Jujitsudave
Mongoose
That makes sense.
Outmaneuver question
- Thread starter Jujitsudave
- Start date
cthulhudarren
Mongoose
This outmaneuver rule begs some questions.
Shouldn't the group evade simply waste a combat action of those evaded? Say you're in an open field and evade this group of 3 trollkin and the bodyguard. Why can't they use combat actions to re-engage you? I would think as you only used ONE combat action to evade them, after this they could re-engage you by spending combat actions.
Think of it this way... bad guys can do the same to you. Do you want to lose all your combat actions (if you want to attack this bad guy) over one evade roll?
I'd think there would be a "full round evade" action that might include one swing or parry against a chosen target, but it should take the full round of combat actions.
Someone school me.
Shouldn't the group evade simply waste a combat action of those evaded? Say you're in an open field and evade this group of 3 trollkin and the bodyguard. Why can't they use combat actions to re-engage you? I would think as you only used ONE combat action to evade them, after this they could re-engage you by spending combat actions.
Think of it this way... bad guys can do the same to you. Do you want to lose all your combat actions (if you want to attack this bad guy) over one evade roll?
I'd think there would be a "full round evade" action that might include one swing or parry against a chosen target, but it should take the full round of combat actions.
Someone school me.
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
cthulhudarren said:
You can never win like this unless you have friends to rescue you, You take a CA to evade all but one of the group, they take a CA to be able to attack you, you are back at square one, and haven't managed to reduce the number of opponents yet.
Ideally what you want to happen is
You - (1st CA) - evade all but one enemy
Enemy - (1st CA) - Attacks you, You Parry (2nd CA)
You (3rd CA) You attack and kill Enemy
rinse & repeat...
And remember all the evade does is stop them from physically attacking, they can still move into new positions for next round, or cast magic (I don't think Evade stops them from casting spells at you does it? even if it does they can cast spells on themselves with the "spare" CA's)
Yes a "Bad guy" can use this against a group of PC's, but if they need to gang up to take him down it should be a tough fight anyway, so I don't think this is a problem....
cthulhudarren
Mongoose
duncan_disorderly said:
My idea was to give a single combat action against that one opponent included with a full-round evade action. The other way just doesn't seem fair.
duncan_disorderly said:
My take on it is that Outmaneuver only works vs. melee combatants, so I don't think it would work at all against spells or missile weapon attacks. For those you just use Evade skill as a dive-for-cover Dodge, but then you can't use your next CA to attack.
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
I imaginr they could but they would more likely either disengage and run away or attack furiously without defending until they can run away.
cthulhudarren
Mongoose
cthulhudarren said:
Any other thoughts on this? Am I off my rocker, does this make sense, or even a 'sod off you tosser'?
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
No he doesn't lose his remaining CAs. Any that he has left he can use against whatever opponents he didn't manage to outmanoeuvre that round.Jujitsudave said:
sdavies2720
Mongoose
I'm always amazed at how many ways rules get interpreted & implemented. I thought the rule was straightforward, albeit a little strong.cthulhudarren said:
So far, no one has used outmaneuvre in my game, but I believe it's just a matter of time. When I read it, I immediately envisioned one of those scenes where the hero is knocking over chairs, swinging from ropes, and anything he can think of to stay out of harm's way.
My plan is to take the following approach:
* Hero picks one opponent that is not affected by the OutManeuvre. Everyone else rolls a test. The outmaneuvre action takes a full CA.
* Those who fail the test cannot close attack the hero, but can do all other Actions (and see note about if they are attacked below)
* With his remaining Actions, the hero can do anything he wants. If he physically attacks an opponent who failed his test, that opponent can now melee attack the hero.
So basically the one using Outmaneuvre gives up one CA in return for a chance to prevent some or all opponents from attacking. This gives an opportunity to drop one opponent, but if the opponents are smart, they can also mitigate the effects (e.g. by attacking with missile weapons, casting spells, moving to block doors, etc.)
Steve
cthulhudarren
Mongoose
sdavies2720 said:
I understand you, it just seems a little unfair. Can you tell I GM? Anyway, how would you show this in a game that uses miniatures?
Deleriad
Mongoose
cthulhudarren said:
The rule doesn't really work in a game with miniatures because then you get a horde of figures standing around obviously doing nothing. It's a very abstract rule. It's relatively easy to imagine if you're using no miniatures or just using minis to show basic positions. If you're using a grid for movement, however, it starts to look odd. I probably wouldn't use it in that case. Or else you say that the effect of the successful use of the skill is that every character that has been outmanoeuvred will (until the end of the round) automatically fail in all close combat attacks against the swashbuckler and will get -40% to all missile attacks against him.
The rule's a good one and I don't find it unfair and I always GM. It is quite genre specific. As a GM it does mean that the hero may be in a middle of a large melee but if he outmanoeuvres a host of NPCs then I can simply forget about them for the rest of the round. That makes my life simpler. After all I'm not in the business of throwing 30 trollkin at a PC in the hope that one of them brings him down.
As a GM, I wouldn't hesitate to have an NPC opponent use Outmaneuver against the PCs. I wouldn't use it for mooks and such, but could definitely see highly skilled lieutenants and the BBEG using this to keep the PCs from surrounding and overwhelming them.
On a side note, I also wouldn't have a problem giving my BBEGs 'Villain Points' that would work for them in the same way 'Hero Points' work for the PCs. YMMV.
On a side note, I also wouldn't have a problem giving my BBEGs 'Villain Points' that would work for them in the same way 'Hero Points' work for the PCs. YMMV.
sdavies2720
Mongoose
Yeah, it strikes me as a huge leap toward cinematic/dramatic combat, and a boon to swashbucklers everywhere.cthulhudarren said:
Maybe dropping it altogether is a worthwhile end-result. But as I say, none of my players have tried it yet, so until I have a problem (and until I've seen it work in play), I'm going to leave it alone.
I like using miniatures, and I agree that Outmaneuvre is a real problem if you use them. That's probably another reason to ban the action.
Steve
sdavies2720
Mongoose
One other thought: Maybe make the ability to do an Outmaneuvre a Heroic Ability. That doesn't take care of some of the miniatures problems, but at least limits its use to swashbuckler-type characters who get into that type of situation enough that they are willing to pay for the ability.
Steve
Steve
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Precisely. Its an abstract rule because it is simplifying something which is happening continuously over the course of the entire round.Deleriad said:
In real life it is reasonably easy for one person to outmanoeuvre three or four foes in combat, even more so if you have obstacles to work with - however its just that its very tiring to keep up for long.
Trying to replicate that with figures would be a nightmare, not only because of needing to move everyone every action, but also because you couldn't model the real life difficulties posed by constantly changing facing, weapon reach, accidental bumping, interference and so on.
Its not just for swashbucklers either. I am able to outmanoeuvre multiple opponents wearing full armour.
Faelan Niall
Banded Mongoose
Outmaneuvering is simply a matter of ensuring that to get a clear shot at you, they unfortunately have to go through one of their friends. It is a lot easier to do, particularly if you out skill the opponents individually. The only real option they have at that point is to bum rush you, and take you down. Of course that presents the problem of which one is jumping on your blade to provide the rest with the opportunity. The option reflects actual methods of handling multiple attackers pretty well and is definitely not unreasonable, particularly if you use the fatigue option.
As to obstacles, well even without preexisting ones that is what your opponents are, pre-made, mobile / soon to be immobile obstacles, of varying sizes, shapes (dependent upon where they have been hit), begging to be used to your benefit.
As to obstacles, well even without preexisting ones that is what your opponents are, pre-made, mobile / soon to be immobile obstacles, of varying sizes, shapes (dependent upon where they have been hit), begging to be used to your benefit.
sdavies2720
Mongoose
A situation came up last night where OutManeuvre was a good option for one of the heroes (he was caught out a little way from the rest of the party and faced 4 opponents, one of whom was mounted).
He used outmaneuvre on his first combat action, which stopped 2 opponents from attacking. While he wasn't able to drop any, he did get a CM against another and took them off-balance. From that point on, the hero thought he had decent enough odds that he didn't use outmaneuvre again (I assumed that he had to use outmaneuvre each round).
We used miniatures, and one of the 'blocked' opponents used the time to mount his steed. The other blocked opponent was a man-at-arms and I assumed he just tried ineffectively to get at the hero, so I left the miniature in one place (assuming that the miniature positions are more guidelines).
So, I'm sticking with outmaneuvre as is. It's a viable option when outnumbered, but not a universal solution -- so it's a nice addition to the CM assortment.
Steve
He used outmaneuvre on his first combat action, which stopped 2 opponents from attacking. While he wasn't able to drop any, he did get a CM against another and took them off-balance. From that point on, the hero thought he had decent enough odds that he didn't use outmaneuvre again (I assumed that he had to use outmaneuvre each round).
We used miniatures, and one of the 'blocked' opponents used the time to mount his steed. The other blocked opponent was a man-at-arms and I assumed he just tried ineffectively to get at the hero, so I left the miniature in one place (assuming that the miniature positions are more guidelines).
So, I'm sticking with outmaneuvre as is. It's a viable option when outnumbered, but not a universal solution -- so it's a nice addition to the CM assortment.
Steve
cthulhudarren
Mongoose
As a gamer who uses minis, I think I'm leaning towards making outmaneuver something like "tumble" in 3.5
Similar threads
