Free Attacks

[Quire]

It seems clear that 'Free Attacks' are the equivalent of 'Attacks of Opportunity' in Un-nameable System 3.x. I'm interested in how everyone is handling them in their games. How, for example, do you handle these if you are not using minis/markers in your game? Which is to say: without tracking individual movement, how do you determine who is next to what?

- Q

 

[weasel_fierce]

If you are in melee range, you are in free attack range.

We rarely use miniatures, and just use a rough outline of where things are, sketching a bit on paper if nescesary. Once blows start being exchanged, characters tend to stick around in that grey "melee zone", untill people are dead or, more commonly, surrender terms and negotiations take place

 

[Halfbat]

without tracking individual movement, how do you determine who is next to what?

With difficulty, ime, unless you've a pretty good imagination and can mentally track where each character is. On the whole, even "X"-s on a sheet can give a really good starting picture which a GM an launch from. Stops the "You were next to him"/"No, I was on the other side of him"/"But that would mean you were next to..." sort of arguments...

 

[weasel_fierce]

I'll add that I've been thinking a lot about using mini's with RQ since dodging means there's a lot of movement, and it'd be fun to see how people scoot around during a fight.

 

[Itto]

I give players and NPCs the chance of a free attack when a character falls over, due to being reduced to less than 0 hp in the legs, abd, chest and head. As this falls under changing stance action. Its kinda harsh, but gritty, which I like.

I don't let folks get a free attack for someone moving past them if they are in combat with someone else, though. It just seems too odd to hit someone you are not facing, especially when the person you are facing has a big pointy stick and he means you harm. Would you take you eye of him… you would end up with your eye on the end of the stick me thinks.

 

[blitz]

It just seems too odd to hit someone you are not facing, especially when the person you are facing has a big pointy stick and he means you harm. Would you take you eye of him… you would end up with your eye on the end of the stick me thinks.

Right, just keep your eyes off that guy so he can get behind you and get a good shot at your backside, with whatever harmful type object he may be carrying.

 

[Trifletraxor]

It just seems too odd to hit someone you are not facing, especially when the person you are facing has a big pointy stick and he means you harm. Would you take you eye of him… you would end up with your eye on the end of the stick me thinks.

Right, just keep your eyes off that guy so he can get behind you and get a good shot at your backside, with whatever harmful type object he may be carrying.

However, if you turn to attack him with your free attack, I think your other opponent should get a free attack too... Attacks of opportunity when opponents pass you by are not a good rule. Free attacks on falling, fumbling or opponents you faced that's trying to run, that is more understandable.

SGL.

 

[Itto]

It just seems too odd to hit someone you are not facing, especially when the person you are facing has a big pointy stick and he means you harm. Would you take you eye of him… you would end up with your eye on the end of the stick me thinks.

Right, just keep your eyes off that guy so he can get behind you and get a good shot at your backside, with whatever harmful type object he may be carrying.

However, if you turn to attack him with your free attack, I think your other opponent should get a free attack too... Attacks of opportunity when opponents pass you by are not a good rule. Free attacks on falling, fumbling or opponents you faced that's trying to run, that is more understandable.

SGL.

Yup, that’s what I mean. Lashing out to the side of you when you have someone in front would open you up, I feel.

 

[Stormwalker]

Yup, that’s what I mean. Lashing out to the side of you when you have someone in front would open you up, I feel.

...quite literally even

 

[Halfbat]

If a character's ambling past someone who's armed and in combat, then perhaps a Free Attack makes sense. But I stress the ambling!

In the heat of combat, though, when an attacker is preoccupied facing an opponent and the person going past armed and being cautious.... sure, the combatant _will_ watch the guy near him to see what's happening, as he won;t survive long otherwise, but gaining a Free Attack against a cautious opponent seems way too much. Of course, it may depend on how close you interpret the "going past" bit and whether or not you allow a "cautious movement" combat move.

The very old RQ posited the slow base speed in combat was due to the combatants taking care when in strike reach... maybe it's a good move (!pun not intended) after all.

However, if you turn to attack him with your free attack, I think your other opponent should get a free attack too...

It's almost as if there's an extra reason for a Reaction/Free Attack: your opponent makes a Free Attack against another, non-helpless opponent. How that's sensibly worded, though, I can't quite figure out atm.

 

[Quire]

It's almost as if there's an extra reason for a Reaction/Free Attack: your opponent makes a Free Attack against another, non-helpless opponent. How that's sensibly worded, though, I can't quite figure out atm.

This is the problem with the core concept of AoOs/Free Attacks - they seem logical at first...until you start applying that logic consistently and suddenly a busy close combat is like a Keystone Kops domino effect with a whole bunch of combatants eating up reactions and jumping strike ranks.

- Q

 

[Halfbat]

This is the problem with the core concept of AoOs/Free Attacks - they seem logical at first...until you start applying that logic consistently and suddenly a busy close combat is like a Keystone Kops domino effect.

::grins as the image enters his head of a circular, cascading Free Attack cycle::
May the DEX 19 character win!

 

[Rurik]

I think the whole problem is that the attacks are indeed 'free'. If we charge money for taking these attacks players will be less likely to abuse the system.

Say attacking someone moving past you costs 100 silver - unless you are engaged with someone else, in which case it costs 250 silver, and the person you are facing may take an attack on you for 150 silver. Wouldn't that simplify things?

Alternatively, you could have the Players pay you the GM in real world money for these used-to-be-free attacks. Though if going with this method I think the costs should be based on the US dollar, or else the exchange rate would kill me.

 

[frogspawner]

In Unnameable System 3.x the cascade of Inexpensive Attacks (or Aoops, as I prefer to call 'em, 'cos of the Yorkshire connection) is prevented by a rule that you normally only get 1 per round. Is this rule missing from MRQ?

PS: How much is a 'silver' anyway? I used to reckon a Lunar was about 10 quid, but if they're tied to the dollar it's about £5 now...

 

[B_Steele]

In my games any Free Attacks cost one of the character's Reactions for that round.

It is a simple enough and intelligent way to monitor such things.

-Bry

 

[Rurik]

In my games any Free Attacks cost one of the character's Reactions for that round.

It is a simple enough and intelligent way to monitor such things.

-Bry

That is how it is in the RAW - free attacks are listed as a type of Reaction.

Having bashed all the broken rules to death we are now turning on the ones that work.

Actually there are some rough areas with free attacks. In the RAW the 'fighting withdrawal' tactic is kinda broken - given enough room to keep backing up.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Taking the "free" attacks uses up reactions, so you have less reactions available to dodge and parry. So far, its worked well enough for us

 

[Deleriad]

I thought Free attacks "cost" a reaction. Not really free as such. I call them reaction attacks for that reason.

Personally, I tell players that their character can be, essentially, doing one of three things during combat:
be unengaged
be engaged in close combat
be engaged in grapple combat

While you're unengaged you can use reaction attacks against any applicable target. If the target is moving by then you stay unengaged otherwise you become engaged. Basically, it's pretty much up to the target as to whether it wants to pay attention to you and have you become engaged.

While you're engaged in close combat or grapple combat you can only make reaction attacks against someone you're engaged in combat with.

It's basically a formal way of saying that when you're fighting for your life al your attention is focused on the people trying to kill you. I regard the ability to slice off the head of a passing orc while engaging a cave troll in combat to be very cinematic and requiring massive levels of skill.

 

[Quire]

Personally, I tell players that their character can be, essentially, doing one of three things during combat:
be unengaged
be engaged in close combat
be engaged in grapple combat

While you're unengaged you can use reaction attacks against any applicable target. If the target is moving by then you stay unengaged otherwise you become engaged. Basically, it's pretty much up to the target as to whether it wants to pay attention to you and have you become engaged.

While you're engaged in close combat or grapple combat you can only make reaction attacks against someone you're engaged in combat with.

Well put, and very much how I'm thinking.

- Q

 

[Halfbat]

Agree! A formal Engaged/Unengaged state may be what's needed, indeed. It might really clarify how/when Reaction Attacks such as Free Attacks can be made.

It also might help limit the "#Flurry Attacks + Free Attack before I can attack" issue* arising from advancing into combat** rather than charging (the small room/crowded space situation). At least prior to the advance the defender can't Free Attack as he's not engaged.

------------------------
* I know, we've been through the various ways of penalising the Flurry's so they aren't so devastating. Not sure that'#s on-topic tho' :wink:

** And I appreciate the various Advance into Combat action's suggested.