I am just getting into Legend and have been plowing through the books. I find the system to be perfect for an upcoming gritty "realistic fantasy" campaign I have planned. The tactical nature and danger of the combat system is simply awesome! Now, my gaming group and I have come from playing Pathfinder and so we are used to using miniatures to adjudicate the location of PCs and enemies and such. We are also used to using minis and a battle board to track movement. Is there a set of rules for Legend somewhere that explain things like how far an Outmaneuver action moves you on a board or how far one can move in a CA, etc.? I think overall the Legend rules would lend themselves pretty well to using minis and a battle board.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Miniatures In Combat
- Thread starter Buckthorn
- Start date
I suppose I will have to check RQ6 out then...I realize that it is the same lineage as Legend. Then again, I might be able to come up with my own system for gridded mini play with Legend. I can't help but feel that the basics are already there for it. Either way, thanks for the input!
Our group was in much the same position. What we did was use a scale of 1sq = 1 metre (not quite right I know, it should really be around 1.5 metres but it's a hell of a lot easier to work out on the fly). Assuming an unarmed opponent, to use touch and short reach weapons required the attacker to be adjacent to the target, medium reach weapons 1 square away, long and very long weapons 2 squares away (essentially 1 step difference in reach meant attacker & target could be adjacent, 2 steps or more meant there was a square separating them). I know the purists among you are going to say that very long reach weapons should be 3 squares away but we felt this was unnecessary. Our main purpose was to highlight when closing & disengaging rules would be in effect, i.e. if there was a square separating combatants the one with the shorter weapon had to close.
As for movement, you can simply move as many squares as you decide, bearing in mind that you can move any distance you like on each CA so long as your total doesn't exceed your Movement (8 for Humans) in around.
The above isn't precise but works OK, at least it does for us.
As for movement, you can simply move as many squares as you decide, bearing in mind that you can move any distance you like on each CA so long as your total doesn't exceed your Movement (8 for Humans) in around.
The above isn't precise but works OK, at least it does for us.
superc0ntra
Mongoose
We just leave them unless they change opponent, change distance or such.
The human speed of 8 meters is the walking speed, but I doubt anybody walks in combat.
We're using the following simple rules: Any character can move half their movement rate and make another action (usually attack), OR move the full value of their movement rate. We are not using a grid - instead we use a small whiteboard, where I draw the tactical elements.
We're using the following simple rules: Any character can move half their movement rate and make another action (usually attack), OR move the full value of their movement rate. We are not using a grid - instead we use a small whiteboard, where I draw the tactical elements.
@buckthorn
While I understand that some think this is weird, the penalty for moving your full movement in one CA and still being able to attack is that you have no movement left for the round. Harsh GM's could argue, and with a valid point, though I don't know how they would retain players, that it takes a full round for your movement to 'reset' so if you moved all your movement on your last CA, you wouldn't be able to move again until your last CA in the following round - not that I would try that with my players but it is a possibility. I'm just saying that if you move your full movement you can't extricate yourself from trouble should you find yourself outnumbered and to me that is sufficient penalty.
Moving 8 metres and swinging a melee weapon isn't unrealistic for 1 CA in my opinion when you consider an average of 3 CA (2 base +1 for a shield) and that the round lasts for 5 seconds. it's quite surprising how much you can do in that short a time frame.
My players generally and of course it depends on the situation, move their full movement to engage an enemy and in subsequent rounds split their movement if they need too and it works fine for us. Though really it isn't that much of an issue.
While I understand that some think this is weird, the penalty for moving your full movement in one CA and still being able to attack is that you have no movement left for the round. Harsh GM's could argue, and with a valid point, though I don't know how they would retain players, that it takes a full round for your movement to 'reset' so if you moved all your movement on your last CA, you wouldn't be able to move again until your last CA in the following round - not that I would try that with my players but it is a possibility. I'm just saying that if you move your full movement you can't extricate yourself from trouble should you find yourself outnumbered and to me that is sufficient penalty.
Moving 8 metres and swinging a melee weapon isn't unrealistic for 1 CA in my opinion when you consider an average of 3 CA (2 base +1 for a shield) and that the round lasts for 5 seconds. it's quite surprising how much you can do in that short a time frame.
My players generally and of course it depends on the situation, move their full movement to engage an enemy and in subsequent rounds split their movement if they need too and it works fine for us. Though really it isn't that much of an issue.
I can see your point regarding blowing all of a character's movement in one CA as being penalty enough. I think my concern is if, say, a PC has the initiative and uses his movement to rush past a foe to cut off escape or flank while still being able to get an attack. It seems odd to me especially considering that the defender has no recourse but to stand there. Of course, I suppose this would be mitigated somewhat if there were a way to enforce a reactionary attack by the defender being rushed by and behind. Though, that opens a can of complexity that is starting to look too much like the 3.0/3.5/PF I am trying to get away from.
Buckthorn said:I think my concern is if, say, a PC has the initiative and uses his movement to rush past a foe to cut off escape or flank while still being able to get an attack. It seems odd to me especially considering that the defender has no recourse but to stand there.
I think what you're referring to here is a charge which is a completely different kettle of fish (Core rulebook pgs 143-144) and the only way I know of to move past an enemy and attack. Unless charging (and on occasion at the end of or as part of the charge) , the attacker has to stop and engage the enemy to make an attack. At least that's how I understand it and how my group plays it.
You're welcome. When quoting rules I prefer to put a reference in there or a direct quote, less confusion re interpretation :wink:Buckthorn said:You are correct, a charge in this case and the reaction chosen by the defender would adjudicate the outcome of that situation. Thank you for pointing out the page reference too!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 422
- Replies
- 70
- Views
- 2K
