rule book does also in many places say that you should subtract negative penalties. This does mathematically mean you really make the number larger, but we pretty much all agree that they really meant you to add the negative number. My point is that the RM designers seldom cared about mathematically correctly describing the rules and if your interpretation of how to use the given number gives you enough problem that you want to drop the rule altogether then maybe you are applying it wrong.   

Of course, some could be dropped and some could be made general, but ANY modifier to initiative HAS to be made a general modifier, not a modifier against one spesific opponent, or a specific type of opponent (having +3 to init vs orcs would cause the same problem, of course).

I don't agree that it must be general. It is always possible to resolve the few situations when clashes happen with minimal effort so there is no great need to add this restriction to the rulesdesign.

Another similar problem arises with crit results saying "you have initiative". Great! But what if I attack another target - do I still get init?

Why would you?

Or if I DO attack the same target, we could get another "circular problem" when a third player intervenes.

Provided that you stick with your all init rules must translate into a general init bonus or penalty assumption. 

We will probably not agree at all, but I find it interesting how hard it can be to make people look at their assumptions.

The concept that all init-modifications must be general modifiers is in itself not a weird one, but I fail to see how anyone can imagine that RM uses this concept with the many rule references that clearly are written in a way that conflict with this idea.

[Kristen Mork]

Pastaav, how would you resolve the hypothetical situation?  To avoid scrolling all over the place; there are three participants: A has a spear, B has a crossbow, C has a dagger.  A rolls a 10, B rolls 11, C rolls 12 (after all general modifiers).  A and C are in melee, so A might have a +5 bonus from the melee vs. melee modifier table (if the bonus isn't exactly +5 it doesn't really matter).

In what order are the attacks resolved?

[VladD]

I want to chuck in a few Tp as well.

@mightypawn you are forgetting that 2d10 gives a bell curve so the effective, most common results will be from 11 down to 5 and up 16, so a spread of 11. That is why the penalties don't match your math. In effect a 10 modifier will effectively bypass the the roll completely. In this light a -1 per 10% max move is reasonable.

The penalty for movement, in my humble opinion, is there to make a difference when someone is, for example, using react and attack where the character needs to move and makes an attack in the same action, thus, if the init penalty is not applied, he would teleport to his target, who has less chance of evading him. IF the penalty is applied; the movement is at least accounted for.

Game On!

[markc]

  After thinking for a time I might give missile/thrown/firearms/energy weapons a bonus to Init to determine who goes fist IMHO this would solve many problems but not all of them.
MDC

[Marc R]

That would seem to make sense.