Possible answer to the below questions

[Zipp Dementia]

Below I've asked three questions that I think need to be clarified before I can really run a combat using the rules.

Here's how I would do it with what knowledge I have now. Perhaps this is exactly how it should work, in which case my questions are answered. Below is a scenario, please tell me if it is correct.

This whole scenario rides on the assumption that only players choose targets and all targets have to be engaged (obeying the 4 target maximum). This doesn't account for the mention that a player must always attack the enemy that attacked him (since enemies can't technically attack in this version of the rules), unless it means to say that a player must complete their current fights before choosing new targets:

Joe (CS 11), Dave (CS 10), Michelle (CS 17), and Ryan (CS 13) are fighting a Giak (CS 12) and a Doomwolf (CS 18 ) and a giak (CS 11).

Michelle goes first and chooses to engage both the Doomwolf and the Giak (CS 12). She makes her first attack against the Doomwolf (CR-1) and her second attack against the Giak (CR+3, because the giak gets +2 to its combat skill for Michelle fighting two at once).

Now Ryan goes. He chooses to attack the Doomwolf. The CR is -3, because Ryan gets +2 for the Doomwolf already being engaged.

Now Joe goes, attacking the Giak at a CR of -2 (would be CR 0 because the Giak was already attacked, but the Giak also has a +2 to CS for being engaged by someone who is attacking multiple enemies... boils down to the Giak not being truly distracted by Michelle).

Finally, Dave goes. Since all targets have to be engaged, he must now attack the Giak (CS 11). He fights it at a CR-1.

Now the combat would have to continue with these same targets until one of the enemies was defeated, at which point CS scores lose their bonuses and everyone picks a new target.

Is this correct? Am I missing something? If so... what?

This interpretation of the rules means that ambushes would essentially be the GM picking the targets and then letting combat continue as usual (maybe with the first round being one where only the players take damage).

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Honestly, I have no idea if this is correct or not.

The question I have is that if a creature can't attack can they evade? Can they choose to leave combat willingly? Let's say that I wanted to have a recurring villain in my campaign. Once the heroes engage him in combat is it possible for him to run away? When in the combat order is he given this option?

 

[Zager Krahl]

Once the heroes engage him in combat is it possible for him to run away? When in the combat order is he given this option?

Yes, he can evade.

Why?

Because you are the GM.

 

[August1]

If combat has not yet begun, either side can evade if there is mobility and a chance to do so. Mobility simply means that the evading side can move in some way or speed that allows them to get away from the other side (horseback, stealth, into the sewers, etc).

The chance to evade is, as was suggested, a GM's call. One man in an empty field being charged by cavalry? No real chance to evade unless he can fly/become invisible/transforms into a mole/etc. A cavalryman being charged by a man on foot? Superior speed means evading is most assuredly possible.

After combat's begun, it becomes more nebulous. The chief concern in determining evasion is this: can one side get away in some manner that the other side cannot circumvent? Take inspiration from fantasy films/literature for this. Villains evade combat all the time - diving into the nearby sea, dashing through a door and locking it, the ever-present trapdoor... you name it.

The simple answer is yes, if evasion can be rationalised, it should be allowed even for the 'bad guys'.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Alright! We're finally getting somewhere! So doesn't it make sense that if enemies can make independent RANGED attacks, engage enemies, AND evade that they can also make independent MELEE attacks? After all, you have these creatures that are independent agents in battle... they seem to do a lot outside of the player's control.

 

[Zager Krahl]

You seem to be taking the most extreme literal interpretation of the rules, which suggests a measure of inflexibility. As a GM, you cannot afford to be that rigid.

Improvise. Make things fun. Be creative, if you can. The LWMP rules are light for a reason - they WANT to promote creative GM's. If you are a stickler for tight rules on everything from blinking rapidly to farting in combat, I'd suggest you rather try D&D.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

You seem to be taking the most extreme literal interpretation of the rules, which suggests a measure of inflexibility. As a GM, you cannot afford to be that rigid.

Improvise. Make things fun. Be creative, if you can. The LWMP rules are light for a reason - they WANT to promote creative GM's. If you are a stickler for tight rules on everything from blinking rapidly to farting in combat, I'd suggest you rather try D&D.

So wait... when did logical analysis become bad? I'm not saying I want to put LWM on the grid, etc, etc, etc, but at least have combat rules that are clearly described with examples that make sense. Instead of replying to my point I made, you simply tell me to play DnD. Tell me why my logical argument doesn't make sense, then. Of course I want flexibility as a DM but "flexibility" isn't an excuse for sloppy and unclear rules.

 

[Zager Krahl]

So doesn't it make sense that if enemies can make independent RANGED attacks, engage enemies, AND evade that they can also make independent MELEE attacks?

First off, what exactly do you mean by an 'independent'?

The reason I ask is simple: NPC's do not act independently. They are introduced at the start of combat - say 7 Giaks - and then a set of rules kick in which determine how they will be engaged (PC with highest CS targets NPC's first, then PC with second highest CS, etc etc). Once every PC and every NPC is 'engaged' - i.e. doing SOMETHING, not necessarily swinging a sword - combat may start for those that are engaged in combat. The Giak climbing a stalagmite to get a better sniping spot has to make a roll, or the GM could use author fiat to make it happen - because the Giak, as a NPC, is not an independent agent. The Kai climbing the neighbouring stalagmite has to make a roll - because HE is an independent agent not under the control of the GM.

After all, you have these creatures that are independent agents in battle... they seem to do a lot outside of the player's control.

The NPC's do what the GM wants them to do. If they did what the players wanted them to do, the game would be slightly dull.