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 If the opponent has acted first and withdrawn out of reach, then the character (or creature) must either follow up and strike, or forego their attack.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.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
