Number of Monsters Encountered by Party

[retrorob]

As we know, Evading is "a function of the size of the party of adventurers and the
number of monsters" (vol. III, pg. 20).

How do you understand a column header "Number of Monsters Encountered by Party"? What is exactly "25% or less of possible #", "Over 60%" etc.? Is it 25% of, let's say, 300 orcs (maximum possible number of orcs) or rather a proportion of party members to monster number, e.g. 3 adventurers / 20 orcs = 15%?

[linebeck]

Is it 25% of, let's say, 300 orcs (maximum possible number of orcs)

That is my understanding.  I grappled with this rule a while back and came up with my own modification that ignores this calculation and reduces everything to a single d6 roll based on party size.

Evasion

a. This action is a function of the size of the party of adventurers and the number of monsters, modified by surprise, terrain and comparative speed. The table below is adapted from the table on Vol. III, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, p. 20 [ignoring the % number of monsters].


Chance of Evading

Party Size	D6
1-3	1-4
4-9	1-3
10-24	1-2
25+	1

b. Surprise by party means that [the party’s] evasion chances are doubled.

c. Surprise by monsters negates all chance of evasion unless party is able to use some form of magic, or terrain is woods.

d. Woods add +1 to evasion chances and allow evasion on a roll of 1 even if surprised.

e. If the comparative speed of the two parties is such that one is at least twice as fast as the other, the faster will have the effect of increasing/decreasing evasion chances by 1.
This includes surprise situations.

[tetramorph]

Jul 21, 2020 7:51:00 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Is it 25% of, let's say, 300 orcs (maximum possible number of orcs)?

Yes, that is how I read it.

I've had to do my own condensed version of the rules in order to try to understand them and articulate them well. Here is what I came up with for my own document:

Evasion

Surprise by monster negates evasion, except in woods: 10%.

Surprise by party doubles chance to evade.

Woods +25%.

If one side twice as fast or more: +/- 25%.



Evasion chances table

Monsters	Party size
% Encountered per Possible	1-3	4-9	10-24	25+
25 or <	50%	30%	15%	5%
26-60	70%	50%	30%	20%
60+	90%	70%	50%	35%

This particular part of the rules feels like one of those unnecessarily complicated and perhaps unplaytested parts. Like some parts of the magic sword rules.

Still, when I try to think of my own house rules, I can't usually do any better. What I like about this is that it takes into account things you can hide behind (trees in woods), move rates, and that different party sizes are going to affect evasion - for both the monsters and the party.

[delta]

Agree with how folks are interpreting it above.

[retrorob]

linebeck

very nice! Your house rule is similar to a brilliant table from Warriors of Mars:

Number of Adventurers	Party is Unseen	Mutual Sighting	Party is Ambushed
1	1-4	5	6
2-4	1-3	4,5	6
5-9	1-2	3,4	5,6
10+	1	2,3	4-6

I've raised a topic dedicated to it: odd74.proboards.com/thread/13477/mutual-sighting-table

tetramorph

Agreed that they weren't probably even playtested. Expert Set substituted fixed numbers for percent values; EPT evasion table ignores the number of monsters, focusing on type of terrain.

[tetramorph]

I've been thinking about this for my own campaign house-ruling. Here is what I thought up:

Evasion

First note whether parties are surprised.
When the pursuing party surprises the evading party, evasion negated, except in woods: evading party evades 1:10.
When evading party surprises pursuing party: automatic roll of 6 on the opposing check as described, below.

Otherwise evading and pursuing party determine success of evasion on an opposing check on d6 between the two parties modified by the following:


Woods +2 to evading party.
+ 1 to each 3” greater difference in MV rate.
Parties below average in size: +1.
Parties above average in size: -1.

When monsters encountered, determine above or below average based upon average number out of those possibly encountered.
When men or monsters who make military formations encountered: below average = <30; above average = >110.

It seems like this is more streamlined. It avoids tables and turns it into formula, I know it is odd, but like delta , I prefer formula to table. It keeps the important distinction in party size.

I altered things for men and other large monster groups that make military formations because my players often travel with several units of formed soldiers and I wanted to make it fair to them. Otherwise, following Arneson, they would always just have a huge party.

[Edited for clarity.]

[delta]

This thread from last year has more discussion about the evasion rules, including alternate tables by some of us, and how it might tie into Arneson's confusing FFC rule suggestions:

odd74.proboards.com/thread/12795/evasion-pursuit-right

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 21, 2020 7:51:00 GMT -6 retrorob said:

How do you understand a column header "Number of Monsters Encountered by Party"? What is exactly "25% or less of possible #", "Over 60%" etc.? Is it 25% of, let's say, 300 orcs (maximum possible number of orcs) or rather a proportion of party members to monster number, e.g. 3 adventurers / 20 orcs = 15%?

I've always understood the chance of evasion to be derived from the relative sizes of the parties. I.e., smaller parties have better odds of evading larger parties. "Smaller" and "larger" are relative to one another.

Like the other comments above, I reduce it to d6s for simplicity


Edit: I'll have to go read the other topic...

[linebeck]

Jul 25, 2020 9:35:49 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

I've been thinking about this for my own campaign house-ruling. Here is what I thought up:

Evasion

When the pursuing party surprises the evading party, evasion negated, except in woods: evading party evades 1:10.
Otherwise evading and pursuing party determine success of evasion on an opposing check on d6 between the two parties modified by the following:
When evading party surprises pursuing party: automatic roll of 6 on opposing check.

Woods +2 to evading party.

+ 1 to each 3” greater difference in MV rate.

Parties below average in size: +1.
Parties above average in size: -1.
When monsters encountered, determine above or below average based upon average number out of those possibly encountered.
When men or monsters who make military formations encountered: below average = <30; above average = >110.

It seems like this is more streamlined. It avoids tables and turns it into formula, I know it is odd, but like delta , I prefer formula to table. It keeps the important distinction in party size.

I altered things for men and other large monster groups that make military formations because my players often travel with several units of formed soldiers and I wanted to make it fair to them. Otherwise, following Arneson, they would always just have a huge party.

I like this but i think evading party should evade 1:6 or even 2:6 as opposed to 1:10 if you want the percentage chance to be closer to what is in the books.

[tetramorph]

Jul 26, 2020 0:47:50 GMT -6 linebeck said:

I like this but i think evading party should evade 1:6 or even 2:6 as opposed to 1:10 if you want the percentage chance to be closer to what is in the books.

Linebeck, I think you misread me.

The 1:10 is the chance for evasion for those who have been surprised in the woods, and that is btb.

The "normal" way of checking evasion I present here is an opposing check on d6s.

The problem is I didn't write it clearly.

So I've updated the original post.

Thanks.

[linebeck]

Jul 26, 2020 12:08:53 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Jul 26, 2020 0:47:50 GMT -6 linebeck said:

I like this but i think evading party should evade 1:6 or even 2:6 as opposed to 1:10 if you want the percentage chance to be closer to what is in the books.

Linebeck, I think you misread me.

The 1:10 is the chance for evasion for those who have been surprised in the woods, and that is btb.

The "normal" way of checking evasion I present here is an opposing check on d6s.

The problem is I didn't write it clearly.

So I've updated the original post.

Thanks.

Yep, failed my reading comprehension check.