Troll Lord Games

How are other CKs out there handling movement in combat? I mean, I know there is not "shifting" and "Opportunity Attacks" and such, so if I have a fighter engaged with an orc, and he wants to try to manever into flanking, do you allow a 5 foot "move" (so to speak)? Can a characters simply not move once engaged?

Also, what if the parties ranger want to move my opponents? What's to stop him from moving right past three orcs if there are not opportunity attacks? Does his move simply end when he is base to base with an enemy? Do you use a SIEGE check to see if he can get back, or is stopped flat in his tracks?

If you use a SIEGE check, what would you base it on? A rouge obviously would base it on agility, but can I barbarian choose to "muscle past" an enemy?

This is what I do: I follow the rules as written in the PHB (and the combat maneuvers in the CKG) as much as possible, without improvising unless neccessary.

It is clear that when two opponents are in melee combat, neither one can move away from the fight without suffering the penalties under the disengagement rules of the PHB.

However, for medium-sized creatures I consider the adjacent 5' squares around the opponent to "melee attack zone" if you will. If your PC get's up into that area, he is considered in melee combat.

If the PC wants to move half of their movement and still attack as long as they remain in the melee attack zone, there is no penalty. This is where I use facing rules. If the attacker moves into the melee combat zone, the oppoenent can turn to face his attacker freely. If the attacker is shifting position and staying in the melee attack zone, the defender can freely adjust his facing to compensate. If this method is followed, other attackers coming in can put themselves in the flank or rear-attack positions. One the defenders turn, the defending enemy can adjust his facing to attack whomever he wishes. This adjustment of facing by the defender may cause other attackers to then no longer be in the flank attack position. That's OK. During their turn they can shift their own position within the melee attack zone to get into flanking position. But watch out! If any of the attackers leave this 5' melee attack zone they are subject to the penalties from disengaging from combat.

While this sounds very 3E complicated, it's not too bad and really follows all of the C&C rules to the letter.

You see, as you point out, there really is a lot of facing and grid-combat in the C&C game. The C&C authors smartly don't put hard rules in their game regarding all of these things, but put them inbetween the lines if you will. Experienced CKs can then craft their game to be as they require with the grid-combat rules or without by making calls on the fly. Got to love that.

~O

Thanks for the input Omote. I really think that's very similar to what I am going to do. Once you base an enemy, you are in combat (what you call your melee attack zone).

I know facing is going to be important. I'm going to let players (and monsters) change thier facing for free on thier turn. I may allow them to change thier facing when an enemy first "bases" them, but we'll see. Maybe not. Bottom line, I'm not going to charge them an action or movement for changing thier facing.

As far as movement goes, if you are in melee with an enemy, I am going going to allow a 5ft movement, and that's it. Anything else would be dis-engaging from combat. Now, this is were I may insert a siege check. If you want to move past an enemy, whether by finese or by brute strength, I will probably allow a SIEGE check, with an DC based off the HD of the opponent (roughly). Failure indicates you cannot move (or maybe you can move, but the enemy gets a free attack on you, if he hits, he stops you in your tracks).

Not really sure yet, still working out the kinks, but curious to hear other thoughts.

You system sounds like it would work just fine! I like the idea of using a brute strength siege check or a nimble (DEX) seige check. That's brilliant, and very simple.

That's why I like C&C so much. Everybody can put their own little touches on the rules to make the game their own.

~O

I have allowed thieves to dex check to use their nimbleness and evasion to skirt meleeing opponents and flank.
I have allowed fighter types to muscle through the lines.
Really just use your judgement.

I was thinking about this the other day, especially in relation to the use of miniatures.

One of the attractive points of C&C and other games like it seems to be the ease of use, and this includes combat being fluid even without the use of a grid and miniatures. My question is how is movement fluid when races are still supposed to stick to the 20/30ft per tern movement rate (like in 3e)? It seems that keeping track of those numbers in your head would be tedious, and ignoring them altogether could make your game very inconsistent. It's very unlikely that all 5 or so people at the table are imagining the same 20/30/60ft in the 100x200 room you've dropped them in. At least if it's all in their heads.

Now, I'm all for hand waving and the like as a DM, but as a player it's nice to know that you are getting similar opportunities as the monsters.

Now, I know this was easily done in AD&D etc, but I don't believe movement rates/restrictions were as cut and dry as in C&C/3e etc.

Ozreth wrote: My question is how is movement fluid when races are still supposed to stick to the 20/30ft per tern movement rate (like in 3e)? It seems that keeping track of those numbers in your head would be tedious, and ignoring them altogether could make your game very inconsistent. It's very unlikely that all 5 or so people at the table are imagining the same 20/30/60ft in the 100x200 room you've dropped them in. At least if it's all in their heads.

I've played since OD&D. I've never encountered players who can't keep track of how far their characters move nor, as a DM, had trouble knowing the movement rates of the monsters I'm running. Once the players know that a square = 5', it is pretty simple. 4 squares or 6 squares...

Ozreth wrote:I was thinking about this the other day, especially in relation to the use of miniatures.

I'd recommend if you don't use a grid, then simplify the movement rates and use them for flavor (the monk beats the dwarf to the door!) or relative things (the monster moves twice or three times as fast or far).

Even when I don't use minis I keep a sketch of the area. You still want to be fairly accurate with spell ranges and areas, anyway.

Most of the time, in a dungeon, movement is not a worry. People can close to melee distance with a charge if nothing else usually, and after that all you need to know is they are "in melee". Outdoors, it's not too much harder; until they've closed the gap, they are either close enough to get there this round or they are not.

When it does become important (someone is slowed, cleric needs to reach someone dying, etc...), then the CK can track it on paper. Doesn't have to be a map, just writing down how far they are from something is sometimes enough.

As an aside:
If there is one thing I've had knocked into my heads on these forums, begging clear, definitive rule interpretations that everyone (or anyone) agree on is a quixotic goal. I can appreciate why one wants these answers, but for me it seems to be useful mainly for satisfying 3.x+ players who absolutely must know all of the things they and the monsters are allowed to do. Just saying no to that style of play is best done early, and if impossible, you may want to adopt the 3.5 grid combat rules whole cloth, at least they are fairly consistent and 3.5 players already know them and can look them up during play. It's hard to impress on them that the FEWER rules you have the MORE you can do. (Though admittedly, what you can do you can't necessarily do reliably.)

Sorry, maybe I should start a new thread for that rant.

Arduin wrote:
I've played since OD&D. I've never encountered players who can't keep track of how far their characters move nor, as a DM, had trouble knowing the movement rates of the monsters I'm running. Once the players know that a square = 5', it is pretty simple. 4 squares or 6 squares...

But I said without a grid : )

Ozreth wrote: But I said without a grid : )

Oh, sorry I missed that. I don't know of any RPG where you can accurately keep track of that without a grid. Doesn't exist.

Also, even in something like 3.x, movement is VERY inaccurate as it isn't simultaneous movement. Following those movement rules to the letter results in bizarre situations.

Seems like the vast majority of players from the 70s-90s didn't use a grid and I don't think the books call for it.

Ozreth wrote:Seems like the vast majority of players from the 70s-90s didn't use a grid and I don't think the books call for it.

Don't know. I played on 3 continents with scores of people during that time period. I can't remember not using one for combat of any size above a couple of combatants... Makes sense seeing the game was born of military simulation combat and most of the early players came out of that genre...

Tape measure. 1 inch equals 5 feet. No need for grid.

~O