Topic: Question about Tumbling Evasion

[Ruffie]

Hello,

During our last session a player wanted to use 'tumbing evasion' to evade the attack of an enemy. (Combat maneuver). The skill reads: "This skill provides a bonus for evading a attack by using a tumbling maneuver. The skill rank (not the skill rank bonus) is added to the DB. This skill is rolled for during the round that the skill is actively used. Individual may not parry, use a shield, or attack while using this skill."

Now, the player wanted to use this skill for 2 reasons:
- To use the 'tumble' part to move away from an enemy. Effectively breaking from melee and moving a few feet away.
- To evade the attack.

Now a few questions:
- If an enemy is earlier in the combat sequence of initiative. Does this mean that the PC can not use this skill against the attack? Seeing as the enemy is quicker to hit?
- Is it possible to use this skill to move away from the enemy and thus moving out of melee range?
- During the tumble evasion, can the player still benefit from his adrenal defensive bonus?

Regards,

Ruff

[MisterK]

If I remember well, RMSS requires pre-declaration of actions.

As such, the character must have pre-declared Tumbling Evasion (given that they will not attack this round). IMHO, there is no reason to prevent the character from doing it to avoid the incoming attack, regardless of initiative.

More generally, I think the RM initiative is broken when including defensive skills, unless it is used only to resolve the relative order of conflicting actions: it can be useful to determine who resolves their attack first when two opponents attack each other, but cannot be used to determine who "goes first" between an attack and the corresponding defensive action.
Furthermore, conflicting active manoeuvers (e.g. race to see if the character can snatch the McGuffin away before the evil minion can grab it to complete the ritual) are best resolved by opposed skill rolls rather than initiative rolls. Globally, initiative is not really useful, because it is less important than what makes sense in the fiction.

[jdale]

You certainly benefit from parry, which is part of an attack action, even against an attack that comes earlier in the initiative order. So I don't see any issue in applying tumbling evasion the same way.

As written, it's pretty clear about what is forbidden; I would allow adrenal defense and/or movement to be combined with it.

In the Martial Arts Companion, the skill text is changed. The last sentence (forbidding parry, shield, or attack) is deleted, but it requires 60% activity. That might be a more sensible version.

[MisterK]

In the Martial Arts Companion, the skill text is changed. The last sentence (forbidding parry, shield, or attack) is deleted, but it requires 60% activity. That might be a more sensible version.

Well, if it requires 60% activity, you can't make an attack action anyway (50% activity at least), so that leaves shield... or being under a haste or Adrenal Speed effect, in which case the MA version allows you to perform an attack action *and* a tumbling evasion action in the same round. And likely benefit from AD as well, since it's a 10% or 30% activity in the MA Companion.

But it's not that effective until the higher ranks anyway (60% activity for a DB bonus equal to the number of ranks in the skill does not seem that effective - though, if you're desperate, I guess any little thing helps ).

[jdale]

The 60% activity is more sensible in the sense that it is clear about what you can and cannot do at the same time in a more comprehensive way -- instead of only addressing the things the author thought of, it also addresses combining it with spellcasting, concentration, etc. It also effectively permits it during an attack if you have extra activity (e.g., from haste or adrenal speed).

But agreed, it isn't that useful with that stricture. At 60% activity, it might make more sense to give the full rank bonus as DB. Or a lower activity requirement to get the number of ranks added.

[Cory Magel]

Well, if it requires 60% activity, you can't make an attack action anyway (50% activity at least), so that leaves shield...

RMSS/FRP require 60% action for a melee attack action.  They could potentially throw a dagger, fire a bow or crossbow (40% fire action) and do it however.

[EltonJ]

Well, if it requires 60% activity, you can't make an attack action anyway (50% activity at least), so that leaves shield...

RMSS/FRP require 60% action for a melee attack action.  They could potentially throw a dagger, fire a bow or crossbow (40% fire action) and do it however.

It's possible to fire a bow with only 40% action.  If Orlando Bloom could do it, then a fighter who specialized in archery can certainly do it. 

[Cory Magel]

RMSS/FRP require 60% action for a melee attack action.  They could potentially throw a dagger, fire a bow or crossbow (40% fire action) and do it however.

It's possible to fire a bow with only 40% action.  If Orlando Bloom could do it, then a fighter who specialized in archery can certainly do it. 

That would be the 2nd sentence of my post.

[MisterK]

Actually, making a missile attack is 30-60% activity (from section 20.0). I was wrong about the melee attack %, though, it's indeed 60-100%.

Gods, to think that I used that system at one time

[Ruffie]

Thank you for your replies. When the 60% rule is applied it does make more sense but I'm hesitant to introduce this during our current campaign. I don't like to change rules mid-game. In future campaigns I'll consider it.

Also; do you think that Tumbling Evasion can be used to move away from an enemy or groups of enemies to avoid melee combat?

The way the player sees it is that his character (Warrior Monk) is trying to leap away from combat using Tumbling moves which avoid him getting hit.

[MisterK]

Also; do you think that Tumbling Evasion can be used to move away from an enemy or groups of enemies to avoid melee combat?

The way the player sees it is that his character (Warrior Monk) is trying to leap away from combat using Tumbling moves which avoid him getting hit.

I'd say it depends if they get hit - I'm pretty sure it's not the RAW, but in this case, I'd like to see it as a contest - if the "defender" gets hit, they stay in melee. If they don't, they're clear (but might not stay that way for long unless they do something to put *more* distance between them and the attacker).

Another way to see it is to say that they are clear if they can do both a Tumbling Evasion manoeuver *and* a movement action in the same round. Otherwise, they dodge, but can't break from melee.

[Hurin]

Does RMSS/FRP actually have rules for what happens if you don't successfully disengage?

The RMSS skill is clearly based on the RM2 skill of the same name. The thing is, the RM2 skill seems to envision someone evading any attack -- it specifically says, 'by using a tumbling maneuver', which suggests it seems intended as something you do for the full round when you are spending most of your activity to just avoid an attack (a kind of full dodge), rather than as part of movement to avoid what DnD would call an 'opportunity attack' for moving out of an opponent's range without disengaging.

But the latter concept seems to be a vestige of DnD, which had clear rules about characters getting 'opportunity attacks' (in the DnD sense rather than the Rolemaster sense) when opponents move away without disengaging. I don't recall RM2 really having any well developed rules for this sort of what I've called 'sticky' combat. The RM2 rules (Arms Law) did discuss an attacker chasing the defender and getting rear attacks, but that's a somewhat different thing. Arms law has no entries for 'disengage' or 'withdraw', and one of the questions in the Q/A section of Arms law specifies that a character would have to hold back 50% activity in order 'to see if he can strike at an opponent who tries to run by' -- and even to do that requires a maneuver roll first (Arms Law, red band edition, p. 36).

[jdale]

RMSR page 82:
If a foe is adjacent to a character and attempts to maneuver away before melee occurs, the character who has chosen melee as his action may decide to attack that character before he maneuvers away. Both characters make conflict rolls {1d100OE modified by any maneuver penalties and a GM-assigned difficulty}:
* If the character who has chosen melee has the higher result, the attack is resolved normally and then the maneuver is resolved if the maneuvering character is still functioning.
* If the maneuvering character's result is higher, he may perform his maneuver before the other character can attack.
* If there is a draw (equal results), it is suggested that the attacking character be allowed to attack with half of his Offensive Bonus (all of it if the other character cancels his maneuver action) or that he may wait and melee with all of his Offensive Bonus after his opponent's maneuver is completed.

I would personally say, yes, tumbling evasion ought to give you some advantage in tumbling away, so the question is how much. The conservative answer would be to add your ranks in tumbling evasion to the conflict roll, or on a successful maneuver reduce the difficulty of that maneuver. The generous answer would be to add your bonus in tumbling evasion to the conflict roll.

[Hurin]

Thanks for the reference JDale; I like the fact that RMSS tried to add some stickiness to combat.

[Cory Magel]

Also; do you think that Tumbling Evasion can be used to move away from an enemy or groups of enemies to avoid melee combat?

Would have to base it partially off the situation, however if the player was not making an attack I'd likely allow it.
Basically he's going full on defense.  He's not attacking, so he can't parry and his AD is at 50% from ranged attacks.
It might work out if the player is just trying to escape or buy time.

The way the player sees it is that his character (Warrior Monk) is trying to leap away from combat using Tumbling moves which avoid him getting hit.

Normally that's your usual DB, so assume Quickness and Adrenal Defense in the Monks case.  But, again, if that's all he was doing I could see allowing it depending on the situation.

[MisterK]

It obviously heavily depends on the global situation :
- one-on-one, I would only allow a break from melee if
    * the character who wants to break performs an evasion manoeuver instead of a melee action AND has also used part of their activity to move away AND the opponent has *not* used part of their activity to move the same distance (otherwise, there is no evasion), or
    * the character who wants to break performs a melee action AND the attack connects but the character forfeits any result AND the character is not hit but their opponent in turn AND the character has also used part of their activity to move away AND the opponent has *not* used part of their activity to move the same distance, or
    * the character who wants to break performs a feint manoeuver instead of a melee action AND has also used part of their activity to move away AND the opponent has *not* used part of their activity to move the same distance.

A one-vs-N melee would simply increase the difficulty of the tumbling evasion. It would prevent the other two options unless the character can threaten all opponents at the same time (arcing attack, for instance).

Then, there is the case of a true melee (several people on each side in close combat, each of which being in melee range of multiple opponents). In my opinion, it is actually *easier* to escape in this case because opponents cannot fully commit or pursue easily, but the result is a mess of threats and opportunities difficult to model with a system that is basically made for one-on-one combat.