Topic: How to handle pushing back and holding the line

[Doridian]

Hi all.
Last sunday I managed to run a really short adventure set in ME. It had to be introductory and it shortly turned to a pit fight in a cave, with some Orcs fighting against the two bold player characters. The fight ended badly for the PC's, but we had a great time together. One of my two players, a complete newbye and nearly fourty years old, has been amazed by the game: he was unable to believe that we had been sitting for three hours and a half...

At a certain point the PC's and the two last surviving Orcs were fronting each other through a doorway (one man large). The two teams did not want to go through to avoid being catched one against two (I hope you imagine the picture: a character alone could pass through the doorway just to be faced by the two foes together; the other friendly character would be forced to stay behind).

After the fight, when the dice were in the box, I asked myself how to handle the situation if one character wanted to push back the foes (to open the way to the friend).

1) I remembered that in another RPG (I suppose it's Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, but I may be wrong) there's the concept of Winning and Losing (the round): when a character Wins a round he/she pushes back the direct enemy one yard (some feet) and he/she can either stay put or follow on, pressing the enemy.

This way I wondered how to determine in RM if a round has been won or lost: the highest critical, the highest modified (or even unmodified) attack roll, etc.?

2) In D&D 3.5 a character may Push as a standard action or as part of a charge: he/she is subjected to Opportunity Attacks in doing so (but not with the talent Improved Pushing - I've got the Italian version, I hope that in English the names are similar).

This way a character, instead of attacking, could try to push back the enemy. But... in D&D there's no detriment in not attacking; in RM if you do not attack you cannot parry either and IMO this tactic would turn to be nearly a suicide.

3) In the School of Hard Knocks it's suggetsed that during combat an attack may be accompanied by a maneuver: the difficulty of the maneuver yelds a penalty to the OB.

But I'm wandering which skill/manuever should be used.

So, I'm curious to know how usually you handle this kind of scene.

Let me know!
Thank you in advance.

Ciao,
Alessandro

[Ecthelion]

We have a house rule to use the Press & Melee attack option to push back opponents. You can find this ruling in the house rules document on my homepage. Hope this helps.

[Kristen Mork]

Blocking is an attack designed to push back an opponent.  If that attack was successful, I would allow the attacker to push the opponent back "one square/hex" (5 feet in my game).

Tumbling is, I think, the appropriate skill to maneuver through the line being held.  But, that wouldn't move the defender.

Finally, I allow a defender to gain +5 DB if they are willing to be pushed back.  If both participants are "cautious" neither is moved (or if neither are).  If one is cautious and the other is "aggressive," then the cautious individual is pushed back "one square/hex."

Hope these help.

[providence13]

Blocking is an attack designed to push back an opponent.  If that attack was successful, I would allow the attacker to push the opponent back "one square/hex" (5 feet in my game).

Finally, I allow a defender to gain +5 DB if they are willing to be pushed back.  If both participants are "cautious" neither is moved (or if neither are).  If one is cautious and the other is "aggressive," then the cautious individual is pushed back "one square/hex."

Does the attacker/pusher get a penalty for having to move forward and then attack their opponent? Or is this factored into the +5 DB for the defender having already been pushed.

[Kristen Mork]

Blocking is an attack designed to push back an opponent.  If that attack was successful, I would allow the attacker to push the opponent back "one square/hex" (5 feet in my game).

Finally, I allow a defender to gain +5 DB if they are willing to be pushed back.  If both participants are "cautious" neither is moved (or if neither are).  If one is cautious and the other is "aggressive," then the cautious individual is pushed back "one square/hex."

Does the attacker/pusher get a penalty for having to move forward and then attack their opponent? Or is this factored into the +5 DB for the defender having already been pushed.

It's factored in; basically the defender is erring on the side of staying out of range.  Moving 5 feet isn't uncommon in 10 seconds of fighting.

[providence13]

Is  only a +5 DB enough to "force" someone to take a step back?
I like where you're going, I just wonder if it's enough.

[Kristen Mork]

Is  only a +5 DB enough to "force" someone to take a step back?
I like where you're going, I just wonder if it's enough.

Try flipping it around: Your DB drops by 5 if you refuse to be pushed back.

But, I agree, this doesn't help the player that wants to "force" the opponent backwards.  This is more about slowly maneuvering the fight in one direction or the other.

[Doridian]

Thank you all. Some ideas to work on... 

We have a house rule to use the Press & Melee attack option to push back opponents. You can find this ruling in the house rules document on my homepage. Hope this helps.

J've read it and it looks interesting. It's simple and add chrome to an action whose name already resembles the added effect.

By the way, going through your rules I've found that you dislike the differences introduced in the new (2003) version of Arms Law. Can you briefly add some detail? I've bought just a week ago The Armory and that version of Arms Law and, at first glance, the only true difference I've noticed has been the new way to handle different critical types for the same weapon. And I like it. Are there other significant differences?

Thank you in advance!

P.S.: I'm mumbling on a way to handle pushing in combat like the MAC handles combat maneuvers (say Feinting or Disarming). I'll let you know if it works.

[Ecthelion]

By the way, going through your rules I've found that you dislike the differences introduced in the new (2003) version of Arms Law. Can you briefly add some detail? I've bought just a week ago The Armory and that version of Arms Law and, at first glance, the only true difference I've noticed has been the new way to handle different critical types for the same weapon. And I like it. Are there other significant differences?

IIRC there was some heated discussion on this matter here in the forums, but I could not find the topics. Perhaps it was in the old forums. Anyway, AFAIR the value of wearing armor was reduced by the new Arms Law 2003 tables. You can take a look at e.g. the Broadsword table and check when the first A, B, C, D and E criticals are achieved against AT 1 and 14 for example. Then compare these results to the older RMSS/RM2 Arms Law. That's most of what I remember. Best check yourself. In any case the changes made use use the older RMSS Arms Law instead.

[Doridian]

I've seen. I imagine it has been unavoidable. It somehow alters the statistics on weapons effectiveness given in RMC1. I'm not sure I'm finding it so important to discard the new tables in place of the old ones. Glad of having got it anyway (I've got both versions now).

Thank you.
Ale

[Marc R]

There's a bunch of row compression in play if you compare to older versions, on the attack tables.

To some, this was no big difference, and easier to read, to some it was taken as dark heresy and an abomination. . . .conversations got heated from there.

Considering the attack tables are 100% compatible version to version, and that every printing and reprinting of AL has slight variations, just use the tables you prefer. . .and make sure all versions of AL you use at the table are the same version. (I've never had someone arbitrage table variation, but it's possible.)

[markc]

  I do not remember which chart it was be I do seem to remember one was better than the other by +5 or so. But I could not tell you which one it was.
MDC

[Doridian]

  I do not remember which chart it was be I do seem to remember one was better than the other by +5 or so. But I could not tell you which one it was.
MDC

For what I've quickly seen the new tables have a sort of rounding up, so the +5 should be by average for the new AL edition weapons.

Honestly, and I truly hope to not start any new discussion now, I find that a +5 is not a so big issue, whereas the cleaning of the tables and their improved readability is a noteworthy achievement and demonstrates some courage by the authors.

[Marc R]

There's a lot of iterations. . .I recall a lengthy dispute about who was crazy or blind relating to the quarterstaff and club tables that led us to compare book copyright info and eventually discover those two tables changed slightly not only between editions of AL, but printings of the same edition.

If you check the front of the book, somewhere should be a copyright notice reading Year Z, Edition X, Printing Y. . .it seems tweaking was afoot, so books with the same cover art may have slightly variant attack tables. Not major shifts, but subtle, slight shadings mostly.

[providence13]

Perhaps something about opponent's weight + DB as a modifier to MM table... to force them back a step. Still working on it.

[markc]

Perhaps something about opponent's weight + DB as a modifier to MM table... to force them back a step. Still working on it.

 Chart of size vs size to base MM difficulty, with mods for other factors?
MDC

[pastaav]

There's a bunch of row compression in play if you compare to older versions, on the attack tables.

To some, this was no big difference, and easier to read, to some it was taken as dark heresy and an abomination. . . .conversations got heated from there.

Considering the attack tables are 100% compatible version to version, and that every printing and reprinting of AL has slight variations, just use the tables you prefer. . .and make sure all versions of AL you use at the table are the same version. (I've never had someone arbitrage table variation, but it's possible.)

I think the basic problem was pretty much how the change was advertised. The changes was pretty much claimed to be masterful improvement of the attack tables and this made people look at the details and try to find the improvements. Problems was just that the changes was pretty random and when called about the fact the persons having done the changes had no good arguments why their changes was good or why they had claimed them to be masterful improvements.

All in all I do not think the changes to Armslaw was such a big deal. Other differences like when Shock Bolts suddenly could do D criticals instead of B criticals when the condensed tables in RMFRP was released is a much worse game balance change than the small differences in the new Armslaw. Still I would argue that the dropped variation of types of criticals that came in the new Armslaw was a real loss that made the game experience more poor. The RMSS Armslaw that included that different weapons did different types of criticals to different armor classes was a superior product from my point of view.   

[Marc R]

I was referring less to the changes from RM2 to RMSS than within RM2 versions, or printings.

[providence13]

On Holding the Line, I found this in the SUC.
Martial Mastery- Monk's Base List pg 66
8 . Pushing Strike (*U) Caster's next successful attack causes the enemy to make an RR or be forced backwards 1ft/2% failure. 

[Grinnen Baeritt]

On a similar vein, I've been incorperating "Ebb and Flow" rules in my War Law games.. this is judged simply by the mass of the unit, the speed and effort expended in movement and the intent/success of the two units involved.

To a degree all combat should not be static, generally the one hitting the most forcing the opponent backwards, or preventing the advance of another. This is modified by the physical mass backing the attack up. This could mean that if a larger heavier creature WANTS to move forward then there is little that a smaller creature can do to stop it regardless of success in combat.