Moving and attacking

[Dristram]

Coming from the 3e environment, I had made an assumption about moving and attacking. But C&C doesn't have move actions and standard actions. Instead, the rule on moving and attacking is simply a character can move up to one half their movement and be able to make an attack.

By going away from the 3e mentality, to me this means to me that an archer with 30 movement could move 5 feet, fire his bow, and then move 10 feet more. Also, a character could move 10 feet, attack an opponent with a melee weapon, and then move 5 more feet. Essentially, 3e's feats of spring attack and shot on the run are available to all in C&C.

Now, I don't believe the Trolls meant for this to be the case, but you know what, I like it and will use it in my game. There is one caveat though. Once an opponent makes a melee attack on a character, that character is considered in melee combat and must use the disengagement rule to be able to move away.

Thoughts?

[irda ranger]

I suppose, coming from a 3E point of view, you would trigger disengagement if you wanted to move 10' or more after being engaged in melee. Your "five foot step" should not require it.

My rule is that movement during a round has to be done all at once. It can be before or after your attack, but you can't split it up like in your examples. Although I hadn't though about it, I suppose the PC should have to use the disengagement rule if using their movement at the end of the round (is that how it works BtB? I don't have it at work).

For those interested, I have "C&C-isized" Attacks of Opportunity. Basically, I call it "Act out of Turn." Sometimes someone does something (like casting a spell, dropping a weapon and drawing a new one, trying to drink a potion, etc.) that allows you to "pounce" on their lowered defenses. There's no official list of what allows one to "Act out of Turn", just whatever seems right to the CK, depending on the class and Primes of those involved and other circumstances. In this case you can attack right then, with a bonus, but that's your attack for the round. There are no "free" attacks. On the next round you return to your original place in the initiative order (or ease of combat management, as much as anything).
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Treebore]

This comes under my "special Action attempt" rules. IE if they want to move like Spring attack, etc... They just make a TN check with the HD or average HD of the opponent(s) against whom the move is being made as the CL.

[moriarty777]

With the rules as outlined... you can move up to half your movement and then attack. I suppose if you attack, you can move up to half of movement away BUT this does not count as disengaging. I would figure that opponent you attempted to hit can and usually will move with you. Essentially, once engaged in melee, you're 'in the thick of things'.

You can disengage from combat (see disengagement rules) but do nothing else BUT move.

However, I always give some allowance for common sense, and I'm sure every other CK out there will too. If someone provides some sort of cover or interference will you weave in and out of melee, I don't see why you couldn't strike and move away without being followed.

As Treebore suggests, certain situations may require an additional check, and that's the why I do things overall.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Dristram]

moriarty777 wrote:
With the rules as outlined... you can move up to half your movement and then attack.

It is? Where is that?

[Treebore]

Second column of page 116 (second printing) first complete paragraph.

Personally I kept it the same as 3E. Meaning move full movement and still atack, once. Charge would double that, with the penalties.

[PeelSeel2]

Treebore wrote:
Personally I kept it the same as 3E. Meaning move full movement and still atack, once. Charge would double that, with the penalties.

This is the way I play it. Characters get a move action and a standard action, or a full round action. Combat is 6 seconds long. Only fighters (of 6th level or higher) can get two attacks in a round with a full round action. I have a mechanic of sorts that apes attacks of opportunity, but it does not violate the 1 standard action in a round. If somebody does something threating towards you (like charge, try to run past, etc) you can elect to take your standard action before their action. So you can set vs. charge, attack someone trying to go around, etc. A character can also delay or ready an action in a round.
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

-George Washington

[Omote]

So far in my games I've gone pretty much by the word of the book. PCs are allowed to to 1/2 move and then attack. Attacking is the last part of the "attack action" if you will. If a PC wants to move out of combat he has to use the HASTY DISENGAGE combat manuever (full movement, -2 AC and a free attack) or FIGHTING DISENGAGE (1/2 movement, no attack for either combatent, no other penalties to AC, etc).

This probably makes combat very rigid for most other CKs, but in the long term has avoided movement/attack arguments.

........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Dristram]

Treebore wrote:
Second column of page 116 (second printing) first complete paragraph.

There it states, "An attacker can move one-half their movement rate and still attack."

On page 115 under ATTACK it states, "An attack allows a character or monster to move up to one-half their movement rate."

According to C&C, the attack "action" includes movement, but does not state clearly whether the movement has to be taken before the attack. But the disengagement rule will lead one to believe that movement is not allowed after a melee attack. I am happy with that. But for firing a ranged weapon, I'm thinking the restriction of having to move before attacking with the bow, and not after, is a bit out of place. Since the ranged attacker is not in melee combat, I'm fine with allowing movement before or after a ranged attack, or both. I'm willing and ready to get rid of the rules confinement for a combat round from 3e.

[Malperion]

I'm favoring simple move and shoot (full movement then ranged, melee or spell). I noticed after our first sessions when I ran that my long-time 3rd Ed group would furrow their brows when I told them they couldn't move full for their attack unless they were charging. No big complaints from them, but I was feeling the same way.

My co-GM still wants to follow the rules on this so I will have to wait until my turn to run comes to implement it.

[Dristram]

Well, that's one thing about C&C, you can easily slide in 3e rules where wanted.

[Malperion]

Our group collected a ton of mini's and they expect to use them in a familiar way (3rd Edish). As long as everything else is easy, my GM workload is still much reduced (like not glazing over looking at statblocks when a game stretched beyond midnight during an important fight).

[jamesmishler]

I've scrapped the C&C movement system; it is an unfortunate melding of 1E/2E and 3E systems.

These are the options in my game:

No move, no attack, take a different action that could take six seconds of time.

No move, then make a full attack or cast spell.

No move, then aim or oversight with missile weapon.

Move five-foot step, then full attack or cast spell.

Move up to full movement, no attack.

Move up to full movement, then make one attack. Characters wielding two weapons may make one attack with each.

Jog up to double movement, no attack.

Charge between at least one-half and up to double movement, though no less than 10 feet in any case, and make one attack at -2 to hit, deal 1 normal damage (double damage if it is a weapon designed for a charge, like a spear or lance), and defend at -2 to Armor Class until your action next round.

Run up to triple movement, no attack; those who are carrying heavy encumbrance cannot run triple movement, and defend at -2 to Armor Class until your action next round.

Run up to quadruple movement, no attack; those who are carrying medium or heavy encumbrance cannot run quadruple movement, defend at -2 to Armor Class until your action next round, and any enemy you pass gets an attack of opportunity on you if you are within reach of their weapon.
_________________
James Mishler

Main Man, Adventure Games Publishing
jamesagp1@gmail.com
http://adventuregamespublishing.blogspot.com/
http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com

[mudpyr8]

How about this, to keep it in the spirit of the rules.

The penalty to AC = Movement Multiplier.

Run (x4) would then be -4

Jog (x2) would then be -2

Normal (x1) would then be -1

Damage bonus would be half the AC mod.

Run would be +2

Jog would be +1

Normal would be +0

Risk/Reward and easy to remember.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System

[Sakusammakko]

Quote:
How about this, to keep it in the spirit of the rules.

The penalty to AC = Movement Multiplier.

Run (x4) would then be -4

Jog (x2) would then be -2

Normal (x1) would then be -1

Damage bonus would be half the AC mod.

Run would be +2

Jog would be +1

Normal would be +0

Risk/Reward and easy to remember.

That's not a bad idea....

One thing that's bugged me, though, about the rules as they appear to be written is how the creature with higher initiative can sometimes be worse off in a half move and attack situation than the second mover.

Until recently, we haven't declared actions before initiative and we've had individuals act in initiative order. This has caused the following situation a number of times. An opponent is 20' away from a person with a 30' move-- too far to attack and too close to charge (BtB). So the first mover closes the range and the second opponent makes the first attack. Doesn't seem to be the spirit of the rules. The above would address that, but would still leave the first mover at a disadvantage.

If you change to declaring actions before initiative, it can be obvious who goes first when 2 or more creatures intend to melee and are within half moves of each other.
_________________
Running two C&C games. Check them out at http://candc.forumotion.com.

One is a monthly affair on Saturday nights, 8pm EST (Company of Delvers).

The second is an historically-inspired campaign with players from around the world (Legio Campaign).

[mudpyr8]

I think declaring first is essential to any random initiative system. If both declare a charge, with the intent of killing the other first, then both are being hasty. The penalty would be based on what they would have to have moved in order to attack.

Example:

2 combatants with 30' movement are 50' away.

Both declare a charge. Regardless of who gets their first, both of them would be performing the charge maneuver. If using the rules as written, that would be -4 AC +2 Dmg. If using the rule above, since a Jog is the only thing required, they would be at -2 AC +1 Dmg.

I suppose I would add to the rule above that if someone wanted to take the -4 AC penalty to get +2 Dmg that they could do that and still only move Normal x1.

Either way, the key here is intent at the start of the round.

A challenge with this type of system however is how you react to a change in the landscape. Say in the above situation both combatants go before the Ranger that is intending to shoot combatant B. Combatant A kills B during the charge, leaving Ranger without a target.

Options:

1. Ranger plugs B as he falls

2. Ranger can change actions/targets but incurs a penalty (-2? -4? - this is a RoleMaster style rule)

3. Ranger can change actions/targets if he makes a DEX check (CL 4 ish)

4. Ranger can offset the penalty with success on a DEX check (e.g. Penalty is -4, each point he makes his DEX check (CL 0) by offsets the penalty)

5. Ranger does nothing (this is the old D&D rule)

Would movement be allowed as part of the change?

I would lean towards 5 with an option to change targets (but not actions) at -5 penalty.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System

[anglefish]

I've found that TN checks to do 3e feat like actions has been a big hit that allows the fighter to be a little less plane jane.

[Sakusammakko]

Quote:
If using the rule above, since a Jog is the only thing required, they would be at -2 AC +1 Dmg.

I like that concept.

I also wondered about what to do when the situation changes in (what's the Latin term?).

In your example, I'd rule that the Ranger would lose the attack opportunity, but could still make a half move (as though he'd attacked) or some equivalent action (like changing weapons).
_________________
Running two C&C games. Check them out at http://candc.forumotion.com.

One is a monthly affair on Saturday nights, 8pm EST (Company of Delvers).

The second is an historically-inspired campaign with players from around the world (Legio Campaign).

[mudpyr8]

That sounds good.

There is however a third alternative, which considering how much Hero I play I don't know why I didn't think of it first.

Let the guy with Initiative control the situation. If he wants to charge, let him charge. He can however choose to Hold his action and see what the enemy does.

If the enemy moves to attack him he can choose to do 1 of 2 things:

1. Defend

2. Attack

If he chooses #1, he can choose Dodge or Evade. Action resolved.

If he chooses #2, he must commit to his action. It could be to run away if he wants, but here is the critical part: he must make a DEX or WIS check (player chooses) with a CL = Level of Attacker. If he succeeds, he can execute his action when he wants. This may mean that as the enemy comes in to attack the hero gets to attack first. If he fails, the enemy acts first and assuming the hero is still alive he must then execute his action.

This works very well in Hero, the action keeps moving, the player then has control/choices without getting too crazy.

The only thing I never liked about declare then roll is that you waste time describing your action and then have to do it again when you go. I like the hold option because it keeps things moving but still gives the advantage to Initiative.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System