|
Post by derv on Mar 14, 2016 16:28:40 GMT -6
What do you consider melee distance to be in your game?
Most will allow that 10 feet in the dungeon, or 10 yards in the wilderness, is the proper distance for melee to be established. Yet, it can be argued that as far as 30 feet or yards is not out of the question.
This becomes important when considering the effects of surprise, initial encounter distances, initiative, chances of evasion, and when missile fire may or may not be used.
There are a number of citations that seem to support either viewpoint.
Page 9 U&WA “Distance is then 10-30 feet…..Surprise gives the advantage of a free move segment, whether to flee, cast a spell or engage in combat. If a monster gains surprise they will either close the distance between themselves and the character(s) or attack.” note: the example following this explanations has a Wyvern at a distance of 10 feet possibly striking twice.
Page 12 U&WA “Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any character they ‘see’…..There is no chance for avoiding if monster has surprised the adventurers and is within 20 feet, unless the monster itself has been surprised.”
Page 17 U&WA “Monsters at 10 yards distance will be able to attack.”
Page 28 U&WA “When opponents are within the range indicated for melee (3”) then combat takes place.”
Page 16 Chainmail “Units within 3” of a melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they belong so desires.”
Page 25 Chainmail “When two figures are within melee range (3”), one or several blows will be struck.”
Page 3 SR vol.1 no. 2 FAQ “Initiative is always checked. Surprise naturally allows first attack in many cases.”
“…but the die check reveals they are 30’ distant at the time of surprise, so they use their initiative to close to melee distance. Initiative is now checked.”
Where I find this has the most direct impact on the game is in how a GM handles the events of surprise.
In my games I roll a d6, where a 1 or 2 indicates surprise. To this I allow one free move segment on a roll of a one and two free move segments on a roll of a two.
It’s already understood that when surprise occurs the distance will be from 10-30 feet (yards). So, if you accept 30 feet (yards) as melee distance and you roll a two for surprise, that means two uncontested attacks.
Ultimately, what I am proposing is that neither 10 feet (yards) nor 30 feet (yards) should be considered a hard and fast rule for melee distance when handling the events of surprise (and initiative). Instead, a creatures movement rate should determine whether they can close the distance and strike during the same move segment.
If the characters are within half the distance of a creatures full move, the monster should be able to close and strike during a move segment. For almost every monster on the Monster List this means 3” is most certainly melee distance. When surprise occurs, they will be able to strike during that first move segment automatically. The only exceptions are your oozes and jellies.
Obviously, GM discretion can be used when considering terrain, obstacles, and surroundings.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 15, 2016 13:42:43 GMT -6
Page 12 U&WA “Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any character they ‘see’…..There is no chance for avoiding if monster has surprised the adventurers and is within 20 feet, unless the monster itself has been surprised.” "Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 15, 2016 18:32:49 GMT -6
Now, let's translate this into our D&D fantasy realms where 12 feet tall Giants should really have 6 feet strides
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2016 13:37:12 GMT -6
I'll add that Holmes wrote: "When two figures are brought into positions 10 scale feet (or less) apart they may engage in melee" (pg 20).
This was written in the manuscript by Holmes & left unchanged by Gygax for the published rulebook.
Holmes also gives combat movement rates of 20 feet per melee round (unarmored) or 10 feet (fully armored), with the round being ten seconds.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 16, 2016 17:12:15 GMT -6
As presented, melee distance itself represents something that is static. It gives a picture of two opponents who are stationary and could exchange blows. If the game mechanics actually reflected this situation, then 10 feet might make sense. But, as I presented with surprise, this is not always the case. It then becomes necessary to recognize that melee can be established even when two opponents are more than 10-30 feet apart. At this point, initiative becomes king.
I also feel that the term and it’s codification within D&D is actually a by-product of miniature war gaming. In that context, up to 3” makes sense. The goal of most wargames is to maneuver your forces within melee distance of your enemy.
Within the rules of D&D, when there is an encounter it is certain to be at a distance of 20-80 feet in the dungeon and 40-240 yards in the wilderness. This leaves plenty of room for encounters not automatically leading to melee within the first move. Though, they could. But, if surprise is a factor and distance is from 10-30 feet or yards, I see no reason to be rigid with the use of melee distance in not allowing the aggressor to strike the first blow. It actually seems counter intuitive to not allow it when most can travel double or more the distance in the same time frame.
In Holmes we have the 10 second round. This is a result of melee already taking place, ergo melee distance has already been established. With a combat movement rate of 20 feet per round and the possibility of round by round initiative, a 10 ft. melee distance might have some importance. I can envision moving from one combat to another. This would not be my choice method of resolution.
Overall, I’m unconvinced that the game actually requires this concept of melee distance. In my opinion, movement rates should supersede, particularly if no one is even using miniatures. It appears to be an unquestioned legacy rule. No?
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Mar 17, 2016 16:27:15 GMT -6
I think the assumption in the rules is that if you are 1"-2" distant from your enemy in the surprise round your only option is 1 segment of movement and are locked into the round system. However, if you are beyond "combat" range (surprise distance of 3" and then 1 segment of movement away) then you have not entered combat and therefore, on the next round, if you win initiative, you may flee within the exploration turn system.
So even if not using miniatures, the initial roll of encounter distance can have an impact on the players decisions to initiate combat/flight rules. The flee rules in 0d&d are a robust mini game and it makes sense that you cannot initiate them willy-nilly if you are locked in melee and things aren't going your way. For this latter scenario, your only option is a fighting withdrawal within the round system, not the fleeing rules using the exploration turn.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 17, 2016 20:05:58 GMT -6
Some good points to think about. If I understand you correctly, you would be of the opinion that 1-2" is melee distance.
That's interesting in relation to Holmes, since he gives a 10 and 20 foot combat move per round. This is in comparison to what many might assume would be a 12 and 24 foot move. Over the course of a turn in Holmes this would equate to 100 feet and 200 feet of movement. This doesn't quite add up, but it is convenient if you consider a move segment the same thing as a round and 1” equal to 10 feet, since all distances are established in tens of feet. This certainly would have a limiting factor on a players choices in cases of surprise. That is, if they are surprised.
I’m not sure that it answers the question from a monsters angle, though. If a monster like a Spectre, with a movement rate of 15” or what I would consider 30 feet a round, has surprised a party of PC’s, I would consider it in melee distance at 3”.
In the Strategic Review example, Gary says the Orcs use their surprise move segment to close to melee distance from 30 feet. Orcs have a movement rate of 9” or 18 feet a round (I‘m not sure what Holmes would offer). They would then end up at 12 feet from the Hero. Regardless, they win initiative in order to attack the Hero. With an 18 foot move, it’s inconsequential what a person considers melee distance because the Orcs can essentially close the distance and strike. If they had not won initiative, the Hero could either close and strike or flee. There is no rule that insists that PC’s must engage. But, it would not be outside of a GM’s right to rule that the Orcs would get one uncontested blow before the flight/pursuit sequence begins. In this case, melee is established by the intent of the PC and his movement rate. If it was a miniatures wargame, 1-3” would lock you into melee.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Apr 5, 2016 9:51:44 GMT -6
Light shines around a corner at 60' (or so says OD&D). I think that's the key measure in dungeons when facing off against darkvision foes.
Otherwise Encounters are by line of sight. Dungeons = close range mazes, so line of sight down corridors, into rooms, etc. Wilderness = terrain elements. What kind of cover / concealment exist? How much?
Designing open terrains isn't that hard. 6' tall viewers can see 3 miles to a perfectly hemispherical horizon (like on a raft in the ocean). Aerial flyers can see much farther.
"Recognition Distance", which is really what we're talking about here" is about 1-2 miles for humans IIRC. Pick a # and stick with it. (maybe double for elves?, 1/2 for underground dwellers?). Of course this changes when size of target changes. Buffalo aren't that big, but buffulo herds have been known to get pretty big, and loud.
And for sight light is necessary. But other senses can come in too. Shark Encounters when blood's in the water means surprise for them! (scenting it out to 1 mile, right?)
All of this comes down to another game: what abilities do you characters have for experiencing their world? As defined in game rules.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 5, 2016 16:19:28 GMT -6
Sighting Distance is somewhat out of the sphere of what I was going for in this thread. Though, it is a factor since a monster would need to see you for there to be an encounter (or vice versa).
My point had more to do with the idea of "melee distance" and what I perceive as too narrow and rigid a definition. Whether that definition is 1", 2", or even 3". I'm not sure it's even a necessary reference for a roleplaying game. It seems to be an unnecessary legacy of wargaming. Movement rates, initiative, and intent, seem to be much greater factors on what is truly melee distance when an encounter occurs.
If a character wearing plate with the movement rate of Armored Foot (6" as presented in the example for encumbrance in M&M p.15) has an encounter with a Minotaur (12" move) at 30 feet (even 40 feet) in the dungeon, he is already in melee distance. As stipulated, "Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any character they see". If you prefer a round by round move with initiative (10 rounds to the turn), this encounter could become a little laborious. I personally do not walk down that path. I prefer resolving encounters quicker with two moves to the turn. In this case, the outcomes are likely to be the same- melee.
If this character decides to flee and gains initiative each round, the Minotaur will be on top of him by round 5 from 30 feet away.
Round 1: PC 36 feet, Minotaur closes to 24 feet
Round 2: PC 30 feet, Minotaur closes to 18 feet
Round 3: PC 24 feet, Minotaur closes to 12 feet
Round 4: PC 18 feet, Minotaur closes to 6 feet
Round 5: PC 12 feet, Minotaur closes to 0 feet BAM!
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 5, 2016 20:44:42 GMT -6
What do you consider melee distance to be in your game? ...... Page 9 U&WA “Distance is then 10-30 feet…..Surprise gives the advantage of a free move segment, whether to flee, cast a spell or engage in combat. If a monster gains surprise they will either close the distance between themselves and the character(s) or attack.” note: the example following this explanations has a Wyvern at a distance of 10 feet possibly striking twice. Page 12 U&WA “Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any character they ‘see’…..There is no chance for avoiding if monster has surprised the adventurers and is within 20 feet, unless the monster itself has been surprised.” Page 17 U&WA “Monsters at 10 yards distance will be able to attack.” Page 28 U&WA “When opponents are within the range indicated for melee (3”) then combat takes place.” Page 16 Chainmail “Units within 3” of a melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they belong so desires.” Page 25 Chainmail “When two figures are within melee range (3”), one or several blows will be struck.” Page 3 SR vol.1 no. 2 FAQ “Initiative is always checked. Surprise naturally allows first attack in many cases.” “…but the die check reveals they are 30’ distant at the time of surprise, so they use their initiative to close to melee distance. Initiative is now checked.” .... There's a lot packed in to your post Derve, but I'll just start with comments on the initial question and the text list, and the first thing I want to do is add three more quotes. Page 16 of CHAINMAIL "All types of troops are considered to control the space 1" on either side of themselves to stop infiltration." Page 23, Book II Dalluhn/BTPbD "Also, the area of "control" is six feet on all sides of a fighter." Page 24, Book II Dalluhn/BTPbD "NOTE:A player cannot use a bow when the opponent is within the player's area of control." Okay, I think two different things are being discussed and they are often conflated. Look again at page 16 in CHAINMAIL if you will. Note that troops "control" 1" and "may be drawn into" melee if "desired" at 3" In Champions of ZED, I interpret this to mean (per BTPbD, and CM) that if characters are within 10 feet, they are locked in toe to toe melee - they are in each others "area of control" as the BTPbD Mss puts it. However any character not currently in Melee (an area of control), may travel up to 30' (essentially a short charge) to engage an opponent. This 30' is the Melee distance or Melee range that any character/critter/unit may freely travel to engage/charge an enemy without any reference to movement rates or speeds. Combat within Melee range cannot be avoided if one or both of the parties initiate it. Beyond Melee range a game of pursuit may begin.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 6, 2016 16:59:56 GMT -6
These are some useful citations you’ve included. In my view, they highlight my point that the concept of Melee Distance is a byproduct of miniature wargaming, from Chainmail specifically.
In every one of your quotes, we are dealing with what might more commonly be known as “zone of control” or just “ZOC”. It serves an important function in wargames, namely preventing infiltration.
If we look at the definition of infiltration, Webster says, “to pass (troops) singly or in small groups through gaps in the enemy line”.
What is at issue here is the idea of formed bodies of troops, possibly in loose order, where there would be gaps between intervening figures wide enough that an opponents figures could pass through unmolested during their move. This rule is making a point that that would not be possible without the intervening troops interceding. It also prevents players from optimizing their moves along the flanks of the opposing troops by hugging and then turning in an attempt to overlap their enemies rear. So, we are really seeing a rule intended for formed bodies of troops in a simulation.
To address your statement about traveling up to 30 feet to engage an opponent, I have a differing opinion. You sate that “any character/critter/unit may freely travel….without any reference to movement rates or speeds.” This is not the case. But, we need to look at the whole reference found in Chainmail.
As you pointed out, it says, “All types of troops are considered to control the space 1” on either side of themselves to stop infiltration. Units within 3” of melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they belong so desires.” It goes on to says, “However, the unit that joins a melee cannot have been moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn. The unit joining the melee may move up to 6” into battle.”
We clearly have the inclusion of movement (thus movement rates) as the ultimate arbitrator of whether maneuver into melee is possible.
All that aside, as a complete hypothetical, do you think it’s reasonable to stipulate that a 1” ZOC and/or a 3” melee range should flatly be applied to all figures across the board in OD&D? Taking into consideration that these rules are obviously intended for formed bodies of human sized troops, should a Dragon or Giant have the same 1” ZOC as a man?
In my opinion, the answer is no. The rigid codification of melee distance does not properly reflect the realities of how the combat mechanics function in a Fantasy Roleplaying game. It’s a “hanger-on” concept from wargaming.
In response to your last comment, there is nothing set down in the rules that insists players must engage in melee, no matter what the distance is. It’s my opinion that melee can be avoided in some cases even when two adversaries are as close as 2” (the closest encounter distance in the dungeon that can occur without surprise) and it most certainly can be avoided in instances of surprise within 1”, if the player’s are the ones who gained the element of surprise and want to flee. But, it will all depend on movement rates whether they are successful or not. Remember, surprise grants a free move segment. But again, I do not use round by round movement and initiative. Even so, if the fleeing characters are caught up with, they will suffer an uncontested attack to the rear in my games.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 7, 2016 11:19:00 GMT -6
These are some useful citations you’ve included. In my view, they highlight my point that the concept of Melee Distance is a byproduct of miniature wargaming, from Chainmail specifically. In every one of your quotes, we are dealing with what might more commonly be known as “zone of control” or just “ZOC”. It serves an important function in wargames, namely preventing infiltration. If we look at the definition of infiltration, Webster says, “to pass (troops) singly or in small groups through gaps in the enemy line”. What is at issue here is the idea of formed bodies of troops, possibly in loose order, where there would be gaps between intervening figures wide enough that an opponents figures could pass through unmolested during their move. This rule is making a point that that would not be possible without the intervening troops interceding. It also prevents players from optimizing their moves along the flanks of the opposing troops by hugging and then turning in an attempt to overlap their enemies rear. So, we are really seeing a rule intended for formed bodies of troops in a simulation. Yes, well not so much a single troop in loose order, but gaps between individual units. Now "body of troops" is a bit of a dodge, because what we are really talking about are troop(s), each of whom has a body. The rule applies to the space around each soldier and equally to individual figures, like Heroes or wizards. You used the terms "unmolested" and "intercede", again a bit of a dodge, as these are really synonyms for "hit". The opponent entering the AoC can be hit. The ZoC/AoC is the distance where melee actually happens. Where you can not go without being subject to immediate "molestation". Entering an AoC without attacking is no different than attempting to leave one without counterattacking, and in my own games I apply the rule from Holmes p21 "the fleeing party must accept an attack without any return on his part" To address your statement about traveling up to 30 feet to engage an opponent, I have a differing opinion. You sate that “any character/critter/unit may freely travel….without any reference to movement rates or speeds.” This is not the case. But, we need to look at the whole reference found in Chainmail. As you pointed out, it says, “All types of troops are considered to control the space 1” on either side of themselves to stop infiltration. Units within 3” of melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they belong so desires.” It goes on to says, “However, the unit that joins a melee cannot have been moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn. The unit joining the melee may move up to 6” into battle.” We clearly have the inclusion of movement (thus movement rates) as the ultimate arbitrator of whether maneuver into melee is possible. Yes you're right. I can't think of when I've ever had to take previous movement into account in a dungeon, but that's still a good point. All that aside, as a complete hypothetical, do you think it’s reasonable to stipulate that a 1” ZOC and/or a 3” melee range should flatly be applied to all figures across the board in OD&D? Taking into consideration that these rules are obviously intended for formed bodies of human sized troops, should a Dragon or Giant have the same 1” ZOC as a man? Yes, pretty much. For Theater of the Mind combat, it's an extremely useful rule. Example: Player: "Can I attack the Goblin King?" DM: (thinks, the king is 25 feet away, so the king would not be able to get away in time to avoid melee; but the player character will need to pass within 10 feet of an unengaged guard) "No, you can't get past the guard." True, you might want to allow a relative increase in proportion to giant sized creatures (not their opponents) but while I personally don't recall situation where that mattered, it certainly could happen, I'll grant you. In such a case I would just double or triple or whatever the distance. The exact distance is not nearly as important as the concept. In my opinion, the answer is no. The rigid codification of melee distance does not properly reflect the realities of how the combat mechanics function in a Fantasy Roleplaying game. It’s a “hanger-on” concept from wargaming. In response to your last comment, there is nothing set down in the rules that insists players must engage in melee, no matter what the distance is. It’s my opinion that melee can be avoided in some cases even when two adversaries are as close as 2” (the closest encounter distance in the dungeon that can occur without surprise) and it most certainly can be avoided in instances of surprise within 1”, if the player’s are the ones who gained the element of surprise and want to flee. But, it will all depend on movement rates whether they are successful or not. Remember, surprise grants a free move segment. But again, I do not use round by round movement and initiative. Even so, if the fleeing characters are caught up with, they will suffer an uncontested attack to the rear in my games. Sure, surprise allows escape from Melee Range. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise and should have made it clear that surprise is a different case because Melee has not (yet perhaps) occurred.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 7, 2016 21:10:35 GMT -6
Yes, well not so much a single troop in loose order, but gaps between individual units. Now "body of troops" is a bit of a dodge, because what we are really talking about are troop(s), each of whom has a body. The rule applies to the space around each soldier and equally to individual figures, like Heroes or wizards. You used the terms "unmolested" and "intercede", again a bit of a dodge, as these are really synonyms for "hit". The opponent entering the AoC can be hit. The ZoC/AoC is the distance where melee actually happens. Where you can not go without being subject to immediate "molestation". Entering an AoC without attacking is no different than attempting to leave one without counterattacking, and in my own games I apply the rule from Holmes p21 "the fleeing party must accept an attack without any return on his part" Here is where I think you are conflating the intent of Area of Control/ZOC with Melee Distance. Either we fundamentally disagree on the meaning of the term, infiltration, or you are appropriating the rule to fit your intent. Chainmail is a wargame, primarily designed for mass combat, where the objective is to enter melee at optimal advantage. This is usually done in an attempt at simulating actual Medieval battles (putting aside the Fantasy Supplement). If there are troops to your right at 10 yards (because this is the scale used) and troops to your left at 10 yards, 60 feet between them, you may not pass through on your move without entering melee because they would naturally move to intercede in a realistic battle. It would not be realistic to allow troops to pass through the center of intervening troops in order to strike their flank or rear. This is not because they can simply swing their hand ax and hit you. You would obviously not be close enough for them to strike a blow. You are 30 feet away. They must move to strike you. This is abstracted through the rules for such infiltration. So, it is deemed as ordinary and/or necessary that during the time you are moving forward to pass through (infiltrate), they will be moving towards you to stop such actions by blocking your access. In a wargame, this will require melee. I am not debating the concept of a melee distance. I am questioning whether the rigid codification within OD&D is relevant for a Fantasy Roleplaying game or, instead, is it simply a byproduct left over from wargaming. Your reluctant answer here has confirmed that it is not relevant. It is subjective to most. In my honest opinion, it is much better determined by movement, intent, and initiative. All of which are factors that should be and, in practice, are considered at the start of an encounter. Player: Can I attack the Goblin King? DM: You are in range of the Goblin King, but there is an unengaged guard between you and him who will likely be able to intercede. What do you intend to do? Declaration of intent, roll for initiative, consider movement rates. In this situation, if the player gains the initiative, I would probably allow him to attack the Goblin King. But, he is going to suffer an attack to his flank or rear from the guard as a result.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 8, 2016 4:38:11 GMT -6
.....If there are troops to your right at 10 yards (because this is the scale used) and troops to your left at 10 yards, 60 feet between them, you may not pass through on your move without entering melee because they would naturally move to intercede in a realistic battle. It would not be realistic to allow troops to pass through the center of intervening troops in order to strike their flank or rear. This is not because they can simply swing their hand ax and hit you. You would obviously not be close enough for them to strike a blow. You are 30 feet away. They must move to strike you. This is abstracted through the rules for such infiltration. So, it is deemed as ordinary and/or necessary that during the time you are moving forward to pass through (infiltrate), they will be moving towards you to stop such actions by blocking your access. In a wargame, this will require melee. I have to say I don't see the sense behind the distinction your making. I agree with everything you say except "Obviously not be close enough to strike a blow..." There is no way a figure or a troop of figures could prevent infiltration without actually preventing infiltration through action. It is very clearly a "too close for comfort rule". Troops or individual figures are moving into a strike zone - a Controled area - where they can be hit. If there is nothing to stop them, (i.e. no chance of a strike on them) then there is nothing to prevent infiltration. The opposing troops might as well be statues or posts. It is not as if they exude some kind of magnetic force. I make no assumption that figures in combat are simply static. The ZoC reflects the fact that they can manuever "in place" and have control of the are immediately around them. In fact we see that's exactly the meaning of Area of Control as used in Beyond This Point be Dragons, which really should settle the matter as far as the intent of the concept in D&D is concerned. ......Declaration of intent, roll for initiative, consider movement rates. I actually do none of those three things, but as regards movement rates; There is a lot going on in combat and a lot to keep track of as it is. To me it is much simpler and cleaner to know that the unengaged combatants can freely attack anything within 30 feet each round, and if they get within 10' they become engaged in melee, than to try to compare the various PC's encumbered or unencumbered movement rates to those of the various monsters. So I rather like the rule as is. <shrug>
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 8, 2016 21:06:47 GMT -6
Since my points are seemingly falling on deaf ears, let me suggest another hypothetical to you. Consider a game of OD&D without the fixed rule of Melee Distance. Is the game unplayable without this rule (try not to exaggerate the consequence. we are still of the understanding that melee is possible)? If not, how would it play differently? How would melee be established?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 9, 2016 8:22:13 GMT -6
Since my points are seemingly falling on deaf ears, let me suggest another hypothetical to you. Consider a game of OD&D without the fixed rule of Melee Distance. Is the game unplayable without this rule (try not to exaggerate the consequence. we are still of the understanding that melee is possible)? If not, how would it play differently? How would melee be established? Deaf ears? I think not, speaking for myself at least. Your points are being heard Derv, but to hear is not the same as to agree. As I think I indicated above the game is certainly playable without the rule. I support the rule discussed because I find it clean, easy to implement, and grounded in the history of the game, not because of some perceived necessity. Melee would be established arbitrarily (necessarily if there is no rule), and movement for each figure would be calculated as some fraction of the individual movement rate per turn, depending on the length of the round or move being used. I believe this is pretty much they way things were done in some later versions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 11:09:39 GMT -6
The 1" ZOC in CHAINMAIL is why as Gary played it, three man sized figures in 10 feet formed a line that could not be infiltrated, period. That kept the magic users safe, but he ALSO played it that magic users must be in the front rank to throw spells. An interesting challenge.
Also, Gary played without miniatures, and the whole issue of "melee distance" did not play out as rigorously as some might think. We didn't have access to the text, and Gary seemed to use it mostly as guidelines to help him describe the scene to us.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 9, 2016 21:43:34 GMT -6
Deaf ears? I think not, speaking for myself at least. Your points are being heard Derv, but to hear is not the same as to agree. As I think I indicated above the game is certainly playable without the rule. I support the rule discussed because I find it clean, easy to implement, and grounded in the history of the game, not because of some perceived necessity. Okay, one last hypothetical then. Your character, wearing chain mail and armed with a shield and sword, has just come through a doorway that only allows admittance into the center of a room 80 feet wide and 40 feet deep. There is no exiting the way you came. From where you stand, at each end of the room is an open doorway 40 feet away. Straight in front of you stands a Troll at 40 feet distance. No surprise exists and no one is technically in melee distance. How would you resolve this encounter and at what point do you ascertain that melee will occur?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 22:02:43 GMT -6
First thing I'd do is roll reaction time. Then I'd roll for the troll's reaction.
There may not be a melee at all.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 10, 2016 5:48:51 GMT -6
First thing I'd do is roll reaction time. Then I'd roll for the troll's reaction. There may not be a melee at all. The reaction roll is most unfavorable. It seems you have interrupted his morning constitutional and he's upset about it. Beyond that, he's now hungry for breakfast and you look like a suitable meal.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 10, 2016 9:34:57 GMT -6
First thing I'd do is roll reaction time. Then I'd roll for the troll's reaction. There may not be a melee at all. The reaction roll is most unfavorable. It seems you have interrupted his morning constitutional and he's upset about it. Beyond that, he's now hungry for breakfast and you look like a suitable meal. Assuming typical lamp light, I'd tell the players they hear grunts and snarls and what sounds like something big and nasty quickly coming their way from the far dark end of the room. Then, I'd ask the players what they want to do. If they elect to enter the room I'd have the grumpy, unsurprised troll charge them. (If they elected to close the door and leave I'd roll to see if the troll will pursue). With them in the room the distance would be about Melee range so I'd give the troll rushing out of the darkness the first blow. At that point they would be locked in melee until resolved or one side breaks off. (free chop and probable pursuit with rear attacks) This would also be true for shorter distances than the 40' you mentioned. Now for example, a longer distances: If the troll were further away - say 60' - I'd still have him charge them. - but because the distance is greater than 30' I'd give the players a move. They could either go back out of the room, move just inside and set to receive a charge, or counter-charge. (they could only countercharge half their move distance, per CM p15, which is likely 30' per armored foot) If they countercharge they'd meet the charging troll and I'd usually give the players the initiative for their boldness. In cases of low level players and many monsters, if I had any reason to suspect the monster or the players characters might be off their game, I'd make a morale roll, which could change the initiative to the trolls favor or result in other combat modifiers. I'd also make morale rolls during combat if the conditions called for it.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 10, 2016 14:46:42 GMT -6
Assuming typical lamp light, I'd tell the players they hear grunts and snarls and what sounds like something big and nasty quickly coming their way from the far dark end of the room.......With them in the room the distance would be about Melee range so I'd give the troll rushing out of the darkness the first blow. This is an example to try and emphasize my point. Consider the room fully illuminated by sconces hanging along the walls. You can see the Troll and he can see you at 40 feet distance. If necessary, consider the room a little longer and deeper to account for where you're both standing. The important thing is that you are 40 feet away from the Troll (outside of defined melee distance) and 40 feet away from an open doorway to each side of the room. These doorways are an equal distance away from the Troll. Also, you have already entered the room through a one-way entrance. As I stipulated already, there is no exiting the way you came. Now for example, a longer distances: If the troll were further away - say 60' - I'd still have him charge them. - but because the distance is greater than 30' I'd give the players a move. They could either go back out of the room, move just inside and set to receive a charge, or counter-charge. (they could only countercharge half their move distance, per CM p15, which is likely 30' per armored foot) If they countercharge they'd meet the charging troll and I'd usually give the players the initiative for their boldness. "The Charge Move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn." CM p.15 If this is the case, the question remains how and when are you determining melee likely if you are outside of melee distance? Even so, reading through your explanation, you pretty much used what I had suggested- declaration of intent, initiative, and movement rates. Declaration of intent: this could be the result of a reaction/ morale check or just a simple, "I'm going to attack". Initiative: this gives the upper hand of first actions. Surprise is initiative. Movement rates: this tells you who can get to a point first. It also gives you an overall range. For some monsters who fly or hop, the range might even be greater under certain conditions. In the case of charges, they are generally moves +3" for footmen and +6" for horse.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 11, 2016 7:02:13 GMT -6
..... Even so, reading through your explanation, you pretty much used what I had suggested- declaration of intent, initiative, and movement rates. Declaration of intent: this could be the result of a reaction/ morale check or just a simple, "I'm going to attack". Initiative: this gives the upper hand of first actions. Surprise is initiative. I think you are asking me to clarify my comment? Declaration of Intent is usually understood to mean (by me anyway), in a wargame like fashion, that all the players or, more BtB, a caller, will declare the intended actions planned for the characters prior to the round taking place. I don't do that. I simply ask each player what their character is doing when it is their characters' turn during the round. I'm not claiming that one way or the other is proper, it's just the way I like to handle it. Roll for initiative. I don't make an initiative roll. I go by the situation, or by dexterity, and either may be affected by morale. When there are groups involved. usually initiative will by mixed, not simply side vs side, but any combination of the combatants involved is possible. Movement rates. Yes you are right that it was an exaggeration to include movement rates in the things I don't "do". What I meant was that once characters are in a melee, Melee Range is usually the only factor that matters in the combats I run, especially in enclosed spaces.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 11, 2016 7:10:54 GMT -6
....Now for example, a longer distances: If the troll were further away - say 60' - I'd still have him charge them. - but because the distance is greater than 30' I'd give the players a move. They could either go back out of the room, move just inside and set to receive a charge, or counter-charge. (they could only countercharge half their move distance, per CM p15, which is likely 30' per armored foot) If they countercharge they'd meet the charging troll and I'd usually give the players the initiative for their boldness. "The Charge Move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn." CM p.15 If this is the case, the question remains how and when are you determining melee likely if you are outside of melee distance? ? We already established the Troll had a hostile reaction roll. That makes combat "likely", or expected on the troll's part.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 11, 2016 21:26:09 GMT -6
Let me offer how I would handle this encounter. But, I want to clarify for every one that I am not telling anyone how to run their games. Every one's free to play the game as they'd like.
First of all, in this situation, as you have noted, the Troll is hostile. Whether you consider the Troll an intelligent creature that warrants a reaction check or whether you use the guidance found in U&WA p.12 that says, "Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any character they see", is up to you. Either way, in this scenario, if the Troll wants to rip out your liver, you are in range for it to do so. A man in chain mail or plate does not have a chance of evading. A man in leather will be at high risk of having their liver eaten.
This is not to say that melee is inevitable. A creative player might be able to distract the Troll with food, treasure, or fire. This could, if it works, buy him some time to flee out one of the side doorways. This is also dependent on initiative or whether a GM would allow the player an action prior to flight. If the player does not plan on using any distracting actions and intends to simply run, I would roll for initiative.
The Troll has a 12" move. If he wins initiative, you are already within his melee distance. It would take him less then half of his full move to reach you (actually 1/3 of his move), so he would also get to strike a blow during this round. Melee is now established. The player can maintain his initial plan of flight or alter it and exchange blows.
If the player was intending on attacking instead of fleeing and he won initiative, he would receive the same benefit of being able to close and strike the first blow in the first round, since the Troll is only half the distance of his full move of 9".
If the player wins initiative and flees without distracting the Troll, The Troll will over take him during the first full move of the turn and strike him from the rear.
Melee is inevitable if the Troll intends to attack and the player fails to distract him- even at greater distances then 40 feet. This is why a rigid definition of melee distance is nonsensical.
If the player had the advantage of surprising the Troll, he may be able to escape without further distraction tactics. In my games, a roll of 1 gives one free move segment and a 2 gives 2 free move segments. These are full moves. I do not further segment the turn by rounds for movement. Even with one free move segment, should he win initiative the following turn, he may likely escape. We'd begin the flight/pursuit sequence.
Additionally, rolls that result in ties for initiative mean simultaneous actions i.e. they both charge into melee or they both run for the door. The Troll is going to get there first in all cases because the Troll can cover 40 feet in the same time as the man in chain moves 30 feet (1/3 move).
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 7, 2016 7:17:52 GMT -6
Let me offer how I would handle this encounter.... The Troll has a 12" move. If he wins initiative, you are already within his melee distance. It would take him less then half of his full move to reach you (actually 1/3 of his move), so he would also get to strike a blow during this round. Melee is now established. The player can maintain his initial plan of flight or alter it and exchange blows. If the player was intending on attacking instead of fleeing and he won initiative, he would receive the same benefit of being able to close and strike the first blow in the first round, since the Troll is only half the distance of his full move of 9". Still mulling over some of the implications of your comments generally, but I'm a little confused by a point you keep making as illustrated above, and in an earlier post where you said. "If the characters are within half the distance of a creatures full move, the monster should be able to close and strike during a move segment" That seems then to lead to your conclusion: Melee is inevitable if the Troll intends to attack and the player fails to distract him- even at greater distances then 40 feet. This is why a rigid definition of melee distance is nonsensical. It looks to me that you are essentially replacing one "rigid definition" with another one, meaning, instead of Melee Range = 30', you houserule Melee distance = 1/2 Movement rate; less rigid in detail in that the melee distance will vary per creature and character but more complicated in that melee distance is calculated individually instead of being general. Is that the crux of your argument? My next question is why 1/2 movement rate? Is it because you like that amount and it seems to work out to 30 feet for most monsters? There's the CM rule cited earlier "the unit that joins a melee cannot have been moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn.", but that's about the limit a unit can travel prior to engaging in combat, not the range within which combat occurs. So, I'm curious as to why you chose this distance or if there is some other reasons behind it.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 7, 2016 10:20:17 GMT -6
I think it's important to remember that the exploration turn does not exist in the same game world as the combat turn. (I'm using the term "turn" loosely here). By analogy, imagine the distinct worlds of exploration and combat In the Japanese video games of the Final Fantasy, especially the really old ones. The isometric exploration transitions to a 3D combat scape. The three game words of exploration/flight/combat do not flow into and out of each other and do not exist within each other's world. They are, for lack of a better word, different games under the umbrella of the name "D&D".
In our narrative minds we see them flowing organically; players explore a hall, open a door and discover a troll. But early D&D doesn't work that way. This is most clear in overland travel where the difference in distance between exploration and combat highlight this contrast between exploration and combat. When traveling through a Baron's fief, at what point is the party drawn into the 1 minute round from the 1 day turn?
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 7, 2016 20:04:31 GMT -6
It looks to me that you are essentially replacing one "rigid definition" with another one, meaning, instead of Melee distance = 30', you houserule Melee distance = 1/2 Movement rate; less rigid in detail in that the melee distance will vary per creature and character but more complicated in that melee distance is calculated individually instead of being general. Is that the crux of your argument? My next question is why 1/2 movement rate? Is it because you like that amount and it seems to work out to 30 feet for most monsters? There's the CM rule cited earlier "the unit that joins a melee cannot have been moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn.", but that's about the limit a unit can travel prior to engaging in combat, not the range within which combat occurs. So, I'm curious as to why you chose this distance or if there is some other reasons behind it. This is a logical extension of the rule for surprise and initiative which says, "surprise gives the advantage of a free move segment, whether to flee, cast a spell or engage in combat." and according to the SR FAQ, "Initiative is always checked. Surprise naturally allows the first attack in many cases. Initiative thereafter is simply a matter of rolling two dice with the higher score gaining first attack that round." Mechanically, surprise is initiative. They are the same thing. Compared to the rigid understanding that melee distance is equal to 1"-3", there is no question that contact represents melee distance. If you are toe to toe with your opponent, you are in striking distance. When you are not using miniatures, there is really only one way of judging this and that is contact. This can only be established through movement rates. Melee distance, in my mind, is actually anywhere up to a full move if contact can be made. The idea that a character or monster can strike during this same move is part of the proposal in my opening post. So, yes, it is a house rule. It embodies the idea of the abstraction of time through the move. If you are only making half of a move, you have done so in only half the time. You should therefore be able to also make a strike during this time that represents a full move segment. This idea is not outside of the general rules for melee that suggest that if you are within 1" and have surprise, you can strike the first blow (this is illustrated in U&WA with the Wyvern attack, which, as I mentioned in the OP, may actually suggest two strikes by the Wyvern before adventurers can strike back.).
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 7, 2016 20:15:47 GMT -6
In our narrative minds we see them flowing organically; players explore a hall, open a door and discover a troll. But early D&D doesn't work that way. This is most clear in overland travel where the difference in distance between exploration and combat highlight this contrast between exploration and combat. When traveling through a Baron's fief, at what point is the party drawn into the 1 minute round from the 1 day turn? In part, your question is exactly right cooper . I would look at it from another angle also. At what point do you zoom in in scale from a daily turn covering miles to the wilderness scale of yards? The emphasis in your question has now changed from one of duration to one of distance. In my mind this can be triggered in a number of ways. It may happen without there even being an encounter. Consider some of the outdoor maps in published modules that further detail an area of exploration. Yet, if an encounter does occur, it is going to be 40-240 yards or 10-30 yards with surprise. Also, encounters are not synonymous with melee. My point of the primacy of movement rates, with intent and initiative, for establishing melee distance is further exacerbated with the fact that the wilderness is the place where you are most likely to encounter Fliers.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 8, 2016 8:48:56 GMT -6
It looks to me that you are essentially replacing one "rigid definition" with another one, meaning, instead of Melee distance = 30', you houserule Melee distance = 1/2 Movement rate; less rigid in detail in that the melee distance will vary per creature and character but more complicated in that melee distance is calculated individually instead of being general. Is that the crux of your argument? My next question is why 1/2 movement rate? Is it because you like that amount and it seems to work out to 30 feet for most monsters? There's the CM rule cited earlier "the unit that joins a melee cannot have been moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn.", but that's about the limit a unit can travel prior to engaging in combat, not the range within which combat occurs. So, I'm curious as to why you chose this distance or if there is some other reasons behind it. This is a logical extension of the rule for surprise and initiative...... Mechanically, surprise is initiative. They are the same thing. Compared to the rigid understanding that melee distance is equal to 1"-3", there is no question that contact represents melee distance. If you are toe to toe with your opponent, you are in striking distance. When you are not using miniatures, there is really only one way of judging this and that is contact. This can only be established through movement rates. Melee distance, in my mind, is actually anywhere up to a full move if contact can be made. Hmm, your answer leaves me feeling uncertain if you are seeing the point, which is that there is already a "logical extension of surprise and initiative" built into the rules, that is that when a PC/NPC either starts at or moves to within 30' of an opponent they can attack the opponent. Certainly you can houserule a change in Melee Distance from 30' to 1/2 move if you like, but it still functions exactly the same way. It is pretty much mechanically the same thing. However when we specifically consider surprise: ....which says, "surprise gives the advantage of a free move segment, whether to flee, cast a spell or engage in combat." and according to the SR FAQ, "Initiative is always checked. Surprise naturally allows the first attack in many cases. Initiative thereafter is simply a matter of rolling two dice with the higher score gaining first attack that round." Surprise does afford the surprisor a free move segment, which simply means they can choose to go away, quite possibly undetected depending on the circumstance, or even run past the surprisees without being attacked. Surprise is about detection and the lack thereof and always occurs within Melee Range. There is a very good analysis of the detection aspect here: Dragonsfoot Surprise Discussion Now, as you note, changing Melee Distance Changes the surprise range accordingly. To change the distance from a fixed 30' to as much 120' or 150' (1/2 move of flying wraiths and specters) seems - begging your pardon - kinda nuts to me. I'm sure the players would be less than thrilled at any change that goes from a level playing field to put them at such a disadvantage to some "quick" monsters. I'm sure they would argue that even though some monsters are faster, they aren't so much faster as to prevent the PCs from reacting and readying for an attack at distances beyond 30'. It feels a bit forced and unfair. The idea that a character or monster can strike during this same move is part of the proposal in my opening post. So, yes, it is a house rule. It embodies the idea of the abstraction of time through the move. If you are only making half of a move, you have done so in only half the time. You should therefore be able to also make a strike during this time that represents a full move segment. This idea is not outside of the general rules for melee that suggest that if you are within 1" and have surprise, you can strike the first blow (this is illustrated in U&WA with the Wyvern attack, which, as I mentioned in the OP, may actually suggest two strikes by the Wyvern before adventurers can strike back.). I get the sense that maybe you are assuming that some referees insist that PC/NPC can't normally move and attack on the same turn? To be clear, at least about the way I play and understand the rules, PC/NPC's certainly can move from beyond Melee Distance into Melee Distance and attack all in one move, just as you say. Now I can see how some might insist on the "more than 1/2 the distance = no attack that turn" rule from CM, and that is reasonable enough.
|
|