Closing range
- Thread starter Greg Smith
- Start date
Deleriad said:
Sorry, I actually meant CA.
Say if I close succesfully with my dagger drawn, would you allow me to attack with it on that CA?
What if I moved into close combat from further off than our engagement range? Would it be 1 CA to get into your range, 1 CA to close and 1 CA to strike, or could any of those moves be combined?
What if I charged?
Not trying to annoy you with questions, but I'm really looking for a second opinion on this.
Deleriad
Mongoose
No. Closing is an action that uses a CA. You can start attacking on your next CA.
There is no such thing as engagement range in RQ. You have a movement of 8m per round (not action). If your opponent is less than 8m away then you can attempt to close just as above. If your opponent is more than 8m away you have other options.
Yes but remember if they choose to 'stand firm' and receive the attack, the longer weapon strikes first. So if you charge a spearman while brandishing a dagger he gets to poke you first and you cannot respond in any way (no parries, no evades). He'll either choose impale or trip.
Or you can sprint. Remember though that sprinting (in Legend) is a full round action.
CA 1: run some distance (move action)
CA 2: arrive within 8m of opponent (move action)
CA 3: attempt to close.
Next round: you'll be in position to attack if you closed successfully.
cthulhudarren
Mongoose
Deleriad said:
Really? Why couldn't the bowman use an unarmed attack (kick you) before you get to act? Is it only if you try to close inside the range of the opponent's weapon that you need to use up your combat action to close and the opponent get the free attack?
Furthermore:
If you are using a broadsword (M range) and your opponent a short sword (S range), and you are currently in S range, can the person with the broadsword attack without disengaging? I'd think you could use the pommel of the sword, like I see in many movies. There would have to be a rule on how much less damage the weapon does though. Maybe half?
There is no reason to close for an attack to be made between range S and T. If for example you were armed with a longspear, and your opponent with his fists (or a bow), I'd say you can just walk over there and stab him, since you don't need to spend your CAs on closing in on him.cthulhudarren said:
He sure can, there is no problem between M and S range. The cut off is two range penalties. The problem is that if you penalise people on both the attack and defence when on close range, having longer range weapons become largely irrelevant and most times a downside, that is pretty retarded IMO.cthulhudarren said:
All in all I prefer to give the benefit to the longer weapon for two reasons. Primarily, because balance-wise longer weapons tend to pay for their reach by giving up something else (Apart from the Shortspear, which apparently does great damage at great range, as a one-hander). Secondarily, because realistically, longer weapons tend to give you an edge in a fight.
We decided that wielders of long, particularly 2H weapons, were already severely disadvantaged in comparison to a wielder of a short reach weapon with a shield in close combat without the need to implement further penalties.
Being unable to parry is a big enough penalty and entices players to react to the opponent closing.
2H weapon users sacrifice an additional CA to increase their damage output and range.
Verisimilitude in combat aside, I think the RAW for closing & disengaging are fine. It is a game after all. I suppose it depends on how realistically you want to emulate combat.
As for the CM for the "A.O.O.", I may have to do a back flip as it occurs to me we have been using CM's on that attack when they are appropriate, I will have to check with my group as I can't remember how we actually did it.
Being unable to parry is a big enough penalty and entices players to react to the opponent closing.
2H weapon users sacrifice an additional CA to increase their damage output and range.
Verisimilitude in combat aside, I think the RAW for closing & disengaging are fine. It is a game after all. I suppose it depends on how realistically you want to emulate combat.
As for the CM for the "A.O.O.", I may have to do a back flip as it occurs to me we have been using CM's on that attack when they are appropriate, I will have to check with my group as I can't remember how we actually did it.
cthulhudarren
Mongoose
If you model a broadsword attack as say a blade strike at M range and a hit with he sword pommel at S range, would you have different damage and CM possibilites?
I would think so. The blade would deal the weapons listed damage and use it's listed CM's.cthulhudarren said:
The pommel would likely be treated as a "light Mace" or something similar and do reduced damage and use the Stun location CM. I wouldn't impose any other penalties for using the sword in this manner as I feel any competent swordsman would be trained in how to use their weapon in close combat.
cthulhudarren said:
Nah, I wouldn't do this. The reason is twofold: 1) it adds a layer of complexity that I think is unnecessary. I certainly don't want this to become Rolemaster and 2) I don't think it's needed. The reason is that though I might hit you with the pommel, because we're at short range (and the pommel should do only, say, 1d4 damage) I might use the advantage I gay to hit you in the head again, follow up with my off-hand or make a jab to the groin (also 1d4 damage). The overall damage I give you in one CA (say, I have a weapon dealing 1d8 damage) is still roughly maintained, but the fight has become a more desperate close-up with various lesser cuts and bruises instead of large battle-ending blows - description wise.
- Dan
Greg Smith
Mongoose
On the subject of range and reach, why do wolf and lion claws have M reach?
Greg Smith said:
Seems weird for wolves, but makes good sense for lions - they are pretty big afterwards. As a though experiment, imagine a guy fighting a lion with a dagger (S reach) and ask yourself if they seem to be having the same relative reach? To me, it makes much more sense when thinking of a guy with a shortsword against a lion - that seems more even-reached.
- Dan
