Facing and Passing

[Manic Typist]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

 

And maybe that is what we need, a chance that the character can fail to slip by,

 

I really feel we don't need it, in a situation where there is ONE Knight and open space. There is plenty of freedom of movement, even sticking relatively near the Knight, for me to be able to move around without any sort of significant interference from one single guy in an open place.

 

Several guys, in a line or even a loose formation, however.... would be another story entirely.

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

"Slip passed"' date=' to me, implies a chance of failure. I think that is what is missing here. Since there is no chance that the character can fail to "slip past" someone, it seems more like walking past them.[/quote']

 

I do think that how we (everyone in the conversation) envision this scenario is a large part of the general dissagreement. I view it as the following:

 

A knight and orc are battling back and forth. The knight gets a bit clumsy and telegraphs an attack (misses the orc's DCV). Sensing the opportunity, the orc ducks under the telegraphed attack, stepping past on the knight's off-hand side. While the knight attempts to recover, the orc high-tails it away from the knight at best possible speed. Now the knight must give chase.

 

Note that the above assumes a significant miss by the knight, not just missed by 1 or 2 points. In that case, the orc would still be too focused on defending himself to run away, but again, I take that as role-playing a near-miss and so no mechanics are needed.

 

To me, "just walking past" implies non-combat movement (the orc casually saunters by the knight after the failed attack; probably flipping him the bird and making unkind remarks about his parentage in the process). Normal combat movement assumes that the character is ducking, weaving, zigging, zagging and otherwise making sure he doesn't get hit. That is why I use the description "slip past".

 

And maybe that is what we need, a chance that the character can fail to slip by, more than we need rules for attacks of opportunity. [rules for DEX and STR roll-offs]

 

Considering how I view Combat movement vs Non-Combat movement above, I think you can understand why I don't really think such a rule is necessary. I believe that "slipping past" is accounted for in the normal zigging and zagging of combat movement and should not be subject to failure under normal circumstances.

 

Also, like Manic Typist, I consider this different if you've got a confined space (like a narrow corridor) or group of opponents (a line of scrimmage if you will). In those situations, you cannot "slip past" because you don't have the room to maneuver. In my campaign, doing so would require either an Acrobatics Roll (at penalties if the opponents haven't yet acted) or a STR vs. STR contest (at penalties for multiple blockers) in order to succeed. Which gets used depends on how you describe your attempt to get past the line.

[JamesG]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I really feel we don't need it' date=' in a situation where there is ONE Knight and open space. There is plenty of freedom of movement, even sticking relatively near the Knight, for me to be able to move around without any sort of significant interference from one single guy in an open place.[/quote']

 

In an open space the orc should be able to try and maneuver around the knight, I agree. But if the orc chooses to pass close enough to the knight to be within hand weapon range I feel there should be a consequence, whether or not the knight has a held action. Especially if the knight wishes to prevent the orc from passing him.

 

Also' date=' like Manic Typist, I consider this different if you've got a confined space (like a narrow corridor) or group of opponents (a line of scrimmage if you will). In those situations, you cannot "slip past" because you don't have the room to maneuver. In my campaign, doing so would require either an Acrobatics Roll (at penalties if the opponents haven't yet acted) or a STR vs. STR contest (at penalties for multiple blockers) in order to succeed. Which gets used depends on how you describe your attempt to get past the line.[/quote']

 

Those sound like good house rules, but I think that is what they are because I don't think the RAW require the passing party to take any unusual measures such as you describe. Which really is the core issue here. So I guess our disagreement lies in determining what situations warrant house rules to make passing more difficult.

 

Though if I read Christopher's arguments correctly, he does not feel any house rules are needed at all in these situations.

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Those sound like good house rules, but I think that is what they are because I don't think the RAW require the passing party to take any unusual measures such as you describe. Which really is the core issue here. So I guess our disagreement lies in determining what situations warrant house rules to make passing more difficult.

 

Though if I read Christopher's arguments correctly, he does not feel any house rules are needed at all in these situations.

 

Just to clarify, when I mention a narrow hallway, I mean one that would require the orc to move though the knight's "hex" in order to get past him. Likewise, with the line of blockers, I'm assuming roughly 2m or less between each blocker (i.e. each is standing in the center of adjacent hexes), so the character trying to break through needs to move through an occupied "hex".

[Manic Typist]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Those sound like good house rules, but I think that is what they are because I don't think the RAW require the passing party to take any unusual measures such as you describe. Which really is the core issue here. So I guess our disagreement lies in determining what situations warrant house rules to make passing more difficult.

 

It seems less like house rules than what you proposed. Not that there is anything wrong with house rules to clarify an issue.

[JamesG]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Just to clarify' date=' when I mention a narrow hallway, I mean one that would require the orc to move though the knight's "hex" in order to get past him. Likewise, with the line of blockers, I'm assuming roughly 2m or less between each blocker (i.e. each is standing in the center of adjacent hexes), so the character trying to break through needs to move through an occupied "hex".[/quote']

 

Do the RAW disallow moving through an occupied hex? I took a quick look in 5ER and could not find anything, but freely admit I could have missed it. I did find rules for barging through a completely blocked hex (like through a closed door) but that is a different situation.

[JamesG]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

It seems less like house rules than what you proposed. Not that there is anything wrong with house rules to clarify an issue.

 

Yes, what I wrote was more of an attempt to codify how to handle passing in general terms that could be applied to a broad variety of situations. What Netzilla proposed sounded more like ad hoc rulings for specific situations. Not that I am knocking those rulings, they sounded very reasonable and workable to me.

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Do the RAW disallow moving through an occupied hex? I took a quick look in 5ER and could not find anything' date=' but freely admit I could have missed it. I did find rules for barging through a completely blocked hex (like through a closed door) but that is a different situation.[/quote']

 

I think that depends on what you consider an "obstacle". The RAW give a character 3 options upon reaching an "obstacle": stop, Move Through or use Casual Strength to shrug it aside (6E2 27 / 5ER 366). I assume that is the rule to which you are referring and my reading of the rule does not require the obstacle to fill the hex. Obviously, as SL has said many a time, common and dramatic sense must apply. For example, for a normal human, I would consider a chair, a mailbox or a person to be an "obstacle" even though none of them fill an entire hex. A small chair might just be considered "rough terrain".

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I think this is another situation where our long experience with D&D encourages us to model D&D, rather than reality (real or cinematic).

Ignoring knights, orcs and princesses for now, let's look at the assumptions.

 

1. Is it possible to pass an attacker without consequences?

Real life experience says no, if he is attempting to block you, but a definite yes, absolutely, if he commits to an attack and misses. The D&D idea that you suddenly get back on balance and get a freebie attack if someone passes you does not square with real life. In real life, if you are fast and your opponents are too eager, it really is possible to waltz past several defenders, without them being able to stop you. I've not only seen it done, and done it myself, but drawing an opponent out so that you can move past them, is a basic tactic taught in both armed and unarmed martial arts.

 

2. Do we need new mechanisms to simulate defending?

So far, I haven't seen anything in this thread that suggests we do.

Basically if you are "bodyguarding" you have several options (I'm not going to comment on interpose, as I don't have the APG). You can delay until the attacker commits to an attack and either block or counter-attack. You can attack, in an attempt to put your opponent down. You can delay and use dive for cover to block an attack on your target (6E2 87).

 

All of these are pretty realistic: if your opponent is prepared to take a hit to go after the person you are defending, it is - in real life - very, very hard to stop him, unless you kill/KO/Stun him on the way in.

It gets harder if you have several opponents. With regard to multiattack, you can delay and go after them with multiattack (to answer the earlier question, no, your targets do not have to be together, and yes, you can attack each of them, even if they move on different DEX values (6E2 78). If they attack on different segments or phases, though, you are out of luck:() You can likewise block multiple attacks - all you need to do is be within reach of the target, not necessarily the attacker (6E2 58).

 

Put all that together with the rules on facing: specifically "The opponent might get the bonus if the character is distracted (for example, if he’s already fighting one foe who’s in front of him)..." (6E2 50) and I think we have all we need (at least this has never been an issue in my games, principally because before 6E, the rule about having an attacker right behind you was houseruled so that it was the same as the rules suggested now in 6E). Basically, my interpretation of this is that you cannot "get behind" someone by simply moving (or even being) behind them ... unless they are doing something that prevents them responding. That something could be fighting another person - for example, trying to stab a princess - being hindered in your movement, etc.

 

This is open to interpretation, since the rules say the attacker "might" get the bonus if his opponent is "distracted", but in my book, saying you intend to ignore one active opponent to go after another target that exposes your flank or rear certainly qualifies.

 

So in the examples given:

Knight facing orc, cowering princess behind.

Option 1. Knight attacks ... he's being reckless and gambling all on being able to put the orc down. If he succeeds, all well and good. If he fails, he has opened the princess up to attack. My opinion? Realistic and genre-consistent.

Option 2. Knight delays until the orc attacks ... he's being cautious and protecting his charge. If the orc does not attack, you get a standoff: that could be good, or bad, depending on who's expecting reinforcements. If the orc attacks, he can choose to block the attack, or wait until the orc has turned his back on him to go after the princess and then whack him while the orc is at 1/2 DCV: this would probably be a good time for a multiattack. The orc might get through, but probably not. My opinion? Realistic and genre-consistent.

 

Things get tougher if the knight is facing three orcs: they can - if sufficiently organised, and tactically skilled - choose to draw him out by attacking from different directions and then one of them attacks the princess while the other two tackle him, and there's not much he can do about it. He can block all their attacks, but the odds are not in his favour. His best bet is to get the princess into a corner so that to get to her, the orcs have to go past him, and concentrate on blocking and attacking, if he has phases to burn. However, in my opinion this is also realistic and genre consistent.

 

Basically, as described, to defend effectively, you have to have an action to respond. If an opponent chooses to expose his flank or rear to you, and you have a reserved action, you get to attack at an advantage. Add that to the optional guarding an area rule (6E2 128), and do we need more? Is there anything I've missed here?

 

cheers, Mark

[Manic Typist]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Perfect, Markdoc (IMO).

 

JamesG- I feel the reverse: I see yours as an ad hoc (or perhaps carefully formulated but still formulated as an addition to the rules), whereas I see the use of Acrobatics/STR (depending on the situation) as natural extensions/legitimate interpretations of the rules, since they already exist and speak to either these exact issues or issues very similar to them (namely, moving between/around objects under less than ideal circumstances).

[JamesG]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I think that depends on what you consider an "obstacle". The RAW give a character 3 options upon reaching an "obstacle": stop' date=' Move Through or use Casual Strength to shrug it aside (6E2 27 / 5ER 366). I assume that is the rule to which you are referring and my reading of the rule does not require the obstacle to fill the hex. Obviously, as SL has said many a time, common and dramatic sense must apply. For example, for a normal human, I would consider a chair, a mailbox or a person to be an "obstacle" even though none of them fill an entire hex. A small chair might just be considered "rough terrain".[/quote']

 

Since the only options given in that rule passage to deal with an "obstacle" are to move it aside or blow through it in some fashion I think it is explicitly talking about obstacles that do take up the entire hex. If it included obstacles that only took up part of a hex it should have said something about making a Dex or Acrobatics roll to avoid the obstacle. And I certainly would not make a character moving through a hex containing a mailbox to have to push it aside.

[JamesG]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I think this is another situation where our long experience with D&D encourages us to model D&D' date=' rather than reality (real or cinematic).[/quote']

 

I don't play DnD so that does not apply at least in my case. Sorry I don't have time right now to address some of your other points, hopefully I will later.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Basically' date=' as described, to defend effectively, you have to have an action to respond. If an opponent chooses to expose his flank or rear to you, and you have a reserved action, you get to attack at an advantage. Add that to the optional guarding an area rule (6E2 128), and do we need more? Is there anything I've missed here?[/quote']

 

I think there is, there is the basic concept at the start. If you are defending something and in combat with someone where you will win over a prolonged fight then at almost any point where you have just attacked, your opponent can walk past you and achieve their aim and you can do nothin to prevent that. The focus on action and reaction means that there is no consideration given to an ongoing commitment to defend the object...

 

I do not think there is a decent manouevre by manouevre way to get that willingness to defend an object to your own personal detriment. I think that is what is missing...

 

 

Doc

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Since the only options given in that rule passage to deal with an "obstacle" are to move it aside or blow through it in some fashion I think it is explicitly talking about obstacles that do take up the entire hex. If it included obstacles that only took up part of a hex it should have said something about making a Dex or Acrobatics roll to avoid the obstacle. And I certainly would not make a character moving through a hex containing a mailbox to have to push it aside.

 

Actually, the entry for Acrobatics discusses using it to get passed an "obstacle". I suspect that if you were to ask Steve Long for clairification, I'd bet he'd respond that he expects individual GMs to decide what constitutes a large enough "obstacle" to count rather than giving any sort of concrete minimum.

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I do not think there is a decent manouevre by manouevre way to get that willingness to defend an object to your own personal detriment. I think that is what is missing...

 

I think that is what the Interposing rules attempt to address. After all, you're willingly giving up your own DCV in order to make it riskier for your opponent to ignore you. You will still need a held action in order to take advantage of that (or you can Abort to Block), but I'm okay with that, myself.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Interesting but seems a relatively radical change. That's not neccessarily a bad thing, of course. I do wonder if this could be handled by using the Multi-Attack rules to effectively 'sweep' the Interpose so that it works against multiple attackers. That certainly requires some interpretation. Do you halve DCV before or after you chose your DCV penalty? I would lean toward "before". So, if you're the 8 DCV knight, you use Interposing to lower your DCV to 4, gaining +4 OCV (12). You then halve that for Multi-Attack down to DCV 2 (you're now a sitting duck). You then declaire the number of attackers you're going to try to stop (say 3) and take apporpirate OCV penalties (-4, back down to 8). So, now you're 8 OCV and 2 DCV against all 3 attackers. Then comes the question of if you also then add in the penalties for Multiple Block if that's what the knight tries to do.

 

No matter how you go about it, the Interposing rule appears to have been written with one attacker in mind and requires some form of 'house rule' to apply it to multiple attackers. I can't really say which I'd prefer and would probably have to play test both (or at least crunch some numbers) before I could decide either way.

 

Well, in my adjusted interposition, the sacrificed DCV adds to the DCV of the defended object rather than add to the defenders OCV.

 

So the orc has OCV 6 and is fighting the OCV/DCV 7 Knight so that he can gain access to the DCV 3 object. The Knight can sacrifice 4 DCV to bring the object up to DCV 7 and leave the knight at DCV 3. A dodging princess would then have a 4 CV advantage meaning she would only get hit on 7 or less. The knight could sacrifice another 2 DCV to gain the princess another 1 DCV. Any hit aimed at the princess that would have hit the DCV 3 but not the imporved DCV automatically hits the knight. He has successfully interposed himself.

 

The SFX of this is the knight using his body to get between the princess and any attacker. It is effective against multiple opponents and allows the knight to continue offensive action. The more opponents however, the less effective he will be offensively (-1 OCV per additional opponent) as he has to put more and more effort into his defence.

 

Unbalanced or a decent heroic option??

 

Doc

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Well, in my adjusted interposition, the sacrificed DCV adds to the DCV of the defended object rather than add to the defenders OCV.

 

So the orc has OCV 6 and is fighting the OCV/DCV 7 Knight so that he can gain access to the DCV 3 object. The Knight can sacrifice 4 DCV to bring the object up to DCV 7 and leave the knight at DCV 3. A dodging princess would then have a 4 CV advantage meaning she would only get hit on 7 or less. The knight could sacrifice another 2 DCV to gain the princess another 1 DCV. Any hit aimed at the princess that would have hit the DCV 3 but not the imporved DCV automatically hits the knight. He has successfully interposed himself.

 

The SFX of this is the knight using his body to get between the princess and any attacker. It is effective against multiple opponents and allows the knight to continue offensive action. The more opponents however, the less effective he will be offensively (-1 OCV per additional opponent) as he has to put more and more effort into his defence.

 

Unbalanced or a decent heroic option??

 

Doc

 

Seems reasonably well thought out. I don't know that I'd adopt it personally, but I also wouldn't object to playing under it. In fact, I'd appreciate the opportunity to see the rule in action, actually.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Well' date=' no attack is going to be 100% likely to stop the orc. Otherwise, why roll dice? The point is, is the tactic likely enough to be successful to bother relying on it. At a certain level of parity, there is no way for the knight to reliably stop the orc, no matter what house rules are added.[/quote']

 

I don't know that anyone is asking for a change that gives the Knight automatic success - we're suggesting the current automatic failure isn't good either.

 

However' date=' the scenario as given, the knight attacks first, misses and the orc then walks passed, is presuming that the knight has failed on 2 levels. First, the knight chose to go on the offensive rather than defending his charge, which is always going to be risky. Unless the knight is supremely confident he can either drop the foe immediately or make himself enough of a threat that the orc will concentrate on defending himself against the knight. The latter requires role-playing to be involved (the orc must at least believe that the knight's attacks have the potential to cause serious injury, if not death) rather than a specific maneuver. The second point of failure is that the knight failed to drop, stun or scare the orc with that first attack. That basically illustrates why going on the offensive and failing to focus on protecting his charge is a stupid tactic on the part of the knight. I don't think that any bodyguard would argue otherwise (first protect your charge). So, I view the original scenario as rather loaded against the knight even if that wasn't the intention.[/quote']

 

Pretty much every other alternative suggested relies on the Knight getting an attack in on the Orc. Unless that attack can reliably take the Orc out of the fight, the Knight has lost, as the Orc gets to the Princess. So:

 

- Knight delays and attacks Orc if he tries to get to Princess = Knight hands initiative to Orc and still needs to take Orc out with one shot to protect the Princess

- Knight delays and trips/shoves Orc if he tries to get to Princess = Knight hands initiative to Orc but could delay him a phase if his attack succeeds - Orc can try again next phase

- Knight defends an area and attacks Orc if he tries to get to Princess = Knight hands initiative to Orc and still needs to take Orc out with one shot to protect the Princess

 

There is no option the Knight can choose that does not require him to take the Orc down in one shot in order to ultimately defend the Princess.

 

Regardless of rules' date=' why does the orc think this is a smart tactic? What makes the orc think the knight won't cut him down before he can actually off the princess. Presumably, if the attack missed, the orc is not casually ignoring the knight. What is the orc's mindset that allows him to know the knight can't attack again without the orc having knowledge of the initiative system?[/quote']

 

How does the Knight know exactly how large an area he can guard effectively and precisely how far away the Princess must be for a normal full or half move to be insufficient to close with her? How does he know which phase is his extra one granted by higher SPD that he can strike the Orc and still have another action available by the time the Orc moves again? Unless both sides will forego all tactics relying on knowledge of mechanics, I think both sides have to be accepted to intuit the mechanics based on their skills and experience.

 

You pretty much answered your own question' date=' it's situationally dependent. Does the knight have back-up on the way? Does the orc? Too many variables are unknown to know who wins the stand-off. However, we do know that if the knight initiates action and misses, it gives the orc the opportunity to slip past him and attack the princess, assuming the orc isn't too busy keeping his own head attached to his shoulders to basically ignore the knight (role-playing again).[/quote']

 

The situation posited was that the Orc knows he'll lose his head if he keeps engaging the Knight straight up, so he tries for the only tactic that might save his life - using the Princess as a hostage. The question is why it should be so easy to do so, regardless of the skill of his opponent. If the Orc's only goal is survival, he should back away/flee when the Knight delays.

 

So' date=' that seems to suggest that you can choose a Multi-Attack as a response.[/quote']

 

I agree. I don't agree that you get to choose where each opponent is situated when making that attack, or make the component attacks at different times in the move order. This assumes the requirements are met, of course. He needs a full phase, so no movement allowed (unless he uses move by/through), and he must be able to actually target each attack. He gets the reach of the weapon, and I'd give him the extra "guarding an area" meter for lunging, but I don't think he can lunge in three different directions, so he only gets that extra meter once.

 

This' date=' then, falls into the question of are they "simultaneous enough" to be susceptible to a Multi-Attack. After all, a Multi-Attack isn't perfectly simultaneous either. The mechanics alone suggest that the attacks occur in sequence as if one misses, all subsequent attacks miss. Considering the genre trope of the hero cutting down charging foes one after the other, my own interpretation is that yes, the 3 orcs charging will be "simultaneous enough".[/quote']

 

Can he also choose whatever point on each Orc's movement he wants? I think he has to take his action as matters progress, just like every other character and every other action. Is it perfectly consistent with the fact actions don't really resolve sequentially? No, not really. Neither is the ability of the Orc to breeze right past him immediately after he makes his own attack. Allowing the Multiple Attack is another house rule designed to take simultaneous actions into account rather than strict sequential resolution, so as much a house rule as setting a requirement to move past that melee combatant safely.

 

A battle lasting hours implies a certain degree of parity to me. Any time you've got foes that can last that long against each other it either implies that they are pretty closely matched or that one is concentrating solely on defense' date=' which means he will never get the chance to 'just walk past' as he's too busy blocking and dodging.[/quote']

 

If one combatant cannot hurt the other, and it's a matter of time (however long) before he gets demolished, my initial presumption of some degree of parity (which seems prima facie reasonable for a lengthy battle) is rebutted by the complete inability of one side to win.

 

Again' date=' seems more a case of parity than "little chance" if the orc is so capable of weathering the knight's attacks as to make it totally impossible for the knight to do serious harm in a single shot. If the orc knows the knight can't at least potentially drop (or at least stun) him right away, then why should there be a penalty for the orc to ignore the knight? After all, in that situation, no matter how much of an OCV bonus the knight gets or DCV penalty the orc takes, it doesn't matter. For the knight to have a chance of protecting his charge, he must have some way to make himself a threat. The knight, in such a situation, would be better off attempting a grab to restrain the orc than he would be trying to hit it with his sword, because there's no way for the sword to do enough damage to stop the orc by the conditions you've just imposed.[/quote']

 

Actually, the source material and reality would commonly see the Knight continually move to prevent the Orc moving past him. We can't actually simulate that in Hero, which seems to be the Missing Maneuver. Perhaps that should be resolved (and this seems REALLY easy especially after 7 pages of debate) by using Interpose to Shove the Orc. If the Orc tries to get by (ie allow Interpose to block movement, rather than protect a specific target), the Knight gets a Shove (or a Trip) with the Interpose bonus enhancing his OCV.

 

Still means the Orc can breeze right by him in the midst of heated combat, though. I like the opposed DEX roll approach below, though it could be refined a bit - great start there.

 

"Walk past"' date=' no. "Slip passed", yes. There are plenty of examples in real life and fiction of one person slipping passed another due to a failed attack. That's a pretty common description of how people escape superior foes.[/quote']

 

And there are plenty of examples where the attempt fails. But the rules provide no chance of failure to "slip past". Right, JamesG?

 

"Slip passed", to me, implies a chance of failure. I think that is what is missing here. Since there is no chance that the character can fail to "slip past" someone, it seems more like walking past them.

 

And maybe that is what we need, a chance that the character can fail to slip by, more than we need rules for attacks of opportunity. Here is an idea: "If a character wants to move past an enemy within that enemy's melee range , he must win an opposed DEX roll. The moving character can add his base DCV as bonus to his DEX roll, the enemy can add his base OCV. Both characters can add any applicable Combat Skill Levels currently allocated to CV to improve their DEX roll. Failure to win the DEX opposed roll means the enemy has impeded your movement and you must stop. In order to do this, the enemy must have freedom of action (ie not Grabbed, Entangled, Stunned, etc.) but it does not require an Action by the enemy."

 

The wording probably needs to cleaned up, but I think you get what I mean. We also probably need to add something so that low STR characters can not easily impede high STR ones. Maybe if the mover can win a contest of STR using his casual STR vs. the full STR of the enemy he is not impeded.

 

Sounds good. Maybe both parties can choose between DEX and STR rolls. You can force or slip past, and you can forcibly or nimbly prevent slipping past. Maybe you need a DEX roll to try to block him slipping past (not as big an issue in Heroic, but Spidey would never get past the Hulk if Hulk can block with STR).

 

I dislike the "oh, it's role playing" approach. I can just as easily role play that "near miss" happening because he wasn't expecting me to lunge towards him, and now I'm behind him.

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I don't know that anyone is asking for a change that gives the Knight automatic success - we're suggesting the current automatic failure isn't good either.

 

I don't see it as an automatic failure. i see it as the knight needs to stay prepared (i.e. holds an action in order to have a chance at intercepting the orc).

 

Pretty much every other alternative suggested relies on the Knight getting an attack in on the Orc. Unless that attack can reliably take the Orc out of the fight, the Knight has lost, as the Orc gets to the Princess. So:

 

- Knight delays and attacks Orc if he tries to get to Princess = Knight hands initiative to Orc and still needs to take Orc out with one shot to protect the Princess

- Knight delays and trips/shoves Orc if he tries to get to Princess = Knight hands initiative to Orc but could delay him a phase if his attack succeeds - Orc can try again next phase

- Knight defends an area and attacks Orc if he tries to get to Princess = Knight hands initiative to Orc and still needs to take Orc out with one shot to protect the Princess

 

The knight is guarding a non-combatant. That pretty much will require you to cede initiative in both real life and genre fiction. When I see this kind of scenario play out in movies, books, comics, etc. I see the defender push the non-com behind him and wait to see what the enemy does. He'll typically throw in some threats and posturing (PRE Attack) to get the enemy to focus on him and not the non-com. I really can't think of any cases where the hero abandons his charge in order to take the initiative.

 

There is no option the Knight can choose that does not require him to take the Orc down in one shot in order to ultimately defend the Princess.

 

Unless he can keep the orc focused on him rather than going for the non-com. I'm really not convinced that the kamikaze orc should be the default assumption. Generally, if outclassed, the weaker foe will focus on defense and try to get away. If there's a hostage conveniently handy, he'll take it but having someone trying to kill you in between you and the hostage isn't "conveniently handy". Thus, 'the better part of valor' seems the smart play.

 

How does the Knight know exactly how large an area he can guard effectively

 

Experience. I assume this isn't his first sword-fight and he has a decent idea of his own reach. Most people tend to learn that within the first month of training.

 

and precisely how far away the Princess must be for a normal full or half move to be insufficient to close with her?

 

I'm not supposing he does, that was someone else. I'm supposing that he'll cover the most direct route.

 

How does he know which phase is his extra one granted by higher SPD that he can strike the Orc and still have another action available by the time the Orc moves again?

 

Until he's fought the orc for a full turn and has some measure of their relative speeds he doesn't. Of course, the tactics I suggested don't rely on that. They do rely on him having better than even odds of Stunning the orc when it tries to slip past and then finishing it off after. If he doesn't think he can do that, then he should try a Grab, Push or Trip. No knowledge of the speed chart needed.

 

Unless both sides will forego all tactics relying on knowledge of mechanics, I think both sides have to be accepted to intuit the mechanics based on their skills and experience.

 

[Emphasis added by me.]

Have these two fought each other before?

 

The situation posited was that the Orc knows he'll lose his head if he keeps engaging the Knight straight up, so he tries for the only tactic that might save his life - using the Princess as a hostage. The question is why it should be so easy to do so, regardless of the skill of his opponent. If the Orc's only goal is survival, he should back away/flee when the Knight delays.

 

Actually, in that situation, if he's not a fanatic he should try to get away.

 

I agree. I don't agree that you get to choose where each opponent is situated when making that attack,

 

I never said it did.

 

or make the component attacks at different times in the move order.

 

I never said it did.

 

I did state that they were "simultaneous enough". If they're all going to move in on the same DEX, that's as close as Hero gets to simultaneous without a tied DEX Roll-off. To me, that is "simultaneous enough". It may not be for you, but I really don't think I'm out in left-field here. After all, the rules for Multi-Attack only stipulate that all attacks occur in the same Segment, not at the same DEX (6E2 78; thanks MarkDoc). I suspect it was worded that way on purpose. After all, how else would you model a single person standing in a corridor cutting down multiple charging foes as they come into reach?

 

This assumes the requirements are met, of course. He needs a full phase, so no movement allowed (unless he uses move by/through), and he must be able to actually target each attack. He gets the reach of the weapon, and I'd give him the extra "guarding an area" meter for lunging, but I don't think he can lunge in three different directions, so he only gets that extra meter once.

 

Why does the +1m reach require the knight to lunge? An axe is a medium weapon, thus giving it +1m reach, and you're certainly not going to be lunging with that (6E2 201 & 6E2 204).

 

Can he also choose whatever point on each Orc's movement he wants?

 

I believe the stated hold condition was, "when he gets in reach". So, as far as that goes, yes.

 

I think he has to take his action as matters progress, just like every other character and every other action. Is it perfectly consistent with the fact actions don't really resolve sequentially? No, not really.

 

Thus, in my opinion, the mechanics need to take a back seat to common and dramatic sense, even if you do require all attacks from a Multi-Attack to occur in the same DEX.

 

Neither is the ability of the Orc to breeze right past him immediately after he makes his own attack.

 

 

There's that perception of the situation difference again. I say "slip past" and you say "breeze right past". Those really don't seem to be describing the same thing to me.

 

 

Allowing the Multiple Attack is another house rule designed to take simultaneous actions into account rather than strict sequential resolution, so as much a house rule as setting a requirement to move past that melee combatant safely.

 

 

Actually, it's an interpretation of the fact that the Multi-Attack rules only specify that all attacks be in the same Segment, not at the same DEX and that actions that do occur in the same DEX are effectually simultaneous by Hero's level of granularity. Interpretation is not equivalent to a rule created from whole cloth or imported from a significantly different system.

 

 

If one combatant cannot hurt the other, and it's a matter of time (however long) before he gets demolished, my initial presumption of some degree of parity (which seems prima facie reasonable for a lengthy battle) is rebutted by the complete inability of one side to win.

 

 

I disagree because someone will drop from exhaustion well before either one gets knocked out given the conditions you've imposed. If the orc is focusing on defense (1 END per Dodge), then the knight will tire sooner and be at a major disadvantage. This makes it seem that the orc isn't "significantly weaker".

 

 

Actually, the source material and reality would commonly see the Knight continually move to prevent the Orc moving past him. We can't actually simulate that in Hero, which seems to be the Missing Maneuver.

 

 

Cover an Area with a Push.

 

 

Perhaps that should be resolved (and this seems REALLY easy especially after 7 pages of debate) by using Interpose to Shove the Orc. If the Orc tries to get by (ie allow Interpose to block movement, rather than protect a specific target), the Knight gets a Shove (or a Trip) with the Interpose bonus enhancing his OCV.

 

 

Interpose with a Push works for me too.

 

 

Still means the Orc can breeze right by him in the midst of heated combat, though.

 

 

There's that descriptive phrasing again...

 

 

I like the opposed DEX roll approach below, though it could be refined a bit - great start there.

 

 

And there are plenty of examples where the attempt fails. But the rules provide no chance of failure to "slip past". Right, JamesG?

 

 

Let's make sure we're talking about the same situation...

 

 

1. The knight attacks and misses.

2. The orc takes advantage of the knight's need to recover from the swing to side-step and slip past the knight so he can make a run for it.

 

 

The only time I can think of this having failed is when the attacker was either so much faster than the one fleeing that he caught him anyway (which would potentially work with a 4 vs 3 speed, depending on where in the Turn we were), or the attack was a feint to draw out just such a response and open up the weaker foe to easy capture. Both would require an active action on the part of the knight.

 

 

Sounds good. Maybe both parties can choose between DEX and STR rolls. You can force or slip past, and you can forcibly or nimbly prevent slipping past. Maybe you need a DEX roll to try to block him slipping past (not as big an issue in Heroic, but Spidey would never get past the Hulk if Hulk can block with STR).

 

 

One of the problems I have with the suggestion of such a mechanic is consideration of the space involved. Using the classic 2m hex, each participant can be anywhere within their own 2m hex. So, they can be close enough to kiss or nearly 4m (13 feet) apart. That's a lot of room to maneuver in. When the knight swings, I would assume that, due to the area in which the swing occurs, that the orc is probably 3-6 feet away to start with (split the difference and call it 4). As part of his normal DCV, when he slips the attack, he can easily gain another 2 feet in a single step (actually 3 feet may be more likely but we'll call it 2). Now, as his actual action, he slips past the knight in order to run for it. He's already starting with 6 feet of separation (middle hex to middle hex). How is he going to trip over the knight in this situation? Keep in mind that the knight is still recovering from having just made an attack of his own and his momentum is carrying him forward, so unless the orc has been moving straight back (which skilled and experienced combatants try not to do for this very reason), the knight will have to shift momentum and change direction to stop the orc from slipping past.

 

 

I dislike the "oh, it's role playing" approach. I can just as easily role play that "near miss" happening because he wasn't expecting me to lunge towards him, and now I'm behind him.

 

 

Role playing always involves interpretation. You can't really remove all such considerations partly because if we do, we may as well be playing a board or war game, but also because some things are simply better handled that way. You don't really need a black and white rule for everything.

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

I think there is' date=' there is the basic concept at the start. If you are defending something and in combat with someone where you will win over a prolonged fight then at almost any point where you have just attacked, your opponent can walk past you and achieve their aim and you can do nothin to prevent that.[/quote']

 

Well, that's realistic enough and also genre-appropriate: in movies and books, if present,the helpless NPC almost always ends up covered and the hero is forced to disarm.

So, so far, I see that as a plus.

 

I should note, I agree with the comments above that in limited spaces (a stairwell, narrow ledge, corridor) that it requires an acrobatic roll or knockback/down to get past the defender. Otherwise, just like in real life, you can go around (whilst remembering that a delayed action allows the defender to move as well). Recall also that the defender can also - as long as he has a delayed action - can trip, shove or otherwise impede the attacker, so just walking past is not necessarily an automatic success.

 

But the key note here is "has a delayed action". We don't have (and considering how I abuse the hell out of AoO in 3.5E D&D, I am not sure we want such a thing) a way to gain extra attacks.

 

The focus on action and reaction means that there is no consideration given to an ongoing commitment to defend the object...

 

If you are committed to defend the object, delay. In other words, defend, don't attack. Incidentally, this is the very first lesson drilled into bodyguards in the real world.

 

I do not think there is a decent manouevre by manouevre way to get that willingness to defend an object to your own personal detriment. I think that is what is missing...

 

Actually there are three methods: block, dive for cover and "threaten" or 4, if you are using interpose as well. It is true that there is no pre-built method to make your target harder to hit (apart from standing in the way and thus providing cover) while still being able to attack, but that's both realistic and IMO, reasonable.

 

If those don't do it for you, this is Hero, so of course, you could always build such a power/talent (indeed, I did so myself for a group called the Swan knights, who were royal bodyguards), but I don't see a lack in the basic rules.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Allowing the Multiple Attack is another house rule designed to take simultaneous actions into account rather than strict sequential resolution' date=' so as much a house rule as setting a requirement to move past that melee combatant safely.[/quote']

 

I'd suggest reading the rules on multiple attack. It's certainly not a house rule, and the fact that actions can be spread out over different locations and DEX order, and where the player can (and cannot) choose the order of attack is discussed both explicitly and at length.

 

Actually' date=' the source material and reality would commonly see the Knight continually move to prevent the Orc moving past him. We can't actually simulate that in Hero, which seems to be the Missing Maneuver. [/quote']

 

There is nothing in the rules that prevents the Knight from doing exactly this. With a delayed action, he can choose to move, forcing the orc to either go around him, or try to pass through his hex (or whatever we call it these days) which will generally require a skill roll or an attack*. Either prevents his attacking the target, and may give the knight the opportunity to both prevent an attack on his ward and get an attack himself (if he can restrict himself to a half move and force the orc to move more). When facing multiple opponents, his options are far more limited (as they should be) unless he can find a defensible position - he can't be in the way of multiple opponents at once, and in that situation he's more or less forced either into all out defence (Block) or all out attack.

 

*This, on the other hand, is a house rule, though it's one which is widely used: I don't allow characters to actually move through another object or creature (unless they are desolid) without either an acrobatics roll to go over/under/around or some way to physically displace them. I'd be in favour of a clarification in the rules which states this explicitly, though it might also be seen as one of those things which is so obvious that it need not be stated.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Hello again!

Been reading through the posts and a couple of comments:

 

1. I think we have to assume that both combatants are aware of the Hero combat rules, because otherwise we have to rely on role playing the situation. You may not think that is a bad thing, but it leads to the conclusion that what you do is combat is limited by your personality rather than the rules. We have to assume that the Knight knows how big an area he can cover and the orc knows if the Knight has attacked this phase, otherwise you remove the tactical element of combat which, like it or not, is based on (at least in part) the rules. Yes that is a bit meta, but it also seems necessary. Similarly characters should ‘know’ their own Hero stats, as you really can not legislate against that anyway.

 

2. I do not think that we can or should assume that the protagonists know each other’s capabilities – that seems a bit too meta.

 

3. I’m sure no one wants an automatic success or automatic failure rule: each party has to have a chance to succeed or fail.

 

4. The original question was about breaking off whilst in melee combat, or, as I chose to phrase it ‘passing’. In my experience, if you are involved in some sort of melee combat (not that I have an enormous amount of experience) then it is not easy to break away. It is certainly easier to jump backwards (hoping you do not trip and the opponent does not press) but it is really quite difficult to get past someone if they do not want you to, because in reality you do not take turns, you both move at the same time. The rules in DnD and other games reflect that reality rather than create an artificial one.

5. It is perfectly possible that the ‘covering an area’ and interposing rules DO cover the situation adequately, but it is always good to talk these things through.

 

6. The examples were supposed to explain my concerns. That worked out well.

 

7. There are a couple of points I might make here though.

 

8. It seems to me that the ‘covering an area’ rule allows the Knight to cover an area of 3m radius, which makes it easier to hit anything trying to pass through that area, but trades that off against staying put, as that is what the held action is used for. I am assuming that if no one enters the area you can continue to hold that action and continue covering the area.

9. This allows you to walk around the Knight (or run) – space allowing – as you have to cover about 11 metres. That is a full move for most characters, but does mean you can do a FMove attack at the end of it. If the Knight does not cover the area but just holds his action, he can half move and attack (at full DCV) and therefore ‘cover’ an 8m radius (6m half move and 2m weapon reach). That seems a reasonable trade off.

 

10. The orc could move in and attack the character, retaining full DCV. The character then has to either counter attack (using up his held action) or continue to hold – which is a losing game, unless he actually has a SPD advantage (and remember 2.2 above – they do not know each other’s capabilities). The Knight’s best bet is to let the orc attack and hope it misses, THEN counterattack: he knows that he is SPD 4, and it is unlikely that the orc has a higher SPD, and he will just have to hope that the orc’s DEX is lower. The reason for this is that if the orc charges in and the Knight gets first strike, there is nothing THEN to stop the orc simply ignoring him and going to cover or attack PP.

 

11. If there are two orcs then the GM might allow you to ‘multi-attack’. This will only work if the orcs attack in the same phase. If one attacks or tries to pass and the second one delays a phase, the Knight has got nothing: he is not holding an action, and multi-attacks have to take place in the same phase. This may seem realistic, but I’m not so sure. Most people don’t commit to an attack to such an extent that everything else goes away. That seems unfortunate. It would be nice if you could continue your action, as you can with blocking, or the Knight has no chance at all of protecting PP against two opponents, unless they chose to take him down first.

 

12. Whilst I said you should not simply rely on role playing, the problem with combat in a game is that the worst that happens is you have to create a new character. in actual combat, most people value their skins enough to not expose themselves to more danger than necessary, so it might be a thought to have some sort of EGO roll to ignore an antagonistic character in your way.

 

13. We have been assuming that the orc is inferior to the Knight, and I did that just to make a point, but if the Knight and attacker are of similar ability, all this becomes even more difficult. If the attacker has a DEX advantage, there would seem to be nothing the Knight can do at all to stop the attacker simply walking past and menacing PP. That dos seem to be a problem, but I'm not sure what we can do about it, other than possibly allow an abort to covering an area - but that seems like quite a step.

[Netzilla]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

For the most part, Sean, I agree with what you wrote. There are a couple minor quibbles and clarifications, but take anything snipped as agreed with.

 

Hello again!

4. The original question was about breaking off whilst in melee combat, or, as I chose to phrase it ‘passing’. In my experience, if you are involved in some sort of melee combat (not that I have an enormous amount of experience) then it is not easy to break away. It is certainly easier to jump backwards (hoping you do not trip and the opponent does not press) but it is really quite difficult to get past someone if they do not want you to, because in reality you do not take turns, you both move at the same time. The rules in DnD and other games reflect that reality rather than create an artificial one.

 

In general, I agree with this statement given the caveat that the defending party is actively working to stop the other from passing. There are reasons that fighters tend to circle each-other when fighting "in the round". Part of that is because it's not really that easy to stop someone's lateral movement around you so you have to turn in response to keep them in front. You can try to 'cut them off' but that requires conscious effort on your part.

 

10. The orc could move in and attack the character, retaining full DCV. The character then has to either counter attack (using up his held action) or continue to hold – which is a losing game, unless he actually has a SPD advantage (and remember 2.2 above – they do not know each other’s capabilities). The Knight’s best bet is to let the orc attack and hope it misses, THEN counterattack: he knows that he is SPD 4, and it is unlikely that the orc has a higher SPD, and he will just have to hope that the orc’s DEX is lower. The reason for this is that if the orc charges in and the Knight gets first strike, there is nothing THEN to stop the orc simply ignoring him and going to cover or attack PP.

 

A couple of points on this. First, the knight doesn't have to have a SPD advantage if he knows help is on the way. That's one scenario where delaying the orc works in the knight's favor. Second, the knight can hold until he sees the orc actually commit to an attack, not just move. Game-mechanically, as soon as the orc declares the attack on the knight, the knight uses his held action to try an interrupt. The orc is already committed and cannot change its action at this point. If the knight chooses to try to attack first (strike, push, whatever), it's a DEX roll-off. If the knight chooses to Block or Dodge, the orc attack has to deal with that defense. Either way, the knight has succeeded in keeping the orc's attention on himself rather than on the princess.

 

11. If there are two orcs then the GM might allow you to ‘multi-attack’. This will only work if the orcs attack in the same phase. If one attacks or tries to pass and the second one delays a phase, the Knight has got nothing: he is not holding an action, and multi-attacks have to take place in the same phase. This may seem realistic, but I’m not so sure. Most people don’t commit to an attack to such an extent that everything else goes away. That seems unfortunate. It would be nice if you could continue your action, as you can with blocking, or the Knight has no chance at all of protecting PP against two opponents, unless they chose to take him down first.

 

Minor quibble: Segment, not Phase. You were clear in what you meant but it's a bit of a pet-peeve of mine when discussing the Hero System and I just failed my roll to resist my Psychological Complication: Pedantic.

 

12. Whilst I said you should not simply rely on role playing, the problem with combat in a game is that the worst that happens is you have to create a new character. in actual combat, most people value their skins enough to not expose themselves to more danger than necessary, so it might be a thought to have some sort of EGO roll to ignore an antagonistic character in your way.

 

Yep, one house-rule I GM by that doesn't affect the players often is EGO Rolls as Moral. This most commonly applies to mooks. Typically if their side is getting trounced, I'll have them start making EGO Rolls to resist running away (properly modified by Psych Comps like Cowardly or Fanatical, etc). The only time I have PCs or major NPCs make such rolls are for apparently suicidal things and that is somewhat genre dependent. A superhero sacrificing himself by flying the bomb to a safe distance form the city is pretty well a given assuming he doesn't have a conflicting Psych Comp. A Sword-and-Sorcery thief throwing himself into the path of sorcerous fire to protect a random townsperson is a bit less certain.

 

13. We have been assuming that the orc is inferior to the Knight, and I did that just to make a point, but if the Knight and attacker are of similar ability, all this becomes even more difficult. If the attacker has a DEX advantage, there would seem to be nothing the Knight can do at all to stop the attacker simply walking past and menacing PP. That dos seem to be a problem, but I'm not sure what we can do about it, other than possibly allow an abort to covering an area - but that seems like quite a step.

 

The knight can still abort to Block if the princess is in reach. If she's not, he can abort to Dive in the Way and take the hit himself.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Unless he can keep the orc focused on him rather than going for the non-com. I'm really not convinced that the kamikaze orc should be the default assumption. Generally' date=' if outclassed, the weaker foe will focus on defense and try to get away. If there's a hostage conveniently handy, he'll take it but having someone trying to kill you in between you and the hostage isn't "conveniently handy". Thus, 'the better part of valor' seems the smart play.[/quote']

 

I don't think this is Kamikaze Orc. I think the Orc recognizes going toe to toe with the Knight will end badly for him. If he and the Knight have the same movement speed, what are the odds the PC Knight will let the Orc escape (and maybe bring back reinforcements and/or set an ambush) rather than chase it and kill it? If the Orc surrenders, what is the likely result? So the Orc concludes its best option is to threaten the Princess - even if that carries a risk if the Knight is actively defending.

 

Experience. I assume this isn't his first sword-fight and he has a decent idea of his own reach. Most people tend to learn that within the first month of training.

 

I'd suggest the Orc should have similar knowledge of his own capabilities. And I don't think most people know precisely how much ground they can cover in 2 seconds, or exactly how far they can reach or throw something. We're spoiled by the hexes we can count. That said, they can approximate fairly well, and more experience means better approximations.

 

Have these two fought each other before?

 

Do Knights know nothing about Orcs, and Orcs know nothing about Knights? Somewhere between reading each other's character sheets and complete mystery lies their actual and perceived knowledge.

 

Actually' date=' in that situation, if he's not a fanatic he [b']should [/b]try to get away.

 

Absolutely - and I think if that option is presented, the orc who would otherwise make a desperation play for the Princess should run. Is that option available, or will the Knight chase him down (in the orc's mind, whoch is probably more relevant to his decision than any actual intent of the knight). What do knights normally do when confronted with Orcs?

 

I did state that they were "simultaneous enough". If they're all going to move in on the same DEX' date=' that's as close as Hero gets to simultaneous without a tied DEX Roll-off. To me, that is "simultaneous enough". It may not be for you, but I really don't think I'm out in left-field here. After all, the rules for Multi-Attack only stipulate that all attacks occur in the same Segment, not at the same DEX (6E2 78; thanks MarkDoc). I suspect it was worded that way on purpose. After all, how else would you model a single person standing in a corridor cutting down multiple charging foes as they come into reach?[/quote']

 

I don't believe anything in MPA allows the character to attack in HTH when a number of characters not all in HTH range attack him. We also have to read the Guard an Area rules, which state:

 

If anyone moves into or through that area, the character may use his Held Action to attack that character, who only has ½ DCV against the attack. (Of course, making that attack uses up the character’s Held

Action, so someone else could then move through the guarded area without risk.)

 

It doesn't say "you could instead choose a multiple attack to attack each creature passing through the area in sequence". As such, I don't believe assuming a multiple attack is a viable option in this situation is automatic. It is an interpretation of the combination of a caution sign optional rule and a caution sign combat maneuver. I agree it's one viable interpretation. I do not agree it's the only one.

 

Why does the +1m reach require the knight to lunge? An axe is a medium weapon' date=' thus giving it +1m reach, and you're certainly not going to be lunging with that (6E2 201 & 6E2 204).[/quote']

 

Sorry, I must have been unclear. I'm referring to the +1m provided by the Guard an Area choice itself. The Knight can guard a 2 meter area, when his reach would typically be 1 meter. That medium weapon adds another meter, so he can guard an area 3 meters in radius when he could normally only attack a target 2 meters away. It's the additional meter provided by Guard an Area that I interpret as a lunge to get to the extreme edge of the guarded area. It seems a bit over the top to suggest the Knight can attack targets 3 meters away in three different directions when he could normally only reach targets 2 meters away. If the Orcs are all within 2 meters, except one that's 3 meters away, I'd give that to the Knight and let him have one lunge.

 

Thus' date=' in my opinion, the mechanics need to take a back seat to common and dramatic sense, even if you do require all attacks from a Multi-Attack to occur in the same DEX.[/quote']

 

But many posters suggest common and dramatic sense oppose "the orc can walk by with no chance of failure as long as the Knight does not have an action available to stop him".

 

There's that perception of the situation difference again. I say "slip past" and you say "breeze right past". Those really don't seem to be describing the same thing to me.

 

Again, "slip past" implies "chance of failure" and "breeze past" implies "cannot fail". That's the perceptual; difference, IMO.

 

Let's make sure we're talking about the same situation...

 

 

1. The knight attacks and misses.

2. The orc takes advantage of the knight's need to recover from the swing to side-step and slip past the knight so he can make a run for it.

 

Why can't the orc take advantage of the knight's need to recover from the swing to make a counterattack with an enhanced likelihood of success? Nothing else in the rules imposes any disadvantage on a character whose attack has missed, other than the fact that he missed. As such, I don't see it reasonable to assert the knight is disadvantaged/off balance due to the missed attack.

 

One of the problems I have with the suggestion of such a mechanic is consideration of the space involved. Using the classic 2m hex' date=' each participant can be anywhere within their own 2m hex. So, they can be close enough to kiss or nearly 4m (13 feet) apart. That's a lot of room to maneuver in. When the knight swings, I would assume that, due to the area in which the swing occurs, that the orc is probably 3-6 feet away to start with (split the difference and call it 4). As part of his normal DCV, when he slips the attack, he can easily gain another 2 feet in a single step (actually 3 feet may be more likely but we'll call it 2). Now, as his actual action, he slips past the knight in order to run for it. He's already starting with 6 feet of separation (middle hex to middle hex). How is he going to trip over the knight in this situation? Keep in mind that the knight is still recovering from having just made an attack of his own and his momentum is carrying him forward, so unless the orc has been moving straight back (which skilled and experienced combatants try not to do for this very reason), the knight will have to shift momentum and change direction to stop the orc from slipping past.[/quote']

 

This assumes that dodging the knight's attack while moving towards the knight was viable. If the Orc was moving sideways and/or backwards to avoid being struck, he also needs to shift his momentum. Why is it so much easier for him to do so?

 

I'd suggest reading the rules on multiple attack. It's certainly not a house rule' date=' and the fact that actions can be spread out over different locations and DEX order, and where the player can (and cannot) choose the order of attack is discussed both explicitly and at length.[/quote']

 

The character must use a full phase so he cannot move significantly. He has to accept the range of the targets as he finds it. Unless all targets are within his HTH range, he cannot attack them all.

 

There is nothing in the rules that prevents the Knight from doing exactly this. With a delayed action' date=' he can choose to move, forcing the orc to either go around him, or try to pass through his hex (or whatever we call it these days) which will generally require a skill roll or an attack*.[/quote']

 

House rule - nothing says Orc can't change direction and bypass the Knight. He also needs an opposed DEX roll to interrupt the Orc's action, IIRC. He may "interpose" to a point Orc already passed if he's not successful.

 

*This' date=' on the other hand, is a house rule, though it's one which is widely used: I don't allow characters to actually move [i']through[/i] another object or creature (unless they are desolid) without either an acrobatics roll to go over/under/around or some way to physically displace them. I'd be in favour of a clarification in the rules which states this explicitly, though it might also be seen as one of those things which is so obvious that it need not be stated.

 

A rule that allows the character passed to force some kind of skill roll or be blocked from passage/required to displace the blocker/potentially take an attack from the blocker seems like a rules change that would resolve the issue. But it would be a rules change.

[Markdoc]

Re: Facing and Passing

 

The character must use a full phase so he cannot move significantly. He has to accept the range of the targets as he finds it. Unless all targets are within his HTH range' date=' he cannot attack them all.[/quote']

 

True ... up to a point. As noted, if they are coming to him, he can whack them one after the other. Where they start their move is irrelevant and they explicitly do not need to be in HTH range at the time he initiates the attack - only during that segment (if of course he has a knife to throw or can scavenge a weapon, they don't need to be in HTH range at all: the rules give an explicit example of "grab knife off one target, stab second target, throw it at 3rd target"). And of course the knight can move too - up to a full move - if he uses move through/by. All of this is covered explicitly in the rules and examples given.

 

 

House rule - nothing says Orc can't change direction and bypass the Knight. He also needs an opposed DEX roll to interrupt the Orc's action' date=' IIRC. He may "interpose" to a point Orc already passed if he's not successful.[/quote']

 

Absolutely! If the knight steps into the orc's path, I would assume that he would try to go round him, and that this lateral movement would continue. That is in fact, exactly what happens in real life - a circling movement around the defended area. And yes, there would be a Dex-off (I assumed that was obvious: my bad). Again, this is as it should be - I'm not interested in granting either orc or knight automatic success, when it comes to opposed actions. And yes, the orc might in fact "get ahead" of the knight if he's fast enough ... but then he has turned his back on a foe, which could have nasty consequences.

 

So it's not impossible for orc to bypass knight (in my opinion it shouldn't be). It's not even really hard - just very dangerous. This sounds like everything is working exactly as it should.

 

A rule that allows the character passed to force some kind of skill roll or be blocked from passage/required to displace the blocker/potentially take an attack from the blocker seems like a rules change that would resolve the issue. But it would be a rules change.

 

Allowing an attack (outside the normal sequence of actions) would certainly be a rules change, but it's not what I am advocating or what I'd want to see.

 

What I was suggesting is that that one character cannot move through the space actually occupied by another character, without either forcing him out of the way or somehow dodging over/past. So in other words, for orc to get to the princess, the orc has to go around the knight or knock him out of the way: he can't actually go through him. That might seem like it's patently obvious (it certainly does to me), but it is not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules. Hence the "house rule" tag. The bit about using acrobatics to bypass an obstacle is already in the rules, and has already been mentioned in the thread - I'm just assuming that "obstacles" includes people who don't want to let you pass.

 

cheers, Mark