Closing range

[Greg Smith]

We found tonight that closing range can be quite difficult.

If an opponent closes range on a PC, the PC can opt to resist by taking an attack and (if successful) immediately gain a combat manoeuver and select Change Range, thereby negating the closing action and inflicting damage.

Or am I missing something?

 

[DamonJynx]

I don't think it works that way Greg. The defender is choosing to inflict damage, rather than maintain the distance, so this attack is in response to the opponent closing and is opposed by the opponents Evade Roll, it is not the standard attack vs. attack/parry. Therefore it doesn't generate a CM. At least, that's my understanding and how our group plays it.

 

[Mixster]

I would say that it still generates a CM, but only if the PC gets a higher success rate than the one who closes. This can result in situations where the PC hits but doesn't generate a CM.

 

[DamonJynx]

Mixster I see your point, but I think that allowing CM's defeats the purpose of the action.

You can choose to counter the closing/disengaging action with an opposed Evade Test or you can choose to attack the person moving in or away from you. As the "closer" doesn't get the opportunity to parry your attack (the Evade roll is to close or disengage, not avoid the attack) I don't believe the attack should grant a CM. That being said, the closing/disengaging rules are optional and as always YLMV!

 

[Da Boss]

We did get a bit mixed up on this last night

There are also a few other things to throw into the mix - the defender must use a CA to actively keep the distance or attack - consequently if he succeeds and the opponent fails I am not sure why he should not gain a CM, especially if you say roll (as Dave did) a critical on your roll to hit and they failed - normally that nets you two CM? The need to close seems to be an in built weakness or small weapons and unarmed against medium or better weapons?

As I understand it: (Based on my 4CA - 3 base plus one for dual wielding Sword and Pistol)

So Ghoul one tries to close with me and my flashing blade and unloaded pistol.
He rolls a success, I roll a success with my sword and chop him (not generating a CM), but he is now close and my sword can't be used against him until I can change the distance.

Ghoul two tries the same - he rolls a succes and so closes and also I roll a higher success with my sword and so both chop him and generate a CM and use my advantage gained by superior skill to change the distance again, wrong footing him and keeping him away.

Ghoul three tries the same - he rolls a failure and I roll a critical - gaining 2 CMs (I think) but I am down to my last CA after this so I both bleed and change distance on him, leaving only one Ghoul able to attack on their next go whilst I need to decide whether to keep my last CA to parry or attack a Ghoul (but I need to use my unloaded pistol for this action whatever)

I think thats how it supposed to work?

 

[duncan_disorderly]

If you look at the opposite case, where an opponent is trying to disengage, it would not seem unreasonable to allow an attack to generate a "change range" CM to keep them engaged - so on that basis it should work the other way too, and I can see that an attack on the approaching opponent might prevent them from being able to get too close.

I don't think an attack made to counter an evade used to change range should automatically generate a CM though - even though the evade is being used primarily to change range rather than evade an attack, the "evade" and the "attack" are still opposed, so the "attack" should have to generate a better success than the "evade" in order to generate a CM

 

[Deleriad]

Going strictly RAW I see no reason why you wouldn't generate CMs in the case above. But remember, you only only generate CMs on a degree of success.
E.g. Andrew is trying to close with Bob. declares change range CA and Bob says "I'll attack."

So
Bob rolls attack and Andrew rolls evade. Bob succeeds and Andrew succeeds but Bob rolls higher. Bob hits Andrew but doesn't gain a CM because Andrew didn't fail. Assuming Andrew is still alive, Andrew then closes.

Alternately.
Bob rolls attack and Andrew rolls evade. Bob succeeds and Andrew fails. Bob gets a CM. Bob could choose to try and trip Andrew, impale him or even change range. So the CM is then resolved. Once the CM is resolved, if Andrew is still alive and capable of moving then Andrew closes.

The key is that the CM is figured out first. If Bob chooses change range well: 1) he's already at 'long' range so he can only change to close (pointless) or to run away. If he elects to run away then the way I interpret it is that he tries to poke Andrew and run but Andrew is automatically able to block his escape.

That would be a rules lawyer way of saying that it's pointless Bob choosing the change range CM because Andrew would effectively trump it. However other CMs - especially things like tripping or severing a head - would have some merit.

 

[DamonJynx]

Unfortunately, the RAW don't specifically state whether the attacks in response to a close/disengage action by an opponent generate a CM.

My inference is that they don't because the text clearly states that "regardless of whether the attack hits or misses the opponent changes the distance" - assuming of course they are physically capable of doing so. There is no proviso for a CM of any description. The only reference to CM's at all in that whole section is to say that you don't get a reaction (attack or keep the distance) if the opponent is closing or disengaging via the Change Range CM.

That being said, if I were to choose a CM it most likely would be a fight ending one rather than a fight prolonging one.

 

[Titus]

I think I am in the CMs-can-occur camp on this one. But....

What if the attacker rolls a failure and the closer rolls a success?
Or the attacker rolls a success and the closer rolls a critical?
The closer gets a CM.
Can the closer choose reposte?

 

[DamonJynx]

I think I am in the CMs-can-occur camp on this one. But....

What if the attacker rolls a failure and the closer rolls a success?
Or the attacker rolls a success and the closer rolls a critical?
The closer gets a CM.
Can the closer choose reposte?

Your questions further cement the argument for not allowing CM's for these particular actions as it becomes more and more complex. If someone tries to close or move away have "an attack of opportunity" without the complexity!

Loz or Pete, care to offer your thoughts?

Oh, and BTW da boss, you can still attack when someone closes with you, but you can't parry - that's the penalty for letting them get in range.

 

[Titus]

I think I am in the CMs-can-occur camp on this one. But....

What if the attacker rolls a failure and the closer rolls a success?
Or the attacker rolls a success and the closer rolls a critical?
The closer gets a CM.
Can the closer choose reposte?

Your questions further cement the argument for not allowing CM's for these particular actions as it becomes more and more complex. If someone tries to close or move away have "an attack of opportunity" without the complexity!

Loz or Pete, care to offer your thoughts?

Oh, and BTW da boss, you can still attack when someone closes with you, but you can't parry - that's the penalty for letting them get in range.

But it also feels wrong to "rob" the attacker of a CM if he scores a critical success on his attack. Every other situation I can think of where an attacker rolls a critical and the defender does not would earn the attacker at least one CM.

I grant you, the interplay here is getting complex.

 

[Da Boss]

@ damonjynx - right thanks for that - makes that good for me as I can attack with my sword and parry with my unloaded pistol - nice if they close. One of the main reasons for trying to knock them back was so I could bring my sowrd into play with its 1D8 versus the 1D4-1 of the pistol butt.

Also when you are fighting against General Hit points NPCs there is no real fight ending CM - my best weapon does 1D8 damage and they have around 10-12 HP - as we have discussed previously they are harder to put down in some ways than non general hit points as choose loc etc don't help, except to ignore armour.

the CM intereaction is a bit difficult I concede when we start to get into it - I think its partly because its a different form to the other combat actions - ie its an opposed roll?

I'll have another read through the rules at lunch time

 

[Deleriad]

I don't see any problem here.

E.g. closing person succeeds at Evade, defender fails at attack roll. Closer succeeds and gets a CM. E.g. you duck underneath a wild swing of his axe, trip him and lean down with your dagger at his throat (i.e. closed).

As ever with CM there'll always be occasions when some CMs are simply not appropriate. E.g. you can't trip a giant slug no matter how hard you try.

The quirk about closing (or any change of range) is that its a back-to-front offensive manoeuvre. Personally I would say the CMs have to be chosen from offensive or "any" CMs. Most of them (bleed, choose location, bypass armour) simply won't be relevant. Still, if a player manages to gain a CM while closing and wants to riposte and says something like "ok, I want to spend my CM on a riposte. My swashbuckler nimbly waltzes past the troll's clumsy swing, pivots and slashes at it with his main gauche" then why not?

 

[Greg Smith]

@ damonjynx - right thanks for that - makes that good for me as I can attack with my sword and parry with my unloaded pistol - nice if they close.

I think that was a house rule that we decided upon, based on a discussion on these forums. ie if an enemy is inside your reach attacking is difficult but parrying is less so.

 

[Da Boss]

Ah ha thats right I remember now it does make more sense.

 

[Dan True]

I think that was a house rule that we decided upon, based on a discussion on these forums. ie if an enemy is inside your reach attacking is difficult but parrying is less so.

That however removes any idea behind "getting up close". If I am better armoured than my opponent, I might want to rush inside wish reach and pommel him - putting myself more at risk as neither of us can parry.
With that house rule then it doesn't make sense to get up close if you have a long reach - which is in conflict with at least my sword fighting experience.

Also, how does it make sense that if I close the distance to a due wielding a spear, 8say I have a shortsword), then according to the house rule he can parry just as well, but have a harder time attacking me? That doesn't make sense to me. He can easily simply "shorten" his grip and still stick me with the pointy end - but that will make the spear virtually useless as a parrying instrument.

To me it makes most sense that parrying is penalties when in unfavourable reaches, but not attacking (you can always hit him with the pommel).

But of course, you are free to rule as you wish.

More on-topic: the attack may be able to generate a CM - but it makes it hard to disengage. Why even choose change range when I can simply trip him instead?
But, if we assume the attack can generate a CM then the matter is simply resolved by a matter of timing.

A and B are at short reach.

A: tries to disengage.
B: decides to attack. He succeeds and gets a CM, he immediately chooses "Change Range" to short range (which they are still at, so it has no effect).
A: having survived the hit, and being allowed to disengage A and B are now a long reach.

So, in my opinion the "Change Range" CM takes effect before the actual range changes (else, how would a guy with a dagger make an attack against the dude who just changed to VL reach?).

- Dan

 

[Deleriad]

So, in my opinion the "Change Range" CM takes effect before the actual range changes (else, how would a guy with a dagger make an attack against the dude who just changed to VL reach?).

- Dan

That's exactly my thought.

 

[cthulhudarren]

This whole thing is quite confusing. I would not have thought that if you are trying to close, enemy attacks with his "AOO", you succeed evade and he fails attack, you get a combat maneuver. I thought defensive CM were for parries, not evades. I mean, how would this work if the attacker was using a bow at range and the closer a dagger?

 

[Dan True]

This whole thing is quite confusing. I would not have thought that if you are trying to close, enemy attacks with his "AOO", you succeed evade and he fails attack, you get a combat maneuver. I thought defensive CM were for parries, not evades. I mean, how would this work if the attacker was using a bow at range and the closer a dagger?

Hm, to me I'm not considering the defender (the once trying to close or disengage) to be eligible for the CM. The question stands whether or not the attacker can get a CM.

- Dan

 

[Deleriad]

This whole thing is quite confusing. I would not have thought that if you are trying to close, enemy attacks with his "AOO", you succeed evade and he fails attack, you get a combat maneuver. I thought defensive CM were for parries, not evades. I mean, how would this work if the attacker was using a bow at range and the closer a dagger?

Defensive CMs can be used for parry or evade.

I think you may be misreading something though. Closing is for close combat where one person has a significantly longer weapon than the other. E.g. dagger vs spear. If using the optional reach rules, the dagger wielder cannot attack the spear wielder without closing first.

If you're standing 4m from someone with a bow and carrying a dagger you simply move and attack as the same action. You don't need the "close" action.

In closing the enemy does not get an AOO or equivalent. He can respond in one of two ways:
He can oppose with evade in which case the winner gets to choose.
or he can let you close but swing at you on the way in. In this case your evade is used to dodge the swing while closing. Providing you are still capable of fighting then you have closed.
Of course if the enemy has no CAs left, you can automatically close with no roll needed.

Generally I play that any time you get a Degree of Success you can invoke a CM providing it makes sense. Rulebook doesn't really say anything one way or the other on this matter. I can see arguments for both ways to be honest.