Topic: Newbie question on combat
Started by: nsruf
Started on: 2/24/2004
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 2/24/2004 at 11:58am, nsruf wrote:
Newbie question on combat
Hi all!
I finally picked up TROS last weekend, after lurking here for a while to see what the game is all about. And it seems to be a much better fit for classical sword & sorcery games than D&D/d20, something I have been looking for for a while.
But now I have a question for which I couldn't find the answer browsing the forum. Maybe I am looking at this all wrong, coming from a d20 mindset, but how exactly do you handle action declaration and resolution in combat with mutliple opponents using different modes of combat (i.e. melee, missile, sorcery, plus other maneuvers)?
The rules present each mode of combat separately, with little or no reference to the other modes. So do you use the melee sequence for all actions/combatants, or only after combatants are paired up, and then separately for each melee? My impression is that it should be the latter. But then, how do you decide who gets to engage whom?
And should actions (e.g. engage in melee, cast a spell, etc.) be declared simultaneously, in order of reflex, etc.? For conflicting actions, which take precedence? Basing all this on ad-hoc GM decisions seems tedious, since it is going to come up so often - or am I mislead by my expectations from playing d20 games?
Maybe somebody did write up a combat example dealing with this, and I haven't found it. Those I have found usually deal with melee only, and most of the time with one-on-one engagements. If there is no such example, I'd be willing to write one and put it up for "review" here, as I think this would be really useful for learning the game.
On 2/24/2004 at 5:57pm, Salamander wrote:
Re: Newbie question on combat
nsruf wrote: Hi all!
I finally picked up TROS last weekend, after lurking here for a while to see what the game is all about. And it seems to be a much better fit for classical sword & sorcery games than D&D/d20, something I have been looking for for a while.
I feel it is a better product for certain concepts of gaming. There are some styles that D&D/d20 will fit better. Those concepts, however are not those I participate in.
But now I have a question for which I couldn't find the answer browsing the forum. Maybe I am looking at this all wrong, coming from a d20 mindset, but how exactly do you handle action declaration and resolution in combat with mutliple opponents using different modes of combat (i.e. melee, missile, sorcery, plus other maneuvers)?
Hmmm... interesting question. Let's look at it as we go along, shall we?
The rules present each mode of combat separately, with little or no reference to the other modes. So do you use the melee sequence for all actions/combatants, or only after combatants are paired up, and then separately for each melee? My impression is that it should be the latter. But then, how do you decide who gets to engage whom?
I sadly, do not see this as a problem, for while it is not mentioned specifically how it is supposed to be done, it can be inferred after you run a few test sessions and get the feel of the system.
Engagement is done entirely on an individual meets individual basis and is one of the more important places for the players and Senechal to employ thier common sense and sense of disposition of the actors in the fight. You engage who it makes sense for your character to engage, within the limits of their ability.
And should actions (e.g. engage in melee, cast a spell, etc.) be declared simultaneously, in order of reflex, etc.? For conflicting actions, which take precedence? Basing all this on ad-hoc GM decisions seems tedious, since it is going to come up so often - or am I mislead by my expectations from playing d20 games?
In TRoS you have a different intiative system. You declare what stance you wish to use, or preparing to cast a spell or just stand ready, or what have you. Then you throw your dice.... All of the actors throw their dice, red or white. Then it all comes down to the seconds. If a player wants to fire a crossbow, but he will not have very many dice at the beginning of the round and the guy he is facing is wielding a melee weapon, well... it is all up to them to decide what they are doing. If the guy with the crossbow decides to fire, he could risk wasting the shot as he may not have enough dice in the pool, but if he waits 'till next round the other guy might be able to get him, or get behind cover and so on...
All the while your friend the Mage will be trying to get off that spell before the enemy bowman shoots him. Three second spells have never seemed slower then when you are faced with a bowman liningup a shot on you... Basically, common sense and the exchanges are what you can use. If you go with a one second duration for the exchanges, it all works out pretty smoothly.
Maybe somebody did write up a combat example dealing with this, and I haven't found it. Those I have found usually deal with melee only, and most of the time with one-on-one engagements. If there is no such example, I'd be willing to write one and put it up for "review" here, as I think this would be really useful for learning the game.
Also, it is important to note that you can most often do a couple of exchanges for each PC and then move to the next participant and do his actions in turn. This helps keep it fast and even a little confusing and scary for the PC.
On 2/25/2004 at 10:27am, nsruf wrote:
RE: Re: Newbie question on combat
Thanks for answering.
Salamander wrote:
I sadly, do not see this as a problem, for while it is not mentioned specifically how it is supposed to be done, it can be inferred after you run a few test sessions and get the feel of the system.
TROS is the first RPG I have seen that has a detailed combat system but does not establish a common initiative order for all combatants. So my "problem" is probably only one of perception. Let's see.
Engagement is done entirely on an individual meets individual basis and is one of the more important places for the players and Senechal to employ thier common sense and sense of disposition of the actors in the fight. You engage who it makes sense for your character to engage, within the limits of their ability.
...
In TRoS you have a different intiative system. You declare what stance you wish to use, or preparing to cast a spell or just stand ready, or what have you.
So how would you resolve conflicting declarations? Let's say a swordsman and an archer encounter a Gol at short distance. The Gol wants to charge the archer, and the swordsman wants to intercept the Gol and give his buddy time to shoot the Gol. If I understand it correctly, if the Gol is faster, he ends up in a melee with both characters, but if the swordsman is faster, the archer would not be part of the melee.
My questions would be
a) Who declares first, or do you declare "simultaneously", with no possibility to react to your opponent's action on the same round.
b) How to decide whether the swordsman succesfully intercepts the Gol?
Then you throw your dice.... All of the actors throw their dice, red or white.
So a sorcerer wanting to cast a spell throws red? I ask because I have seen at least one thread discussing whether/how to dodge while casting, which would imply that a sorcerer can throw white and still cast.
Also, it is important to note that you can most often do a couple of exchanges for each PC and then move to the next participant and do his actions in turn. This helps keep it fast and even a little confusing and scary for the PC.
That appears to work for individual melees, although it might seem unfair if your buddy finishes of his opponent in a single exchange and then you have to fight your opponent for 3 or 4 exchanges before you can team up. I don't see how this would work with archers or sorcerers outside the fray waiting for an opportunity to fire.
I'll definitely run a few mock combats next, and see how things work out.
On 2/25/2004 at 1:24pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
So how would you resolve conflicting declarations? Let's say a swordsman and an archer encounter a Gol at short distance. The Gol wants to charge the archer, and the swordsman wants to intercept the Gol and give his buddy time to shoot the Gol. If I understand it correctly, if the Gol is faster, he ends up in a melee with both characters, but if the swordsman is faster, the archer would not be part of the melee.
My questions would be
a) Who declares first, or do you declare "simultaneously", with no possibility to react to your opponent's action on the same round.
From page 74:
Step 1: All parties declare Aggressive/Defensive/Neutral Stance, openly and simultaneously. . (errata clarification: this is in no particular order but can be free changed and switched many times until all players are satisfied).
I don't know if Gol use stances, and I don't think they cover archery either. (house rule clarification: the rules on archery do MP refreshing as soon as the weapon is in position. Bring the weapon into position is thus likely the missile equivelent of Stance).
Step 2: Simultaneous Red/White. The Red/White dice are used to determine who is attacking and who is defending, which is seperate from Stance. Bonus or penalties are assessed depending on how the Red/White declaration matches stance.
(house rule clarification: the rules don't help much with integrating missile fire with melee. Missile fire consists of "prep time", exchanges spent refreshing, and then finally shooting. These are not mapped to Red/White dice, even though page 74 says "all combatants" throw the dice. For my purposes, prep time and aiming count as White Dice and allow the archer to abort his Missile Pool and make an evasion defense. Red die is used if the archer is completely ready to release when combat begins).
Page 86 indicates that moving feet equal to move score constitues a Charge which is treated like an Offensive Stance and moving 1/2 Move score is the minimum movement. (house rule clarification: "Treated like an Offensive Stance" is confusing since Offensive and Defensive Stances have already been declared. I interpret this to mean that any combatant who is in an offensive stance can charge, those in defensive stances can not. Of course, once combat is engaged, and the initial stances no longer count, the "treated as" comes in to play.
I also find the movement rules less than clear. Combatants must move at least 1/2 their move, and if they move their full move its a Charge. No guidance is given for moving between these numbers. My house interpretation is that 3/4 is a natural dividing line. Anything over 3/4 is a Charge, 1/2-3/4 is not.)
From this we can surmise that the Gol will likely be in an offensive stance so he can charge the archer. The swordsman could be in either stance depending on his position relative to the Gol and where he'd like to intercept.
The Gol will then almost certainly be dropping a Red die, the swordsman (needing all the dice he can get to go toe to toe with a Gol, will almost certainly drop the die that matches his stance. The Archer whose bow is presumeably not yet ready to fire) will be dropping white.
Step 3: In reverse reflex order any combatants who dropped red dice declare how many dice they are using to attack.
(house rule clarification: I would expand the definition of "aggressor" beyond those who dropped red dice to include anyone who is doing anything other than waiting to recieve an opponent's attack.
Therefor, we know the Gol has dropped red, but I would also require the swordsman to announce his intention to intercept (even if he dropped white) and the archer to announce his intention to prepare his bow).)
This goes in low to high Reflex declaring the number of dice. When its the archer's turn to announce, he will declare how many dice he is refreshing with (presumeably max). When its the swordsman turn to announce he will declare how many dice he is dedicating to a Terrain Roll to intercept the gol. The gol will announce who it is chargeing after.
Note this means, that if the gol has a higher reflex, the swordsman will have declared his Terrain Roll dice first. If the gol than just says "fine I'll charge the swordsman" the Terrain Roll dice are essentially wasted since they weren't necessary (or one could view them as being automatically successful since they caused the desired result anyway).
If the swordsman had higher reflexes and the gol declared first that he was charging the swordsman, then the swordsman does not need to declare Terrain Dice. He instead declares attack dice (if he threw red) or declares nothing (if he threw white).
b) How to decide whether the swordsman succesfully intercepts the Gol?
Step 4: Use Terrain Rolls to determine the interception. The swordsman will have to make a terrain roll to intercept the Gol. If the gol has decided to charge the swordsman, then the gol doesn't need to make the roll and any dice declared by the swordsman aren't really necessary since the two both willingly come at each other.
If the Gol declared against the archer, then the Gol may make one to make the swordsman's interception more difficult, or he may just let the swordsman's roll results determine events.
The Terrain Roll would be based on prevailing terrain. The swordsman would use the "normal" column if he threw white, the "hurried" column if he threw red, or the "sprinting" column if he threw red and charged. If the gol makes a roll than he is likely using the "sprinting" column as he almost certainly is charging.
If the swordsman makes the Terrain roll and the gol didn't make one, or if the gol did but the swordsman rolled more successes, then the swordsman has successfully intercepted the gol.
If the swordsman failed, or succeeded but the gol rolled more successes, than the gol has avoided the swordsman and closed with the archer. The swordsman's turn is essentially wasted, although he could try again next exchange
how's that?
On 2/25/2004 at 4:18pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
how's that?
Confused me! LOL
So how would you resolve conflicting declarations? Let's say a swordsman and an archer encounter a Gol at short distance. The Gol wants to charge the archer, and the swordsman wants to intercept the Gol and give his buddy time to shoot the Gol. If I understand it correctly, if the Gol is faster, he ends up in a melee with both characters, but if the swordsman is faster, the archer would not be part of the melee.
You're starting off right. Much of TROS positioning is not standard wargame carry-over, but rather take it from fiction, movies, etc. Things are pretty fluid, here, and we leave "drama," or GM fiat and GM/player consensus to nail a lot of things down. This may be foreign at first, but you'll probably find you like it a lot. Just remember to avoid the my-turn-you-turn mentality and "going around the table."
a) Who declares first, or do you declare "simultaneously", with no possibility to react to your opponent's action on the same round.
Declarations are generally made in order of lowest-to-highest reflex.
The Gol's stance is "charging," which acts as an offensive stance (p. 86).
The Archer is in prep-time, which should be pre-figured. Is his arrow allready drawn, or is he reaching for it from his quiver or the ground? Let's pretend for now that the archer had the arrow in his hand, but not yet knocked and drawn. That, with a short bow, gives him 2 seconds of prep time. Each round is about 2 seconds, so each exchange is about one second. The archer's MP will start filling at the beginning of the second round, meaning that he can fire with his Wit/MP at the beginning of the second round, or he can aim longer to fill his MP.
The swordsman is trying to intercept the Gol. This is pretty clearly a terrain roll contest to me, unless we agreed with the players that interception won't be a problem (see how that works?). We also need to know if the swordsman is an aggressive, defensive, or neutral stance--which really just depends on whether or not he's intercepting with an attack or intercepting with a defense. Since the Gol is aggressive here (charging), the swordsman really needs to decide if he wants to risk the double-kill by going offensive at the same time. So we'll assume he decides to go defensive.
We can skip the red-white die phase altogether, because we allready know what's going on. The Archer is preparing (no red-white), the swordsman is white, the Gol is red, and we don't need to suprise each other with this. This isn't a circling situation.
Now, assuming the swordsman intercepts, and survives long enough for the archer to get a shot off...
b) How to decide whether the swordsman succesfully intercepts the Gol?
One of three ways.
First, does everyone at the table (or just the GM) think that there's no problem right there. Alternately, does the Gol care (will he try to avoid interception or barrel through it?). Lastly, if using minatures (I never do), is the swordsman reasonably in range to make interception almost guaranteed?
Second, roll a contest of Move, as in the rules from Chap. 5 on racing and chasing. If the swordsman wins, he intercepts, with both parties at full CP.
Third, by a contested Terrain Roll. The GM picks a TN based on how easy/hard this is for the swordsman to do and the Gol to avoid, and follow the standard Terrain roll procedures from there, with the highest margin of success winning (as always), and ties resolving by a contest of WP (also as always).
So a sorcerer wanting to cast a spell throws red? I ask because I have seen at least one thread discussing whether/how to dodge while casting, which would imply that a sorcerer can throw white and still cast.
Only hand-to-hand combatants throw red/white. If you're a sorcerer and you're not trying to hit or touch the other guy, assume white.
That appears to work for individual melees, although it might seem unfair if your buddy finishes of his opponent in a single exchange and then you have to fight your opponent for 3 or 4 exchanges before you can team up. I don't see how this would work with archers or sorcerers outside the fray waiting for an opportunity to fire.
I run about 3 rounds at a time, so I don't finish one out, but I'll give "spotlight time," like in the movies. There you see one guy fight for a while, then another, then another, and then if one gets hit, the camera immediately goes to his friends. Same here. People don't generaly fight shoulder-to-shoulder (except in battle formation), so 3 or 4 rounds is the minimum it would take for a guy to notice his friend's in trouble and go get involved. Whatever you do, do NOT run everybody at once, going around the table. It would be a nightmare to keep track of!
Jake
On 2/25/2004 at 6:22pm, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
This definitely needs to get added to the FAQ.. Even if it's not a frequently asked question, between Valamir's response (only somewhat hard to follow, due to parenthetical notes about rules interpretations) and Jake's response, a lot of good information has been shared here. I feel I've got a pretty good grasp of combat already, but these posts were enlightening even to me.
On 2/25/2004 at 8:46pm, nsruf wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
Thanks for the replies!
I need to run some mock combats to figure out how to best deal with this. Letting go of the "once around the table" routine could be difficult;)
On 2/26/2004 at 2:42am, John Harper wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
This is a very enlightening thread. I thought I had a good handle on TROS combat, but Ralph's and Jake's responses really nailed some nitty-gritty stuff for me. If The Flower of Battle doesn't yet have a full example of missile, melee, and sorcery interacting in combat, it needs one.
On 2/26/2004 at 3:17am, Brian Leybourne wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
Actually, we did put something in TFOB already about marrying missile and melee combat and how that works. It would be easy enough to make up a big example, and maybe throw some sorcery use in as well. Why not!
Brian.
On 2/26/2004 at 3:32am, Edge wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
Do it Brian... Do it for your country and if not for your country at least for us or failing that, me :)
On 2/26/2004 at 4:44am, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
Yeah, Brian. Do it for me, for me!
Jake
On 2/26/2004 at 5:41am, Salamander wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
Jake Norwood wrote: Yeah, Brian. Do it for me, for me!
Jake
You know Jake, when you say it, it kinda loses its charitable urgings...
You are his boss after all...
;)
On 2/26/2004 at 8:23am, Brian Leybourne wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
Actually, thats a great idea. As well as melee, missile and some spell use, I can work in some terrain rolls, some of the new various rules from the book, new armor and weapons etc, and so on.
Sounds like a plan. Consider it done.
Brian (who is nothing but obedient to his boss, apparently. Hell, it must be the salary...)
On 2/26/2004 at 3:18pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Newbie question on combat
Brian Leybourne wrote:
Brian (who is nothing but obedient to his boss, apparently. Hell, it must be the salary...)
LOL...oh...ow...the pain...
Jake