First Session Afterthoughts

[Shrieking Emu]

My group played its first session of C&C last night, and it was a hit! Most of the players have played everything from 1E to 4E, so it was a bit like coming full circle for them. Here are some questions that came up during the game:

1. How many people actually use the engaging/disengaging rule in combats? It was the one thing that seemed to slow down combats a bit.

2. How many people use facing in combats?

3. Does anybody do mini-less combat? If so, how well does it work for you?

4. How long does the Illusionist's Disguise ability last?

[serleran]

If you want responses, put the question in the right forum.

[Shrieking Emu]

If you want responses, put the question in the right forum.

As I was a Keeper looking for Advice, I thought I had. Thanks for the cheery response.

[mgtremaine]

If you want responses, put the question in the right forum.

As I was a Keeper looking for Advice, I thought I had. Thanks for the cheery response.

It might not be obvious but the Keeper's Advice Forum is meant for answer directly from Official Troll Lord spokespeople, no one else is able to reply to threads in that forum. Hence the lack of answers. Serleran's answers are sometimes terse but I do not think he meant it in a rude way. At least I read it that way.

-Mike

[Shrieking Emu]

Ah, okay. My mistake. Thanks for the clarification.

[Arduin]

1. How many people actually use the engaging/disengaging rule in combats? It was the one thing that seemed to slow down combats a bit.

I use it when appropriate. How did it slow down your game exactly?

4) The illusionists ability isn't magical in nature. So, it lasts as long as it physically lasts.

[mgtremaine]

My group played its first session of C&C last night, and it was a hit! Most of the players have played everything from 1E to 4E, so it was a bit like coming full circle for them. Here are some questions that came up during the game:

1. How many people actually use the engaging/disengaging rule in combats? It was the one thing that seemed to slow down combats a bit.

2. How many people use facing in combats?

3. Does anybody do mini-less combat? If so, how well does it work for you?

4. How long does the Illusionist's Disguise ability last?

1) I do not use engage/disengage

2) If by facing you mean bonus to hit then yes for Rogues or someone who has gone to the extra steps to try and flank someone. This usually means not taking an attack during one round to get into position. Otherwise not generally, hell sometimes I forget to discount shields against multiple foes.

3) Yes, works fine. I do not even use initiative. 10 second combat round I considered everything a fuzzy simultaneous mess, I go around the table get all the PC's actions and rolls, then I do mine then I end the round. Rinse and repeat. If someone pulls of a great move and lucky roll I might drop the monsters actions.

4) No duration, I run it has mostly physical so it last as long as the Illusionist needs it. Any bonus for using Change Self or Alter Sel obviously go way when those spells expire.

-Mike

[Shrieking Emu]

I use it when appropriate. How did it slow down your game exactly?

4) The illusionists ability isn't magical in nature. So, it lasts as long as it physically lasts.

I wasn't sure how it worked when multiple enemies were attacking one character. Is the character allowed to move around without penalty as long as he stays adjacent to both of them? What if he moves around and only stays adjacent to one of the two enemies, etc, etc.

As for the Illusionist, I believe the book says it is a mix of magic and physical means, but little else. I was wondering how others adjudicated that.

RE: Shields (from Mike) - I don't even use the multiple attackers rule for shields - I just rule that the AC bonus is only good for characters in the PC's front arc. If I decide to go to a more abstract rule for facing (to allow rogues back attacks, flanks, etc), I may just give the shield a flat AC bonus with no restrictions.

[Arduin]

I wasn't sure how it worked when multiple enemies were attacking one character. Is the character allowed to move around without penalty as long as he stays adjacent to both of them? What if he moves around and only stays adjacent to one of the two enemies, etc, etc.

Disengaging is moving AWAY from the other combatants. Not running around amongst them. You simply back up fighting or, flee and they get attacks on you. Either way you can be followed. Just like real life.

As for the Illusionist, I believe the book says it is a mix of magic and physical means, but little else. I was wondering how others adjudicated that.

The magic is if the spells listed in the ability description are used. Otherwise, similar to the Assassin class ability.

[Lord Dynel]

My group played its first session of C&C last night, and it was a hit! Most of the players have played everything from 1E to 4E, so it was a bit like coming full circle for them. Here are some questions that came up during the game:

Awesome! Glad you and your group are enjoying it. And welcome to the Crusade!

1. How many people actually use the engaging/disengaging rule in combats? It was the one thing that seemed to slow down combats a bit.

A hasty disengagement allow a character to move up to four times their normal movement (as it says "maximum running distance") to break off from a fight. I think in a case such as this, the opponents need to be played smart. Unless their mindless, hungry, beasts, they probably won't give chase. Humanoids, smarter monsters, and intelligent creatures probably won't give chase beyond the parting shot. Orcs might not give chase, where a pack of wolves probably would...at least that's how I'd play it. To me a hasty disengagement has some use. A fighting disengagement, however, not so much. It's actually worse than the normal "move half and then attack" option normally available (since it states that no other action in the round can be made). I would allow hasty disengagements, but I would advise players that there are no benefits from a fighting disengagement (unless I'm missing something).

2. How many people use facing in combats?

I do, since flank and rear attacks are part of the game, and shields defend against attacks from a specific direction.

3. Does anybody do mini-less combat? If so, how well does it work for you?

I've done both, and they both have their benefits. As long as the GM/CK is descriptive enough in combat and can give you specific distances and such, it'll work out fine. If things get confusing for him or the players, then minis and grids might be better. I actually draw it out in a piece of paper, behind the screen (using X's and O's, or initials, or symbols for characters and monsters) noting distances and movements during combat. It keeps things straight for me and I have everything jotted down on this little map I make behind the screen for each encounter. It's much less clunky than miniature positioning and the tactics or gridded combat. On the other hand, the lack of tactical bits in C&C would make movement and combat on a grid pretty easy. If you can dust off your old style (assuming you didn't use minis back in your 1e days), I'd say try that first.

4. How long does the Illusionist's Disguise ability last?

I wouldn't let it go indefinitely. That said, I'd say maybe every hour or two (or even four), he'd have to reapply the disguise, taking another 1d3x10 minutes. Also, he's has to have supplies on hand to do this. And it says in the description that disguises must be occasionally changed to avoid suspicion. They're definitely temporary, but how temporary would be at the CK's discretion.

[Arduin]

It's actually worse than the normal "move half and then attack" option normally available (since it states that no other action in the round can be made). I would allow hasty disengagements, but I would advise players that there are no benefits from a fighting disengagement (unless I'm missing something)..

There's a difference, you have to visualize it. Move and attack is assuming that you aren't toe to toe with a person trying to cut you to ribbons. If you are, you have to disengage. If you just move and ignore the guy next to you with the sword, you're going to get nailed. The reason why you can't perform other actions with the disengage is that you can't let your guard down while moving away (not hasty disengage). Walk away (like your stated 1/2 move & attack) and the opponent gets an attack on you AND can follow.

There's the difference.

[Shrieking Emu]

Here are a few questions that came to mind. Are the following examples matters of disengaging and/or free strikes?

[Arduin]

Here are a few questions that came to mind. Are the following examples matters of disengaging and/or free strikes?

In the 1st one you are engaged. You can back up (disengage) but you can't perform other actions and the orcs are free to stay with you.

The 2nd one, CK judgement. The combat round is a segment of time where EVERYONE acts. It is not sequential really, it is parallel. In reality winning Initiative gives you a small fraction of the round to start action 1st. If Orc2 is aware and ready, he may well get a swipe at the PC either as he runs by or from behind by following quickly. Individuals are not frozen during a round.

[Shrieking Emu]

So if you disengage, the enemies can follow you on your turn?

[Arduin]

So if you disengage, the enemies can follow you on your turn?

It's simultaneous. That's why you can't perform other actions while backing up (if they are still trying to attack you). You are keeping your guard up because they are in your face while moving. "Turns" are just a needed mechanic so you the CK can run things and put order into the game. People don't move for 10 seconds (combat round) while everyone else is frozen in time.

Example: You and I are sword fighting. You want to move. You don't move for 10 seconds while I stand there picking my nose. You might get a 5' jump on me (win initiative) but, I'm right there with you...

[Omote]

Here are a few questions that came to mind. Are the following examples matters of disengaging and/or free strikes?

In the 1st one you are engaged. You can back up (disengage) but you can't perform other actions and the orcs are free to stay with you.

The 2nd one, CK judgement. The combat round is a segment of time where EVERYONE acts. It is not sequential really, it is parallel. In reality winning Initiative gives you a small fraction of the round to start action 1st. If Orc2 is aware and ready, he may well get a swipe at the PC either as he runs by or from behind by following quickly. Individuals are not frozen during a round.

[Edit: I have changed my mind on this].

On a related note, awesome diagrams!

~O

[Lord Dynel]

Here are a few questions that came to mind. Are the following examples matters of disengaging and/or free strikes?

In scenario #1 - that's moving backwards after an attack. Technically, the orcs won't get an attack when you move back, but can move follow you and attack. If you don't attack and just back up (fighting disengage), you won't suffer any free attacks but again, the orcs can follow you and attack on their action. This is where I have the problem I mentioned earlier, that by the rules, there's no benefit from a fighting disengage.

In scenario #2 - that's moving past one orc, then another, to get into a position. He doesn't suffer any attacks for doing this. Don't confuse this game with other editions/game - there aren't free attacks for walking past someone in combat.

But, yes, they can follow you (it's stated in the book)if you disengage. As I was saying before, I think a lot of it will fall to the CK whether he would allow followers, depending on the situation and the foe.

There's a difference, you have to visualize it. Move and attack is assuming that you aren't toe to toe with a person trying to cut you to ribbons. If you are, you have to disengage. If you just move and ignore the guy next to you with the sword, you're going to get nailed. The reason why you can't perform other actions with the disengage is that you can't let your guard down while moving away (not hasty disengage). Walk away (like your stated 1/2 move & attack) and the opponent gets an attack on you AND can follow.

There's the difference.

I don't know if I quite understand what you're saying, hoss. Are these your interpretation of the rules? If so, that's fine. I'm reading page 132 of the PHB, and drawing conclusions from there.

A swing in combat comes from a melee position, and you're close enough to hit. Deciding to disengage from combat can originate from the same position. In both of those positions (right after a swing or deciding I don't want to swing and I want to run away), I promptly leave my position and start heading for the hills. After the swing, I may move 10 or 15 feet (depending on race, possibly encumberance, too). After I tuck my tail between my legs and haul a$$, I'm going to get swung at, and it'll be easier than normal because I've thrown caution to the wind...a hasty retreat. If I decide to guard myself while retreating - a fighting disengagement - I move the same amount I would have if I would have made an attack, one-half movement, but I don't get the benefit of making an attack since disengaging doesn't allow an attack. The difference from a hasty disengage is that I don't take the penalty or get attacked. But this is still inferior to a normal move-and-attack.

There are no free attacks in C&C, except in very specific situations. Disengaging is one of them. If you move half your speed from a fighting disengage, the monster (or whatever) can simply move up to you on it's turn and attack you. If you hastily disengage, and move 4x your movement, that monster can hit you for doing that. Then it can run up to 4x its move on its turn and wait until you try to hastily disengage again, so it can get a free (and easier) attack on you. But most of us don't run this "Berzerk" (remember that Atari game? ) style of combat. If the players disengage, most halfway intelligent foes won't persue. Nor will someone defending their lair, or similar situations.

It seems, Arduin, that you might be making assumptions with the rules, and as I said before, that's cool. That might be how you visualize it. Maybe I'm missing your point, though, in which case I implore you help me see it.

[Arduin]

This is where I have the problem I mentioned earlier, that by the rules, there's no benefit from a fighting disengage.

Sure there is. You get to move and without increasing the danger to yourself. There is no other bonus to be had as all you are doing is moving.

I don't know if I quite understand what you're saying, hoss. Are these your interpretation of the rules? If so, that's fine. I'm reading page 132 of the PHB, and drawing conclusions from there.

No, it using the rule that a combat round is a segment of finite time where ALL get to act. It cannot work any other way if you are using this rule.

[alcyone]

Here are a few questions that came to mind. Are the following examples matters of disengaging and/or free strikes?

For the first example:
In the rules when it says you can move and attack, I take that to mean move THEN attack. You didn't say whether the first example was all in one round, but I wouldn't allow an attack followed by a retreat in the same round. You can move to close and then attack. Once you are in melee, you cannot move without choosing one of the disengage options. What constitutes being in melee is undefined. I have run it where I define it to mean you or an adjacent opponent have attempted a strike, but in a larger group this is hard to keep track of. I think it's easier to say you are in melee if you are within distance to make an attack, typically 5 or 10 feet.

I don't require disengagement if you are just choosing another nearby foe or trying to maneuver around someone you are fighting; you haven't actually disengaged.

For the second:
No rule grants either orc a free strike. Many CKs house rule an "opportunity attack" but I don't see support for it in the rules. I would reserve the right to do it as a CK, but generally it's not necessary.

[Arduin]

For the second:
No rule grants either orc a free strike. Many CKs house rule an "opportunity attack" but I don't see support for it in the rules. I would reserve the right to do it as a CK, but generally it's not necessary.

It isn't a "free strike" it is there allotted attack during that round

[Arduin]

For the second:
No rule grants either orc a free strike. Many CKs house rule an "opportunity attack" but I don't see support for it in the rules. I would reserve the right to do it as a CK, but generally it's not necessary.

It isn't a "free strike" it is their allotted attack during that round.

[Lord Dynel]

This is where I have the problem I mentioned earlier, that by the rules, there's no benefit from a fighting disengage.

Sure there is. You get to move and without increasing the danger to yourself. There is no other bonus to be had as all you are doing is moving.

You can normally move with no danger to yourself.

The move portion of move-and-attack = moving half your speed (after said attack).
The movement of a fighting disengage = moving half your speed (and can't do anything else in the round).

Moving half your speed, then attacking > Moving half your speed, and that's all

I don't know if I quite understand what you're saying, hoss. Are these your interpretation of the rules? If so, that's fine. I'm reading page 132 of the PHB, and drawing conclusions from there.

No, it using the rule that a combat round is a segment of finite time where ALL get to act. It cannot work any other way if you are using this rule.

I understand that part, but even though everything happens simultaneously, order of initiative has to be followed. The question becomes, should order of initiative invalidate actions? Let me give an example
If I, as CK, determine that the orc is going to attack you, he's going to make every effort to do so. But if you declare that you're going to back away at half your speed your speed, what happens if you act first in initiative? If everything happens simultaneously, he should hit you as you're backing away. But that breaks the rule for a fighting disengagement. So he doesn't get an attack, right? So, at the end of the round, you're 15' away from him, but your action, even though it happened simultaneously as the orc's action, invalidated it. So he's standing there, confused and slobbering?

I think the proper way to handle that situation would be to follow through with the orc's intention. Since his intention was to hit you, he would match your 15' of movement and end that move with an attack. But the pendulum swings the other way and now makes a fighting disengagement worthless.

[alcyone]

It isn't a "free strike" it is their allotted attack during that round.

Except in the case of a hasty withdrawal, which this doesn't appear to be, what rule supports any sort of strike by the orc on someone else's initiative count?

I don't think I understand your objection.

[Lord Dynel]

For the second:
No rule grants either orc a free strike. Many CKs house rule an "opportunity attack" but I don't see support for it in the rules. I would reserve the right to do it as a CK, but generally it's not necessary.

It isn't a "free strike" it is there allotted attack during that round

Arduin, go back and read Emu's post. Aergraith is answering Emu's question on whether either scenario would grant a disengageing and/or a free strike.

Here are a few questions that came to mind. Are the following examples matters of disengaging and/or free strikes?

[Arduin]

Here's an example of ignoring the rule that a combat round is, in its ENTIRETY is 10 seconds long.

You have a 25' long X 15' wide hall. 6 PC's are ranged thus: (X's) Orc = (A). Instantaneous teleport pad = O

Just to add color, the PC's all where helms with a feathered plume and carry short swords.

O
X X
X X
X X
A

Orc wins init. Orc walks (yes walks) down the middle of the hall (ruffling feathers as he goes) and reaches teleport pad after about 9 seconds and disappears. Players "turn" in order, (6 different init values). There is 6 more rounds of actions (for a grand total of one minute & 10 seconds of time.

I guess one could run a game that way (strictly following combat rules) but, the results end up being ridiculous.

Now you see how ignoring the datum everyone acts within the same time frame gets to be pretty comical?

[Lord Dynel]

Here's an example of ignoring the rule that a combat round is, in its ENTIRETY is 10 seconds long.

You have a 25' long X 15' wide hall. 6 PC's are ranged thus: (X's) Orc = (A). Instantaneous teleport pad = O

Just to add color, the PC's all where helms with a feathered plume and carry short swords.

O
X X
X X
X X
A

Orc wins init. Orc walks (yes walks) down the middle of the hall (ruffling feathers as he goes) and reaches teleport pad after about 9 seconds and disappears. Players "turn" in order, (6 different init values). There is 6 more rounds of actions (for a grand total of one minute & 10 seconds of time.

I guess one could run a game that way (strictly following combat rules) but, the results end up being ridiculous.

Now you see how ignoring the datum everyone acts within the same time frame gets to be pretty comical?

Then why even roll initiative? Why not have the players go clockwise around the table, declaring their actions and POOF! Everything happens at once. Now, that's laughable.

Do me a favor and go back and read the first paragraph of initiative on page 128. I'll quote it here, for convenience.

The order of action in a combat round is determined by an initiative roll. Every creature or character participating in the combat round rolls a d10 to determine their initiative each round. Those with the highest roll take their action first, and the actions of others descend from there. In the case of a tie, the one with the highest dexterity goes first. In the case of equal dexterity, a simultaneous action occurs.

And there you have it. There are no simultaneous actions, except in extreme circumstances. Even though, abstractly speaking, everything is happening in the same 10-second time span, in game mechanics it can't. In your example, as "comical" as it sounds, the orc would do just as you described according to the rules as written.

[Arduin]

Then why even roll initiative? Why not have the players go clockwise around the table, declaring their actions and POOF! Everything happens at once. Now, that's laughable.

Do me a favor and go back and read the first paragraph of initiative on page 128. I'll quote it here, for convenience.

No need I'm VERY well read on the point. Now, if you were running the game with the above, would you as the GM have the orc walk down the hall with the PC's in "stasis" so to speak and accomplish the above?

[Lord Dynel]

Then why even roll initiative? Why not have the players go clockwise around the table, declaring their actions and POOF! Everything happens at once. Now, that's laughable.

Do me a favor and go back and read the first paragraph of initiative on page 128. I'll quote it here, for convenience.

No need I'm VERY well read on the point. Now, if you were running the game with the above, would you as the GM have the orc walk down the hall with the PC's in "stasis" so to speak and accomplish the above?

No, not in stasis. The orc seized the initiative and acted first in that 10-second span. The characters act, too, but have to act after the orc's action. If you're "VERY well read on the point," then you understand that what I'm saying is correct. You may not like it that way, and may house rule it as you see fit but that doesn't erase the fact that it is the rule. In the end, we all do it how we want, and if we don't like it then we change the rules. It's all good.

[Arduin]

No, not in stasis. The orc seized the initiative and acted first in that 10-second span. The characters act, too, but have to act after the orc's action. If you're "VERY well read on the point," then you understand that what I'm saying is correct. You may not like it that way, and may house rule it as you see fit but that doesn't erase the fact that it is the rule. In the end, we all do it how we want, and if we don't like it then we change the rules. It's all good.

Got it. So, with 20 different init values (thus a 200 second combat round) you are breaking the rule of a 10 second combat round. If you are VERY well read on the point, then you understand what I'm saying is correct.

Basically, you have to mesh the 2 rules together and avoid ridiculous scenarios as above. The orc didn't act FIRST in the 10 seconds, he acted FOR 10 seconds, and the players did NOTHING in that 10 seconds.... If the players acted in that same 10 seconds, show me where they acted within that time as it took the Orc ~10seconds to traverse the distance...

[Lord Dynel]

No, not in stasis. The orc seized the initiative and acted first in that 10-second span. The characters act, too, but have to act after the orc's action. If you're "VERY well read on the point," then you understand that what I'm saying is correct. You may not like it that way, and may house rule it as you see fit but that doesn't erase the fact that it is the rule. In the end, we all do it how we want, and if we don't like it then we change the rules. It's all good.

Got it. So, with 20 different init values (thus a 200 second combat round) you are breaking the rule of a 10 second combat round. If you are VERY well read on the point, then you understand what I'm saying is correct.

Basically, you have to mesh the 2 rules together and avoid ridiculous scenarios as above. The orc didn't act FIRST in the 10 seconds, he acted FOR 10 seconds, and the players did NOTHING in that 10 seconds.... If the players acted in that same 10 seconds, show me where they acted within that time as it took the Orc ~10seconds to traverse the distance...

Go back and read the rules, please. It will benefit you greatly. No one's that well read. No one. Not even you. Sorry.

There is no 200-second combat round. There's only 10 seconds. Whether there was 5 combatants or 25 combatants, there's only a 10-second combat round. If the orc won the initiative, i.e. got the highest roll, he can run to that teleport pad, hit someone, or even do jumping jacks on his "turn" in initiative. When everyone else goes in combat, 10 seconds have passed and the round over. No, he did not act FOR 10 seconds. This is why combat is called abstract. Five combatants can act, or 25, and it's still only 10 seconds. While abstractly speaking the orc acted when the others did, his actions were first, because combat rounds and initiative count is linear.

But even if you can't understand that simplification, don't worry about it. Forget all that. All you have to do is read and understand the following and you'll be good to go.

The order of action in a combat round is determined by an initiative roll. Every creature or character participating in the combat round rolls a d10 to determine their initiative each round. Those with the highest roll take their action first, and the actions of others descend from there. In the case of a tie, the one with the highest dexterity goes first. In the case of equal dexterity, a simultaneous action occurs.

Yep, rules are good.