Disengaging from combat and "Free" attacks.

[DamonJynx]

If he wins the opposed test he damages A normally and may qualify for a CM (if he rolls a Crit).

Just a normal success vs a failure would also provide a CM in this instance correct?

If "A" fails his evade roll, yes. My example was based on A succeeding in which case B would only get the CM on a critical hit. There are some people that play with a house rule where 'free' attacks don't generate CM's, the additional attack being seen as benefit enough.

I'm just assuming that remains distance as desired means that the closer doesn't move and not that the defender does move, even though its not stated explicitly.

Interpret that how you will. My interpretation is that both combatants move; A towards the B and B away from A. Think of them circling each other awaiting an opening.

The rules would make more sense to me if the decision was on the attacker as to whether they wanted to close in all evasively or just move in putting caution to the wind and take the attack. I don't see that emulated in the rules anywhere. I was wondering if anyone had tried to play with letting the closer/disengager make the decision rather than the defender?

It is emulated in the rules, that's what the Evade roll is for. A can't determine how is opponent is going to react, he just moves in ducking and weaving in the hope that he can wrong foot B and get in close.

Would you as a Player appreciate the GM saying that, "Barfred the Barbarian closes with you make an attack at -20 because Barfred's 1H Axe & Shield style is 120%" without giving you other options?

As always though, YGMV.

 

[marit]

I'm just assuming that remains distance as desired means that the closer doesn't move and not that the defender does move, even though its not stated explicitly.

Interpret that how you will. My interpretation is that both combatants move; A towards the B and B away from A. Think of them circling each other awaiting an opening.

Well it does become kind of important, just a situation I had is someone with a dagger gets in on 2 people with spears. He can't really move without trying to disengage the other so that could get fairly confusing. How should that be handled?

The rules would make more sense to me if the decision was on the attacker as to whether they wanted to close in all evasively or just move in putting caution to the wind and take the attack. I don't see that emulated in the rules anywhere. I was wondering if anyone had tried to play with letting the closer/disengager make the decision rather than the defender?

It is emulated in the rules, that's what the Evade roll is for. A can't determine how is opponent is going to react, he just moves in ducking and weaving in the hope that he can wrong foot B and get in close.

Would you as a Player appreciate the GM saying that, "Barfred the Barbarian closes with you make an attack at -20 because Barfred's 1H Axe & Shield style is 120%" without giving you other options?

Think about it in the reverse and you come up with the same exact argument, the closer is completely at the whim of the defender. When clearly he could just move in and take the attack if he so choose, the defender could choose to open the distance back up again on his next turn.

Thanks for the response.

Bonus question: Is it possible to close/disengage multiple people, I see it as just 1 combat action but they would have beat each defender in the opposed roll which makes it that much harder, but I'm curious to know what other people have done for this.

 

[strega]

Bonus question: Is it possible to close/disengage multiple people, I see it as just 1 combat action but they would have beat each defender in the opposed roll which makes it that much harder, but I'm curious to know what other people have done for this.

I'd suggest that the Multiple Opponents section p137 handles this reasonably well.

Make a Sorting Group Test P44 to see who is still able to attack then the defender Disengages with a CA, hopefully takes no attacks (if his Evade result was good enough) and runs away.

 

[DamonJynx]

Well it does become kind of important, just a situation I had is someone with a dagger gets in on 2 people with spears. He can't really move without trying to disengage the other so that could get fairly confusing. How should that be handled?

The Outmaneuver Action (pages 128-137) allows for this.

Think about it in the reverse and you come up with the same exact argument, the closer is completely at the whim of the defender. When clearly he could just move in and take the attack if he so choose, the defender could choose to open the distance back up again on his next turn.

The RAW is as it should be. Your argument defeats the major, and pretty much only, advantage of fighting with weapons with a decent reach. If the rules were as you propose there would be absolutely no benefit in using 2H weapons.

"A" has elected to close with "B" that's his choice. He can't in anyway influence how "B" will respond. The rules for closing & disengaging are just a game mechanic to reflect this. Look at this situation; "A" is wielding a Longsword and "B", some nutter with a kitchen knife, runs in to attack, you're saying "A's" only option is to attack, why? Because "B" is a lunatic and wants to get hit? What if "A" doesn't want to attack? "B" may be a friend or innocent who has been dominated, a key NPC that needs to be questioned, why would you attack in this instance?

Thanks for the response.

You're welcome.

Bonus question: Is it possible to close/disengage multiple people, I see it as just 1 combat action but they would have beat each defender in the opposed roll which makes it that much harder, but I'm curious to know what other people have done for this.

The Outmaneuver Action (pages 128-137) allows for this.

 

[marit]

Well it does become kind of important, just a situation I had is someone with a dagger gets in on 2 people with spears. He can't really move without trying to disengage the other so that could get fairly confusing. How should that be handled?

The Outmaneuver Action (pages 128-137) allows for this.

If you interpret this as they both move does it count torwards their 8m movement for the round? Or is this just considered free movement, I would be tempted to just allow it to be free movement.

Think about it in the reverse and you come up with the same exact argument, the closer is completely at the whim of the defender. When clearly he could just move in and take the attack if he so choose, the defender could choose to open the distance back up again on his next turn.

The RAW is as it should be. Your argument defeats the major, and pretty much only, advantage of fighting with weapons with a decent reach. If the rules were as you propose there would be absolutely no benefit in using 2H weapons.

"A" has elected to close with "B" that's his choice. He can't in anyway influence how "B" will respond. The rules for closing & disengaging are just a game mechanic to reflect this. Look at this situation; "A" is wielding a Longsword and "B", some nutter with a kitchen knife, runs in to attack, you're saying "A's" only option is to attack, why? Because "B" is a lunatic and wants to get hit? What if "A" doesn't want to attack? "B" may be a friend or innocent who has been dominated, a key NPC that needs to be questioned, why would you attack in this instance?

Well if I interpret it as both fighters both move then RAW makes perfect sense. My original hunch was that some problems would arise from that but the more that I think about it I think its ok. But just to clarify there still would be an advantage to using a longer reach with what I was pondering that is what put 'A' in the position to begin with.

But thanks for the help I think that I am over my mental blockage here.

 

[DamonJynx]

If you interpret this as they both move does it count torwards their 8m movement for the round? Or is this just considered free movement, I would be tempted to just allow it to be free movement.

Me too. I think of it as being similar to the 5ft step in D&D 3.x. But you have to each adjudicate each situation on its own merits. For example someone with a great-axe probably has a reach of 3 metres, where someone wielding a dagger needs to be right next to you, so if that were case I'd probably make the movement count against their 8 metres, because they have to be moving about 2 metres.

Well if I interpret it as both fighters both move then RAW makes perfect sense. My original hunch was that some problems would arise from that but the more that I think about it I think its ok. But just to clarify there still would be an advantage to using a longer reach with what I was pondering that is what put 'A' in the position to begin with.

But thanks for the help I think that I am over my mental blockage here.

Quite right, you still get to make the attack which is a benefit, you would just lose the choices available with what you originally suggested, which I think is a bad thing. The added choices available in this system are a BIG part of its appeal. And your welcome.