Dragon Warriors

A discussion forum for the Dragon Warriors RPG and related works
It is currently Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:00 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:39 am 
Offline
10th Rank
10th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:17 pm
Posts: 1715
Profession: Barbarian
Simple mechanic would be Route equals full EVASION applied to your attack. No reason a person can't use full EVASION against a sword blow, you use it for falling masonry and everything else. You're dropping your guard but you're evading.

_________________
Speech!





And so the show begins!!!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dwp ... ssages/640


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:45 am 
Offline
7th Rank
7th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:25 pm
Posts: 445
Profession: Sorcerer
Starkad wrote:
Quote:
If a regular retreat gives full Defence (but not Attack, presumably...

The way I interpret it, a regular retreat is simply a "fighting withdrawal" - you can continue to strike back as you withdraw. The DW rules are quiet on this point: DW1, pg.41 "the retreating character, still defending normally"...
(Of course, if the terrain is difficult, a GM could rule that retreating impedes the character's ability to strike back.)

Personally, I have fought back quite effectively when retreating.* I would expect a trained fighter (or one with at least rudimentary combat skills) to be able to do the same. All it takes is a momentary stop, a strike, then resume the move.
* Yes, moving forward tends to be better... But sometimes the situation demands it.


Sounds reasonable, assuming the tactical situation allows it (specifically I wouldn't allow somebody retreating to attack on an enemy who isn't pursuing, even if that enemy begins the round in range, unless my retreat actually takes me past them; an attack en passant, if you will)

Can you describe the situations in which you have conducted a fighting retreat? I'm curious.

Starkad wrote:
Quote:
I think you should be able to do an "emergency withdrawal" with half Defence and half normal movement rate.

Possibly. To avoid added complication, I probably wouldn't... But I can see why a GM might allow it.


I don't think its very complicated. Three manouevres instead of two is worth it to make combat more interesting.

Cheers,

-Kyle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:46 am 
Offline
7th Rank
7th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:01 am
Posts: 320
Location: Albion
Profession: Priest
Quote:
I wouldn't allow somebody retreating to attack on an enemy who isn't pursuing, even if that enemy begins the round in range

You don't know they're not following up until it's their turn to act.

They way I run things,* is that I allow characters (and creatures) that are making a "fighting withdrawal" to do exactly that: fight. They get to strike if, at the point in the Combat Round where they get to act (i.e. their Initiative turn), their is an opponent withing reach. If the opponent has acted first and withdrawn out of reach, then the character (or creature) must either follow up and strike, or forego their attack.
* Not saying this is right - it's just the way I've done it.

This initiative rule does not apply to rout - where one combatant simply turns their back and run; that qualifies for an unopposed strike (if the opponent wishes to).

If nothing else, and remembering this is a game, allowing characters to strike while withdrawing gives them a reasonable chance of getting out of a combat they appear to be losing. Not allowing an attack would discourage such tactical considerations.

Quote:
Sounds reasonable, assuming the tactical situation allows it

That's the key to a lot of decisions in combat.

Quote:
Can you describe the situations in which you have conducted a fighting retreat? I'm curious.

Both in live role-playing (basically playfully hitting each other with rubber weapons) and competitively during stick-fighting (training and tournaments). In both cases the move is similar, it's the strength of the strike that's different (in live role-playing we're not trying to hurt each other). Basically you strike, then take an immediate step back (sometimes two if you can get away with it). In stick-fighting, I would aim a strike to the helmet or body at pretty much the same time as I'd move; it allows you to regain space when you've moved too close together (effectively regaining a proper fighting range) or to move out of the way to give yourself a second's rest...
(In live role-playing it can be less 'tactical' - just a sort of "shuffling back" to try to get back into a group so you can form an effective line against the Big Nasty.)

Quote:
I don't think its very complicated. Three manouevres instead of two is worth it to make combat more interesting.

I was thinking of the point made by Kharille when I typed that. If I allow half Defence for half Move, I can almost hear my players asking "can I move back a bit further if I drop my Defence a bit more?"

Limiting the available options to the three you describe isn't too bad and could work - so long as the players know these are the only effective options.

Fighting Withdrawal: full Attack & Defence, 1/4 Move back (essentially a "backwards shuffle" or a single step back)
Withdrawal: no Attack, 1/2 Defence, 1/2 Move (a proper retreat, but maintaining a guard)
Rout: no Attack, no Defence, full Move (turning your back and running away)

I'm still in two minds whether the "withdrawal" option might not be better covered by Kharille's suggestion regarding Evasion. After all, this is almost a duck & move option. Guard is maintained if opponent's follow up (assuming they have the Movement Rate to do so), but the character is effectively choosing to duck/weave out of the way as part of their retreat (which does sound like Evasion).
You could, of course, argue that ducking and weaving is all part of your Defence...

In the "Evasion" scenario, I would only allow a character to use Evasion against one opponent (it's very hard to duck out of the way of two or more). Thus a character facing multiple opponents would have to choose who to Evade (or simply to shuffle back). In game terms this ensures the character (or creature) doesn't get their full Evasion against more than one opponent - which would be a distinct advantage compared to splitting your Defence and withdrawing. Evasion is usually comparatively low, so allowing splitting Evasion is probably not worthwhile anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:05 am 
Offline
10th Rank
10th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:17 pm
Posts: 1715
Profession: Barbarian
EVASION is much lower than DEFENCE, except in the case of assassins and barbarians. I'd say that EVASION should be applied to all attacks despite their origins. So if 6 people throw javelins at him, you'd apply your full EVASION against all attacks. Powerful move maybe, but I think barbarians could do with some empowerment.

There is a shooting rule 'moving quickly' but I wonder whether that is open to definition. I think halflings walk 10m and run at 25m. And how does a running elf compare with a running human? Perhaps a variation is +1 difficulty to shooting for every 5m. An elf which 'remains' in the same spot is 'moving' in the same spot 25m. Elves run at 25m a round right?

_________________
Speech!





And so the show begins!!!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dwp ... ssages/640


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:30 am 
Offline
7th Rank
7th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:01 am
Posts: 320
Location: Albion
Profession: Priest
Quote:
So if 6 people throw javelins at him, you'd apply your full EVASION against all attacks.

Yes, because that's missile fire - which is treated in a different way to mélée combat.

Using EVASION to retreat out of mélée is a quite different prospect - with opponents in close proximity.
(In that case, they'd be using their javelins as short spears rather than throwing them.)

Quote:
There is a shooting rule 'moving quickly' but I wonder whether that is open to definition.

I'm not sure it needs to be. It's not just about speed, but also ducking and weaving, not moving in a straight line, etc.
Adding rules for the amount of speed (consider horses and riders) and this becomes quite... tricky.
Best leave it to a GM call IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group