Troll Lord Games

This came up last session, so, in the event it comes up again...I mentioned this back at session 1, when your move comes into base contact with an enemy, unless you have a class feature or an advantage that allows you to move past them, your move ends.

That's it, straight up and simple.

Now, if you want to get around a defender, you can make a SIEGE attempt. That will act as your turn for the round, but it can allow you to get past an enemy.

SIEGE is equal to either STR (if your are trying to bully/muscle your was past) or DEX (if your are trying to finesse and dodge your way past. If neither one of those is a PRIME, than maybe you shouldn't be up there mixing it up in the melee scrum, heh, heh.

QUESTION:
As I have it now it's very simple: If you pass the attempt, you are able to get by. If you fail the attempt, you may not progress. Neat, clean, simple.

THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS?
Should there be more to it than that? Like, if you fail the attempt by more than 5, the defender gets an attack on you? If you pass the attempt by more than 5, you may attack the enemy your are moving past? Things like that? Should a shield help you in cases where you are trying to muscle your way past an enemy?

Look forward to your comments.

Simple is good, if that works for everyone, go with it.

I'd look at the Overbearing rules, though, and see if they could be made to work for running past. That way it is different if you running past a gnome, or running past a troll. Especially in the "muscle your way past" situation.

You could also simply rule that is a normal charge that happens to overrun the target. The -4 AC penalty is enough of a balancing factor, and would allow for an en-passant attack.

You might treat it as a modified hasty disengagement also; make your STR or DEX check, or take -2 to AC and accept a free attack and follow from the one trying to stop you (if they wish to do so). This gives you more of a penalty than just getting stopped; I kind of like that best.

On a mounted charge, I always allow some movement beyond the target if any movement remains. In a joust, I resolve both sides immediately, though; you can be unhorsed and of course YOUR movement stops.

Aergraith wrote:Simple is good, if that works for everyone, go with it.

I'd look at the Overbearing rules, though, and see if they could be made to work for running past. That way it is different if you running past a gnome, or running past a troll. Especially in the "muscle your way past" situation.

You could also simply rule that is a normal charge that happens to overrun the target. The -4 AC penalty is enough of a balancing factor, and would allow for an en-passant attack.

You might treat it as a modified hasty disengagement also; make your STR or DEX check, or take -2 to AC and accept a free attack and follow from the one trying to stop you (if they wish to do so). This gives you more of a penalty than just getting stopped; I kind of like that best.

On a mounted charge, I always allow some movement beyond the target if any movement remains. In a joust, I resolve both sides immediately, though; you can be unhorsed and of course YOUR movement stops.

Good point on the size difference. Hmmm...will likely base it off your method of wanting to move past. If your a halfling, using Dex, add a +1 to your "move past" roll for each size difference. If your a human attempting to move past, say and ogre, subtract 1 (for each size difference). Could go with 2 on both of those as well.

Is this assuming that the enemy grabs you and tries to stop movement?

Arduin wrote:Is this assuming that the enemy grabs you and tries to stop movement?

This is assuming the intention of going "base to base" with an enemy is to engage them and that they are not standing idly by to watch you go past. They can always just "let you go by", but there are no Attacks of Opportunity in C&C, and I don't want characters carelessly running around the battlefield without a fear of some ogre knocking thier block off.

Another way to do this would be to just give anyone an attack of opportunity when anyone decides "you ain't worth my time, excuse me, comging through". Treat it as if they were doing a full retreat and let them be subject attacks, but I did not want to get into the mechanics of all that.

Lobo316 wrote:

Arduin wrote:Is this assuming that the enemy grabs you and tries to stop movement?

This is assuming the intention of going "base to base" with an enemy is to engage them and that they are not standing idly by to watch you go past. They can always just "let you go by", but there are no Attacks of Opportunity in C&C, and I don't want characters carelessly running around the battlefield without a fear of some ogre knocking thier block off.

Another way to do this would be to just give anyone an attack of opportunity when anyone decides "you ain't worth my time, excuse me, comging through". Treat it as if they were doing a full retreat and let them be subject attacks, but I did not want to get into the mechanics of all that.

I do the latter unless the opponent tries to physically block them as this best mimics reality.

Lobo316 wrote:This came up last session, so, in the event it comes up again...I mentioned this back at session 1, when your move comes into base contact with an enemy, unless you have a class feature or an advantage that allows you to move past them, your move ends.
.

I'm confused as to what you mean by "base contact". Do you mean (1) running past, or adjacent to an enemy? Or do you mean essentially (2) running "through" an enemy's position?

If you mean (1), I wouldn't require a SIEGE check; in the fog of war, it is perfectly permissable for a character to run straight past an enemy (unless he is trying to leave melee with said enemy; a situation addressed in the rules). This is also why I am glad that C&C has no Attack of Opportunity rules as such; combat is much more exciting and movement much more chaotic and fluid if characters don't have to constantly worry about provoking attacks as they run past an enemy. But if you mean (2), I use the Overbear rules for these situations.

But please forgive me if I've misread your post; I have insomnia and am not functioning at peak capacity.

I don't use miniatures in combat so there is never any Warhammer interaction except for the descriptive clerical kind of smashing skull and removing jawlines. But, beyond that, I would look at the type of movement and from what it is derived. For example, a knight riding a walrus (no reason they cannot; they have mounted combat, after all) charges through a line to get toward a champion bravely cowering behind his front could continue through. I "might" call for a check, perhaps, to see if any of the enemy were trampled or whether the tusker got skewered but the charge would not just 'stop.'

serleran wrote: I "might" call for a check, perhaps, to see if any of the enemy were trampled or whether the tusker got skewered but the charge would not just 'stop.'

Yes, the violation of the laws of physics (for mundane movement) really entered D&D in a big way during the 3.X rule set.

Well, to clarify, when I say "base" I mean "next to" and ajoining square on a gridline field (5ft per square). This is NOT addressing "moving through an occupied space".

I'm thinking, after reading these post, one of two things...

1. If you wish to move by an enemy, without engaging them, then you make a SIEGE check (STR or DEX), success and you move on by, failure and they may make an attack as you cruise on by. Not sure if this would stop the movement or not (up for debate).

2. Run it "by the book" and not worry about it. You may move wherever you like, running right between enemies without drawing any sort of attack at all. You only have to worry about movement when disengaging.

In my view, I like option 1, because I think the battlefield should be a place to tread lightly. You should not be moving carelessly around a battlefield without a care or worry of drawing any attacks as you go by.

I like the simplicity of option 2.

I use a case by case approach. There are FAR too many variables to have a hard rule.

serleran wrote:.For example, a knight riding a FLYING walrus (no reason they cannot; they have mounted combat, after all) charges through a line to get toward a champion bravely cowering behind his front could continue through.

There fixed that for you.

-Mike

Lobo316 wrote:1. If you wish to move by an enemy, without engaging them, then you make a SIEGE check (STR or DEX), success and you move on by, failure and they may make an attack as you cruise on by. Not sure if this would stop the movement or not (up for debate).

Hrm, well I suppose whether or not you stop could depend on a few things (not an exhaustive list)...

First, if you are attempting a bull rush to get past, and fail your siege check, then yes, your movement would stop. You just hit an immovable object and rather than knock it off balance to keep it from attacking you, you are knocked off balance. (Hrm, dex check or sprawl on the ground? MUHAHAHAHA) Modifiers to this would have to include size differential, mass differential (harder to bull rush a dwarf than a small human), and strength of the opponent. Perhaps if the being moving through is significantly larger than the "target" movement may continue at a reduced rate.

Next, what is the attack type of the thing you are trying to get past? Some attacks can be considered grapple type attacks, and if that succeeds, then movement would stop regardless of whether failing a STR or DEX check.

If trying to use some sort of acrobatic or other daring move to get around, then it would depend on what you are doing. If moving across clear ground, then I would probably let movement continue with a penalty to the remaining distance. If trying to get around by sliding across a wooden table, very loose terrain, etc., then movement may stop simply because you have missed your leap, or had a bad plant step when changing direction, and sprawl out.

No really simple answer to this.

Also, don't forget reach of some weapons, for me this usually only plays in with polearm types from long spears on up.

You know what, the more I read on this thread, the more I am inclined to go "by the book"...I like the simplicity of that option....

"You may move wherever you like, running right between enemies without drawing any sort of attack at all. You only have to worry about movement when disengaging."

Now, as the CK, there are times I will step in to say, no can can't do X (at least not without a SIEGE check) but overall, I'm liking more and more the "less is more" approach.

I think of a combat round like a football play. I would compare this example to a QB handing the ball to a running back. The running back see's a break in the opponents line and rushes to break through. If he had the initiative, and the space was empty, he gets through free and clear just like real life. If the space were occupied, then an Overbear check would be appropriate (IMO).

Lobo316 wrote:You know what, the more I read on this thread, the more I am inclined to go "by the book"...I like the simplicity of that option....

RAW, there is nothing talking about moving within the range of a meele attack of an opponent except as engaging them.

A combat round is 10 seconds of furious action, and moving within reach of an opponent that is aware of you, well, you may not want to engage it, but it may want to engage you... Going in order of initiative represents a methodical way of controlling the action from a gaming perspective. When attacking, it also represents that one blow that has an opportunity of striking home. However, what it does not mean is that all other participants in the battle stand by idlely awaiting their "turn" to act. Instead they are positioning or moving, preparing or attacking, etc., as such if an opponent moves into your melee range, you will most likely be looking to engage them. Thus, in my opinion, you should treat it at the very least as a engagement by the opponent and the character trying to disengage at the same time. The bull rush or acrobatic evasion is a great compromise to prevent that free attack, but also comes with some additional risk.

koralas wrote:However, what it does not mean is that all other participants in the battle stand by idlely awaiting their "turn" to act. Instead they are positioning or moving, preparing or attacking, etc.,

Correct. People aren't statues frozen in time as it were. The turn mechanism is simply a way to make sure everyone gets to act in a given time frame. It is a fluid situation.

So if I am reading NewenglandJeff and Korlas replies correctly, it seems you guys would run this differently.

Jeff, would not hinder the movement, until melee combat is actually initiated (otherwise, feel free to "run through" any holes you see).

Korlas see's the issue as, if you move within melee, it's assumed you are engaging them, thus a "move by" would be an engagement followed immediately by a disengagment (thus using a SIEGE check to determine the outcome).

Here's a question, if one was to use a SIEGE check, let's say the person trying to skirt past that angry orc failed the check...what happens? I would rule he is subject to an attack, obviously, but, if the attack hits does it stop his progress or does he keep on moving (can he keep going, with the damage, or is he now stopped an considered engaged)?

My gut instinct is to treat it like any other disengagment, you are hit, but you can keep on moving (disengaging).

I have ruled in a simpler way (I hope):
1)you can always walk next to an enemy if you are not angaged in a melee
2)if the enemy isn't yet engaged in a melee, he automatically turns to face you
3)if the enemy is engaged you can freely walk past him and attack him from the rear
4)if you are engaged with the enemy you can only walk a little (a square, if you use them) but you must remain engaged, then the have the possibility to turn to face you

I can try to simplify further: the only moment when you are allowed to try a rear attack is when you begin the combat then, if the enemy isn't a good fighter (ex a stupid animal, like a boar, a bug etc), perhaps it shall happen that he will give the possibility to be struck from the rear or perhaps he shall not turn to the better position (example: a monster caught between 2 character, it will face alternatively one of the 2 players). Once you are in melee, it doesnt care if you move around: the only chance you will get to strike in the back is if the enemy is dumb enough to give it to you.

I hope it's simple

doominicus wrote:I have ruled in a simpler way (I hope):
1)you can always walk next to an enemy if you are not angaged in a melee
2)if the enemy isn't yet engaged in a melee, he automatically turns to face you
3)if the enemy is engaged you can freely walk past him and attack him from the rear
4)if you are engaged with the enemy you can only walk a little (a square, if you use them) but you must remain engaged, then the have the possibility to turn to face you

You know, I kinda like this Doominicus. It's sort of a collaberation of all we've chatted about. "point by point"...

1) Goes without saying.
2) I would do this as "If you are attempting to "move past" an enemy who is not engaged in melee, make a siege check to get by, failure and he can make an attack on you as you move past.
3) Simple enough, if the enemy is engaged, you may move past.
4) I already do this, a "5ft" step (or square), but you must remain adjacent to the opponenet you are currently engaged with.

I could do something along these lines easy enough.

Lobo316 wrote:So if I am reading NewenglandJeff and Korlas replies correctly, it seems you guys would run this differently.

Jeff, would not hinder the movement, until melee combat is actually initiated (otherwise, feel free to "run through" any holes you see).

Korlas see's the issue as, if you move within melee, it's assumed you are engaging them, thus a "move by" would be an engagement followed immediately by a disengagment (thus using a SIEGE check to determine the outcome).

Here's a question, if one was to use a SIEGE check, let's say the person trying to skirt past that angry orc failed the check...what happens? I would rule he is subject to an attack, obviously, but, if the attack hits does it stop his progress or does he keep on moving (can he keep going, with the damage, or is he now stopped an considered engaged)?

My gut instinct is to treat it like any other disengagment, you are hit, but you can keep on moving (disengaging).

I just want to clarify, as Aduin pointed out, that in the abstract combat round, everyone is zigging and zagging simultaniously. I'm saying that the guy who got the initiative could move past adjacent enemy combatants as he "abstractly" stiff-arms, jukes, twirls, and cartwheels his way through the opening. In my world, I would allow the enemy(s) to make a free attack/grapple/overbear attempt as the player steps out of the adjacent square. I would not give the player a hasty disengage penalty (unless they were engaged immediately prior), but I would give the enemy the appropriate flanking or rear attack bonus. Everyone is going to house rule this situation differently because the RAW do not adaquately address this. I would be comfortable using any method given in this thread. I happen to model mine after the old SSI Gold Box games (Champions of Krynn, Pool of Radiance).

ETA: took out some redundancy

By the way, in the Sunday game I play, most of the time the DM just says "You can move past him, but he gets to take a swing at ya." Part of me wants to complicate it, and part of me doesn't want to acknowledge 3.5isms like "attacks of opportunity", but in this particular case, that is quick, and works just fine. If someone tries to squeeze past you, you get a free swing at them.

There's a rich history of initiative systems and definitions of being "in melee" that I review when these things come up, but in the end, decide if it matters and go with what's easy.

Aergraith wrote:By the way, in the Sunday game I play, most of the time the DM just says "You can move past him, but he gets to take a swing at ya." Part of me wants to complicate it, and part of me doesn't want to acknowledge 3.5isms like "attacks of opportunity", but in this particular case, that is quick, and works just fine. If someone tries to squeeze past you, you get a free swing at them.

There's a rich history of initiative systems and definitions of being "in melee" that I review when these things come up, but in the end, decide if it matters and go with what's easy.

Yea, that certainly works as well. I think the ambiguity in the topic stems from the fact that the PHB does not address the situation at all. Some will point out that "hey, why does the orc get an attack as I go back, that's not in the rules", but then again, I don't think the rules address it all all...they don't say you "can" do that either.

In fact, the rules are more along the lines of assuming that you are entering combat, engaging your enemy, not moving past him.

Really, this has turned out to be a very enjoyable thread. Everyone has given me something new to think about in regards to how we will go forwarding handling the issue.

Gotta say, one of my players had a good point in regards to my useing a Dex or Str based SIEGE check to move past and adjacent enemy....Although such a rule would be rough (and rightly so) on wizards and clerics (classes that may not have Dex or Str Primes), it's also harsh on the knight (who may be Char/Con based). Maybe the paladin as well. Bottom line, regardless of Primes, those types of classes should not be at any more a disdvantage when moving past enemies as a fighter or barbarian, as they (the knight and the pally) are both front line fighters as well.

He has a very solid point. So, in these cases, once again the less is more approach may be the way to go. The way your DM does it, for example..."they get a swing as you go by". They don't stop you, but they get that free attack. HOWEVER, if I go this route, I will combine it with Doominicus "engaged" rules (if the enemy is engaged with an opponent, you may move on past, if not...he gets a swing as you go by).

One last thing. Anytime a discussion like this comes up, perhaps consider how things change if you require declarations of intent before initiative is rolled. Often that is helpful. If I declared I wanted to move past someone who could possibly stop me, you can now decide what will happen if I get high or low initiative (or if the initiative matters at all), and it's easy to decide ahead of time how the creature presenting the obstacle will react, and if it warrants an additional out of turn action or if it could be rolled into his turn.

Hope that makes sense. I find predeclarations sometimes can completely obviate the clunky initiative system. I was just re-reading Holmes Basic D&D last night, and the initiative system is basically this: if you move within melee range of someone else, the one with a higher dex goes first. Everything else you are trusted to be able to figure out.

I guess I'll weigh in on this, even though I've tried really hard not to. It's an interesting conversation, to be sure, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch from the sidelines or to participate. Guess I made my mind up.

A combat is abstract. But I've always viewed the "abstractness" from the other angle - the concept of everyone moving at the same time, to me, is the abstract part. I feel it's, technically, impossible for everything happen at the same time. Initiative was established because of this. Conceivably, everyone's actions are happening in a 10-second span of time but it's got to happen, at the table, sequentially. A lot can happen in a 10-second span of time. I know that might sound redundant, but it furthers my post.

I think some people think that "PC A hits monster B" and "monster B hits PC A" and "spellcaster X casts spell" and monster bowman Y fires at spellcaster" all happen simultaneously. At the exact moment. It's a 10-second interval. It all doesn't happen at the same time. In the same span of time, but not at the same exact moment. One PC can hit a monster, and the monster can hit back in that 10-second time span. His sword doesn't come in contact with my head and mine with his at the exact same time. A combat round has, more than once, has been described as a series of parries, dodges, swings, positioning, and maneuvers in the hopes of landing a blow on your opponent. To me, that still holds true.

I think that the declaration of actions before the initiative can relieve some issues. If I want to walk past the orc grunt to get to the orc shaman but the grunt beats my initiative, then he can confront me, or protect the shaman better, or wait for me to walk by and get a shot on me - whatever he decided to do with his declaration. But if I beat his initiative, I slip past him - because my reaction speed is better - and take a shot at the shaman. Now, if I beat the shaman's initiative I can disrupt the spell that the CK was going to have him cast (thus losing the spell). If I don't beat the initiative of the shaman, maybe I don't get to walk by the grunt because I was put to sleep or I was hit with a magic missile. But perhaps my ranger friend beat the shaman's initiative at this point and he buried an arrow in the shaman's chest.

I think the declare-then-initiative process removes the need for "attacks of opportunity" and the like (holding actions and delaying also) in C&C. Personally, I'm so glad AoO's are gone. I liked the concept in the beginning, but it's just one more thing to bog down combat. I'm glad they were left out of C&C and I don't miss them one bit. I think it was funny, because I originally thought of adding them back in and was scoffing at the return to an older style of combat. But I couldn't believe how well it does. I would humbly suggest that if you haven't tried it RAW, to do so first before adding too much in. You might be surprised how it works.

EDIT: Lost internet connection for a little bit, so I finished writing up my post. Then Aergraith, the bum, scooped me with the declaration talk. Needless to say, I agree with him!

Lord Dynel wrote: EDIT: Lost internet connection for a little bit, so I finished writing up my post. Then Aergraith, the bum, scooped me with the declaration talk. Needless to say, I agree with him!

That does help a lot. I've used that forever. I do it in my head for the "monsters" also.

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: EDIT: Lost internet connection for a little bit, so I finished writing up my post. Then Aergraith, the bum, scooped me with the declaration talk. Needless to say, I agree with him!

That does help a lot. I've used that forever. I do it in my head for the "monsters" also.

Yep. I do, too. Sometimes you get players who don't believe your declarations (or I have). In which case I jot them down, round-by-round, on a scrap piece of paper. That way, I have proof. I an also then dock them some XP for not believing me.

Lord Dynel wrote:
Yep. I do, too. Sometimes you get players who don't believe your declarations (or I have). In which case I jot them down, round-by-round, on a scrap piece of paper. That way, I have proof. I an also then dock them some XP for not believing me.

Lobo316 wrote:

doominicus wrote: You know, I kinda like this Doominicus. It's sort of a collaberation of all we've chatted about. "point by point"...

1) Goes without saying.
2) I would do this as "If you are attempting to "move past" an enemy who is not engaged in melee, make a siege check to get back, failure and he can make an attack on you as you move past.
3) Simple enough, if the enemy is engaged, you may move past.
4) I already do this, a "5ft" step (or square), but you must remain adjacent to the opponenet you are currently engaged with.

I could do something along these lines easy enough.

Point 2,imho, it's too much 3rd edition for me. No opportunity attack, no siege check, nothing. If u want to go back to an enemy (and he's not yet engaged) he obviously turn to face you. But this is my opinion...
It much depends upon the player you have at your table and how much they are oriented towards rules: my gf after 10 years of D&D, said: I have never learn the basic of combat and I don't want to do.

Lobo316 wrote:Korlas see's the issue as, if you move within melee, it's assumed you are engaging them, thus a "move by" would be an engagement followed immediately by a disengagment (thus using a SIEGE check to determine the outcome).

Not necessarily... it could be the opposite. You may not wish to engage the opponent, and want to move past; however, that opponent may engage you if you come into melee range, as long as they are aware of you. Thus if the opponent was not looking in a direction where the character could be observed, then unless the character is yelling, beating their chest, or do something else to draw attention to herself, the opponent will be blissfully unable to engage the character. However, if the opponent could see the character in at least their peripheral vision, then they would generally engage him rather than let him slip past to his rear.