Re: Mechanical discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

In this particular case, the option of using maneuver is very likely to succeed for Jon.

My thoughts in general need not be repeated.

As a sidenote, this is not the SA rule, that one allowed for "
tactical retreating"
.

[Kevan Lyras]

Is the option to move 1 yard to avoid a free attack at least in play (per p. 175)? That might salvage matters for me.

Very much hope so. If one uses one of his two lesser actions to just step away from an opponentand then moves with the other lesser action, it should be possible to disengage an enemy...?

Regarding your comment, Jon, about effdctively being defeated in the very first round: Look at Yoren, he had the exact same problem. I fear tbis is just one of the system...

[Jon Cobb]

What's the point in awaiting Reader's response if you are going to reject his adjudication when it's not what you wanted?

I assume that this is a rhetorical question, but since it's a valid one, I'll reply anyway and hope that Reader also takes the time to read and consider my answer.

Reader has indicated before that discussion on his house rules is okay and that he can be convinced to change them. Since I strongly disagree with his ruling and am not a fan of the house rule in the first place, I want to make an effort to do that. And since no one who has weighed in on the issue so far has declared themselves in favor of the rule, I don't see a groundswell of support for keeping it or applying it as broadly as Reader is doing.

The major reasons that I don't agree with Reader's ruling are that it shatters my sense of verisimilitude and it makes little mechanical sense. For instance:
1. It puts the character who is knocked down, and thus supposedly at a disadvantage in terms of mobility/range of action, in control of the fight. Being prone already allows you to attack with no penalty on your own turn, now it also allows you to control the movement of your opponent by giving you a free attack when he tries to disengage on his turn. Moreover, this attack always results in an above average success, so it has greater odds of doing serious damage than a rolled attack.

2. The combat system is already built so that it's far easier to boost one's offense than defense. Skilled combatants will often get 3-4 DoS against an average to decent CD. This is offset to a reasonable extent by allowing characters to take injuries, wounds and fatigue to stay in the fight longer. By adding free attacks and no easy options to disengage, these limited resources are placed under far greater strain. Every time I take fatigue or an injury, I'm also diminishing my combat effectiveness, so making a character use these resources more often - especially when they will only mitigate, not eliminate damage from a free attack - just hastens his or her demise.

3. Assume two characters have knocked each other down (a common occurrence), and one tries to get up using the Stand Up action. If movement directly away from a downed opponent by a standing opponent still allows him or her to get up on one knee and make an attack (again, with above average success guaranteed), why doesn't using the Stand Up action do the same? Is it really possible to get up so carefully next to your opponent that he can't throw a free parting shot your way? If the answer is yes, that's another nail in the coffin of my sense of verisimilitude. If no, then no one should ever bother getting up once knocked down, since Reader has also ruled that two prone characters both get the +1D against each other. There are no offensive downsides to being down, and getting up doesn't prevent your opponent from knocking you down again next round anyway, so standing up will often only be wasted effort.

4. Theo suggested that, in my current predicament, I could try using the Maneuver action. With my +1D for having knocked Dyana down, I now have a better than 50/50 chance of succeeding. The effect would be that, after having knocked her down and then struck her with an ordinary attack, this attack somehow also makes her move 1 yard away from me. Since Dyana is prone, that's a pretty impressive feat of arms, and while I will do it if no other option presents itself, it isn't helping my sense of versimilitude at all.

5. The rule assumes that people who are maneuvering in combat don't know what they're doing, and thus constantly exposing themselves to danger by moving. Reader initially stated that he wanted to use free attacks to stop things he felt were "
silly"
, and in the M7 thread he warned us to expect free attacks when:

...trying to mount while engaged in combat may provoke attacks because I'm a jerk

Free attacks were also alllowed against fleeing enemies (i.e. explicitly fleeing because Reader said that's what they were doing). None of these situations are, in my mind, equivalent to knocking your opponent flat on their backs and then stepping backwards away from them in a controlled fashion. But because of the free attacks rule, my combat veteran doesn't have the savvy to do so without exposing himself to as dangerous an attack as if he had turned tail to flee from an opponent who is on his feet and fully mobile. Again, it breaks my sense of verisimilitude.

In this particular case, the option of using maneuver is very likely to succeed for Jon.

Thanks Theo, that's a good, practical suggestion from a mechanical viewpoint. It still shouldn't be the best option for leaving combat with a foe you've just knocked over.

Regarding your comment, Jon, about effdctively being defeated in the very first round: Look at Yoren, he had the exact same problem. I fear tbis is just one of the system...

Not knowing either Yoren's CD, AR or Health, I can't comment, but I assume he took something in the region of 3-4 DoS at damage 9/DoS. That will certainly put a dent in you.

On the other hand, in Melee Group 3, Tyron Blackwood sucked up 3 DoS at damage 10/DoS, took 3 injuries and then unloaded on his opponent, taking 1 fatigue to negate his injuries and getting in 4 DoS at 6 damage/DoS (a very lucky result, sure, but even an average roll would have gotten him 3 DoS). Net result - Haig Bracken was himself forced to use both fatigue and injuries to avoid defeat, and is in much worse shape than it seemed he would be after his own turn, but neither was immediately defeated by the heavy blows they took.

Learning when to use fatigue, injuries and wounds to keep fighting fit is one of the intricacies of the system, and IMO it works quite well, but not if free attacks of above average success are being handed out whenever someone actually moves away from a fight. They are limited resources, and the system breaks down if you force a character to use them up much faster.

Reader, I hope you log on soon and that some of the above will sway you to reconsider.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Jon -

The arguments in your previous post seem to fall into three categories:
1) Points that were already argued in regard to this issue
2) Points about limited combat resources
3) Points about verisimilitude

Category one - these points do not need to be discussed, as Reader's post invalidates them - they have already been considered and rejected.

Category two - yes, we all have limited resources, and any time more attacks get added they will diminish faster. I see no problem here. It applies to everyone, so it is not any more unfair than anything else in the rules. All this rule does is change the tactical landscape. No one forces a free attack on anyone, you only suffer a free attack because you choose to.

Category three - your failure of imagination should not have a bearing on the rules. Consider the myriad ways that a simple attack gets described - yet they all use the same rules. This system necessarily must be abstract. How the abstract mechanics map onto a description of the world is necessarily somewhat fluid. You are envisioning knockdown a very specific way, but that is not the only option. Reader has supplied an alternative. Similarly with maneuver - it is not a brute force maneuver, so it is not necessarily shoving someone around. Ever seen a fight scene where someone is driven back by series of vicious attacks, none of which actually seem to do any damage, and in many cases don't even connect? That's a Maneuver action. In the context of a knockdown, have you never seen a movie in which a character is knocked to their hands and knees, then kicked and sent sprawling away? Knockdown then maneuver. Or how about the hero gets knocked flat, then narrowly avoids a massive attack by rolling away? Knockdown then maneuver (and when fully prone, at that). These are stock tropes of fighting scenes, whether in books, on stage, or on screen.

Please, I implore you - for the sake of keeping this game moving, please just accept the ruling and move on. At least for the duration of the melee. If you really want to keep rehashing this argument, fine... but don't hold the game hostage in the process. That is unkind to the rest of us. Please just revise your action and let's get group 1 moving again.

Side note, I was digging through the old FAQ for another reason and saw this - it's written in the context of advanced reach, but it applies to any time moving would cause a free attack.
Q) When using Free Attacks and Advanced Reach, how do you avoid a foe to get into reach? For example, a thug armed with a knife attacks a guard armed with a spear. Once the thug attacks, the guard has to move two or three yards backwards to attack, thus giving the guard a free attack.

A) Your best option is to use a Lesser Action to Maneuver the opponent (see 168) away from you. Alternatively, you might test Acrobatics against the opponent’s passive Fighting to negate the Free Attack when moving away. Or, you could just drop your spear and draw a Reach 0 weapon.

[Ser Jorah Holt]

Side note, I was digging through the old FAQ for another reason and saw this - it's written in the context of advanced reach, but it applies to any time moving would cause a free attack.
Q) When using Free Attacks and Advanced Reach, how do you avoid a foe to get into reach? For example, a thug armed with a knife attacks a guard armed with a spear. Once the thug attacks, the guard has to move two or three yards backwards to attack, thus giving the guard a free attack.

A) Your best option is to use a Lesser Action to Maneuver the opponent (see 168) away from you. Alternatively, you might test Acrobatics against the opponent’s passive Fighting to negate the Free Attack when moving away. Or, you could just drop your spear and draw a Reach 0 weapon.

basically that is like using tumble to avoid attacks of opportunity in D&
D.

Gives more emphasis on agilty as a stat, but as most of us have agilty 3 and facing fighting 5, probably not much use at the moment.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I was actually more thinking about Maneuver being the author's go-to 'best bet' for this sort of situation, but yes, that would add an additional option... albeit not a great one for most characters.
Knockdown does not even get a mention.

[Jon Cobb]

The arguments in your previous post seem to fall into three categories:
1) Points that were already argued in regard to this issue
2) Points about limited combat resources
3) Points about verisimilitude

Yep.

Category one - these points do not need to be discussed, as Reader's post invalidates them - they have already been considered and rejected.

If Reader wishes to show that he has considered and rejected them, he should adress them and explain his reasoning. Doing otherwise is rude and dismissive in my circles, and since I don't think Reader is either, I am inclined to believe that he has made a quick judgement call and simply not engaged with the points that were made. After all, he's a busy guy and hasn't shown up to post very often in the past few weeks.

Category two - yes, we all have limited resources, and any time more attacks get added they will diminish faster. I see no problem here. It applies to everyone, so it is not any more unfair than anything else in the rules. All this rule does is change the tactical landscape. No one forces a free attack on anyone, you only suffer a free attack because you choose to.

If this rule were not in place, no one would have to spend limited resources in this way, and that is far more preferable. Therefore it changes the tactical landscape in an undesirable manner (for everyone, not just me). Free attacks create a situation where you only have poor choices - suffer the free attack, or remain in combat and suffer an attack next turn. Options to negate or mitigate the free attacks as implemented by Reader are too few and too unreliable in most situations to be worth the effort.

Category three - your failure of imagination should not have a bearing on the rules

I've asked you before to refrain from personal attacks and mind reading, but you just don't seem to be able to do that. My imagination is fine, by the way, I just don't care to make it jump through hoops for a situation created by a house rule that I disagree with.

Side note, I was digging through the old FAQ for another reason and saw this - it's written in the context of advanced reach, but it applies to any time moving would cause a free attack.
Q) When using Free Attacks and Advanced Reach, how do you avoid a foe to get into reach? For example, a thug armed with a knife attacks a guard armed with a spear. Once the thug attacks, the guard has to move two or three yards backwards to attack, thus giving the guard a free attack.

A) Your best option is to use a Lesser Action to Maneuver the opponent (see 168) away from you. Alternatively, you might test Acrobatics against the opponent’s passive Fighting to negate the Free Attack when moving away. Or, you could just drop your spear and draw a Reach 0 weapon.

Which is probably why most groups I've played with or read about don't bother with the Free Attacks rule, even as published. Not a good argument for making an even broader Free Attacks rule.

That's all from me. If Reader hasn't responded by this evening, I'll revise my maneuver to let Dyana play out her actions and continue to hold out the hope that he'll change his position.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

To be honest, plenty of us not involved in that group are getting annoyed by this hold-up, though more annoyed by the constant arguing. Seriously, Jon, you write RP well, and I'm sure you're not a bad person IRL, but in this matter, it just seems like you're throwing a tantrum because you're not getting your way. Adversity is part of the game, and how one deals with it is more important than success. You're not nearly as in peril or being persecuted as you seem to think, so please stop being churlish and get on with the game before you put everyone off interacting with you completely.

[Jon Cobb]

To be honest, plenty of us not involved in that group are getting annoyed by this hold-up, though more annoyed by the constant arguing. Seriously, Jon, you write RP well, and I'm sure you're not a bad person IRL, but in this matter, it just seems like you're throwing a tantrum because you're not getting your way. Adversity is part of the game, and how one deals with it is more important than success. You're not nearly as in peril or being persecuted as you seem to think, so please stop being churlish and get on with the game before you put everyone off interacting with you completely.

Bolded part: Right back at you.

As for the rest, as with Baelon, I'll ask you to not try and tell me how I feel and how I'm experiencing things. And if "
plenty of us"
and "
everyone"
are having such problems with my actions, they're all welcome to let me know in person.

Finally, you'll be pleased to know that I've done as I wrote at the end of my post and edited my actions, since Reader is a no show.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

I'm not telling you how you feel. I was telling you how things seem from my point of view. As for the others, they have been telling you in person, including in this thread, but you do not seem to be listening. If you're not going to accept that, we can't help you.

I hope this will be the last time we have to spend a ridiculous amount of time fielding this absurd squabbling.

[Theomore Tullison]

Given how slow things goes at reader's end, I wouldn't go so far as to care much about holdups.

And while I am scratching my head about a rather long list of things, including two house rules previously debated that I believe should have been left in the "
things from SA best burned rather than recycled"
bin. I'm honestly preferring to accept that each and every narrator and player has their quirks and work as best I can to find my own enjoyment, and there's precious little to be found of that in irritating everyone by bringing up everything I disagree with.

If I ever get around to throw up something like this, you guys will have to play in accordance to my particular quirks, so it's only fair that I accept to play in accordance to reader's-

[Jon Cobb]

I'm not telling you how you feel. I was telling you how things seem from my point of view. As for the others, they have been telling you in person, including in this thread, but you do not seem to be listening. If you're not going to accept that, we can't help you.

As far as I can tell from reading from my OP, the "
others"
you refer consist of Baelon, and no one else.

I'm glad to hear that you're telling me how things seem from your point of view. Perhaps then you'll respect my right to do the same on a matter that I feel is important, instead of calling me churlish for standing by my opinion.

I hope this will be the last time we have to spend a ridiculous amount of time fielding this absurd squabbling.

I wouldn't count on it. This is the mechanical discussion thread. It exists to field and discuss rules questions, including house rules.

If I ever get around to throw up something like this, you guys will have to play in accordance to my particular quirks, so it's only fair that I accept to play in accordance to reader's-

That's a worthy stance, and I strive to do the same myself. But if the disconnect between my quirks and my narrator's quirks become too large, then I either have the choice of pointing out the problems I have with them, or accepting that their negative impact on my enjoyment of the game is so big, that I need to find myself another game. I find both viable options, but prefer to try the first option before going to the second.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Nevermind. It was foolish of me to engage at all. Enjoy your stubborn refusal to co-operate . If you were really only voicing your opinion, you'd have accepted Reader's ruling and shut up about the whole thing.

[Theomore Tullison]

To be frank, others have as much part as Jon in making this debate escalate is my observation, but let's not debate that, people can reflect on that statement for themselves.

Some of us are too stubborn (possibly myself included) to know when to stop, but in hindsight, it would be after this post, if you want the discussion to end, don't keep adding to it:
viewtopic.php?f=75&
t=109&
start=370#p27455

[Baelon Drakeson]

I've asked you before to refrain from personal attacks and mind reading, but you just don't seem to be able to do that.

I apologize, I had not meant that as a personal attack - it was intended as an attack against your verisimilitude arguments and not against you personally, but in hindsight I can see that the distinction was not explicit. Contrariwise, your personal attack is explicit, and is similarly unappreciated.

As for mind-reading, my statement is logically derivable from your previous statements. I could spell out in ridiculous detail the argument involved if you really want me to (it's what I get paid for these days), but I think that would be a waste of everyone's time.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Would someone give me a quick hand with the rules for standing up when knocked down? The book is confusing the hell out of me.

Is getting back to one's feet after a knockdown a greater or lesser action, and am I right in thinking it's rolled on Agility minus AP?

[Benedict Marsten]

Armor over AP 6 becomes a greater action or lesser action: agility test(AP applied) TN 9. Less than AR 6 is lesser action not roll.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Armor over AP 6 becomes a greater action or lesser action: agility test(AP applied) TN 9. Less than AR 6 is lesser action not roll.

Ta!

Oh, and does going to zero Health mean dead, or knocked out, in the context of the melee?

[Baelon Drakeson]

A slight expansion on Ben's explanation, in case it's clearer (I was in the midst of typing it when Ben posted...):

Normally, it is a lesser action to stand. However, if a character's AR is 6 or higher (before benefits), it is instead a greater action.
A TN 9 Agility(Acrobatics) check can reduce that by a lesser action. Remember that AR applies to the test.

Here's a chart, if it helps.

Code:

| AR <
6 | AR >
= 6 |
-----------|--------|---------|
Acrobatics | Free | Lesser |
-----------|--------|---------|
No Test | Lesser | Greater |
-----------|--------|---------|

Oh, and does going to zero Health mean dead, or knocked out, in the context of the melee?

Either, or something else. It means defeat, which is the same as in any combat: consequence up to the attacker.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

A slight expansion on Ben's explanation, in case it's clearer (I was in the midst of typing it when Ben posted...):

Normally, it is a lesser action to stand. However, if a character's AR is 6 or higher (before benefits), it is instead a greater action.
A TN 9 Agility(Acrobatics) check can reduce that by a lesser action. Remember that AR applies to the test.

Here's a chart, if it helps.

Code:

| AR <
6 | AR >
= 6 |
------------------|--------|---------|
Acrobatics passed | Free | Lesser |
------------------|--------|---------|
Acrobatics failed | Lesser | Greater |
------------------|--------|---------|

Oh, and does going to zero Health mean dead, or knocked out, in the context of the melee?

Either, or something else. It means defeat, which is the same as in any combat: consequence up to the attacker.

Super! Thanks! You were both very helpful!

[Baelon Drakeson]

Something Jon posted in melee group 1 reminded me - technically on must decide whether to attempt to fast stand first, so failing does not mean you take longer, it means you have wasted the action.
This may seem odd, but it is supposed to be an acrobatic jump-up, whereas the regular no test option is standing up the regular way.

I have edited my chart above to reflect this.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Ah, I see. Oh well, I know now.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Also, note that AP applies too... for most combatants in heavy armor it is not likely to succeed.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Also, note that AP applies too... for most combatants in heavy armor it is not likely to succeed.

Of course, thanks. I thought one had to roll to stand at all, so will fix my posts to reflect what I meant to do.

[Loreia]

In the corebook, it says that people who take injuries or wounds in the grand melee lose. What exactly does that entail in the context of the fight? Do we just keep on fighting until we knock each other out and let the spectators place us according to who took an injury from first to last, or are we expected to bow out when we've been hurt? I managed to land an injury on Hardyng, who decided to attack me again. Is this fine, or should we handwave it as an NPC's willful choice to be unsporting?

[Sponsored content]