Author Topic: combat movement abuse  (Read 6407 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ardem

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • OIC Points +0/-0
combat movement abuse
« on: February 14, 2017, 02:34:25 AM »
I have a player playing an assassin and he always goes deliberate to then moves around a enemy rear to get the rear bonus and also avoid things like shield and parry.

Any thoughts how I can combat this, I have attached an image how movement is done. i have made movement in friendly squares possible, I am not sure i there is any rules around this, and movement in threatened squares possible Since the npc has already attacked a comrade he go in always getting E crits.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/egf8ehy7p1zwlyq/rm_question1.PNG?dl=0

Any help or rules that can stop a player moving through threatened zones without penalty would be great, an rules, in moving through a friendly square would be great, I can house rule it but rather not try that fight as it been a long time, but I feel he is abusing movement constantly and deliberate to get killing blows on almost every creature, he also have the precision blade talent and ambush skill, two weapon combat it makes him OP against single monsters. Yes he playing in the rules but  I do not like it from it does not feel realistically moving easily through threatened square to avoid parry and shield bonuses.

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,497
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2017, 05:27:08 AM »
What we generally do after the declaration of actions is that we roll Combat Awareness for combatants that might detect a change during the battle that affects them. This could be e.g. an approaching or fleeing enemy, regardless of when the enemy plans to execute the action. This tells us whether the affected character can react quickly enough and adjust his planned actions for the round according to the new information he got from the maneuver. RMFRP's School of Hard Knocks suggest a difficulty of Routine when "a new combatant joins the fray" (or a similar wording IIRC) which we use everytime a character gets a new opponent during a round. We execute these perception rolls prior to starting the execution of the planned actions.

So in case of the assassin A moving around enemy E1, who is currently already in melee with character C1, to attack E1 from behind we would allow E1 a Combat Awareness roll to detect that A wants to attack him. Since he can see A in front of him and A is not hiding in the shadows behind him there would be no modifications to the Routine maneuver roll. So normally E1 should detect A. E1 would then probably adjust his actions so that he is fighting two enemies and perhaps slightly change his facing, use his shield against C1 and attack A with his weapon.

Please note that, even while we do these adjustment of the actions after the initial declaration of actions and prior to the execution of the actions, this does not mean that the characters succeeding with their Combat Awareness rolls know in advance what is going to happen. It more reflects how quickly they are going adjust their action depending on the changes during the battle. So if E1 succeeds with his Combat Awareness roll he would probably start fighting C1 as his single opponent. But once A approaches and comes in reach he would probably not ignore A but instead slightly adjust his facing and then fight A and C1 both. We just "translate" this more dynamic combat into the Rolemaster terms where you have one facing for the round and one enemy that you can typically parry and attack.

One more rule we have in place is that we don't allow a character that is battling two opponents to be attacked from the side or rear during the first round (unless surprised or so). So in the example of A deciding to also attack E1 alongside C1 he would not be able to get the side or rear bonus in the first round. Only in the second round of combat he could get the bonus. But we always allow the combatant getting attacked by two opponents to have kind of the final say on his facing (if he is aware of the attackers). So E1 would probably always slightly adjust his facing, so that A "only" gets the +15 bonus for an attack from the side during round 2 and later rounds and not the higher bonus for an attack from behind. While the ruling above is probably in accordance with the official rules, this latter ruling is clearly a house rules of our group.

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,101
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2017, 09:47:17 AM »
If the foes are aware of the assassin, those who are not currently engaged in melee might declare their action as "React & melee attack" so they can immediately turn and attack as soon as the assassin comes within reach. In fact, with this action, they could even move to intercept if he passes near them on the way to some other target. Basically, one of the foes is acting as the rear guard for their unit. (RMSR pg97, RMFRP pg217.)

I also don't like to give flank and rear for free. If you are moving on someone who is already engaged in melee, generally you should be able to get flank, and if they are engaged against multiple opponents rear may make sense, but especially if you are coming up on someone not in melee, who is aware of you, assuming that because of the artificial way rounds are segmented between characters that they are paralyzed and unable to turn to face you during you movement just doesn't make sense. From a rules perspective, I would use the Conflicting Actions rule (RMSR pg82, RMFRP pg53) to treat it as a conflict of moving maneuvers. Give the assassin the advantage if the target is in melee with one or more targets, or if the target's attention is focused too intently elsewhere, but against a target not in melee who is aware of him, he should be at a disadvantage here.



System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline providence13

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,944
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2017, 12:18:25 PM »
We use a -20 OB for switching targets. Hasted Monk with 2 tonfas is  tough on my NPC's. I think it's a HR..
Per the Rules as Written, I think movement lowers your initiative. I'll have to look that one up.
"The Lore spell assaults your senses- Roll on the spontaneous human combustion table; twice!"

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2017, 03:08:02 PM »
I assume the assassin is always hanging back and waiting to act in the Deliberate action phase once his target had been engaged by other players? In the diagram you posted it doesn't seem like stealth is a factor at all, just a smart player taking advantage of the fact the NPCs have used all their percentage of activity. Or is your assassin somehow completely hidden before he rushes into combat on the Deliberate phase?

You could have your NPCs hold back 5% action so they can change facing at the end of the round. I would let my NPCs see obvious things without any maneuver roll. If the battlefield was particularly chaotic I would then require a Situational Awareness - Combat maneuver roll to allow the NPC to react.

If you want to remind your player that this sort of thing doesn't always work have the opposition ready to strike him with ranged attacks in the Snap or Normal Phase. Or maybe he doesn't realize that his target only parried with 40% action and had beat him in initiative. That could lead to a nasty surprise OB-40 to the assassin as he tries to move past his intended victim.

Just be glad the player isn't a Nightblade, because then it's just Smokeflash behind target and stab and repeat. LOL

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2017, 04:26:09 PM »
The fact that so many people have houserules for this sort of thing emphasizes the point that RM needs clear rules for zones of control and 'sticky' combat: that is, you need to give simple rules that allow characters to react appropriately when it is not their turn to act, because the game is trying to model dynamic actions with a turn-based ruleset.

The DnD model allows free 'opportunity attacks' if combatants move through or out of another opponent's zone of control without taking due care. I'm not sure if that can be applied to RMSS, but it certainly can be applied to RMU.

In any case, everybody here has offered some good solutions for RMSS. Personally, I like solutions that 1. Don't require rolling (and therefore don't slow down the game) and 2. Are absolutely clear. That's why I like the DnD solution.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline ardem

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2017, 09:39:36 PM »
Thanks for all these great thoughts.

There is no rules that i could find like the DND free opportunity attacks, I wish there was and if I implement now I know this person going to argue to high heaven. When he plays, rounds last 1 round and the NPC have lost in due to stuns or kills. Only think i was able to stop him on was a hydra, because with that many heads I said he had no rear or flank.

I think my issue is the moving through a zone of control, has no penalty or risk (considering the NPC has made a full attack on another player). I think react and melee is a good option, even 10% to change facing. Is there a percentage of movement in facing? in the rules anywhere.

I think moving through zone of control should be slower so maybe I double the percentage, and nothing above a walk can be done else a MM is rolled, it be easy to trip a person running or jogging through a zone of control.

 

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2017, 10:04:25 PM »
Thanks for all these great thoughts.

There is no rules that i could find like the DND free opportunity attacks, I wish there was and if I implement now I know this person going to argue to high heaven.

There are no official rules that I know of, though I don't play RMSS. I have laid out my own houserules for exactly this sort of thing in RMU (as part of my own initiative/action system), but that probably won't help you with your player of course.

Quote
I think my issue is the moving through a zone of control, has no penalty or risk (considering the NPC has made a full attack on another player).

I think you have put your finger on the heart of the issue. Rolemaster doesn't really have zones of control if moving through those zones imposes no penalties or reactionary attacks. That's why I think there need to be rules for zones of control.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,101
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2017, 10:39:42 PM »
There is no rules that i could find like the DND free opportunity attacks, I wish there was and if I implement now I know this person going to argue to high heaven. When he plays, rounds last 1 round and the NPC have lost in due to stuns or kills.

When in doubt, you can always abuse the same mechanic against the players until they propose some solutions for you. ;)
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline ardem

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2017, 10:47:14 PM »
Yeah I think my big issue, is the party been quite big so I had small numbers for them to fight against. i think I going to beef up the numbers to keep my flanks in check, and use the same tactics.

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2017, 10:26:46 AM »
When in doubt, you can always abuse the same mechanic against the players until they propose some solutions for you. ;)

Many times in the past when an issue has come up and new rule proposals are on the table, I always say to my player, "We can rule it that way going forward, but, just a reminder, my NPCs will be using that."

Sometimes, this is followed be a chorus of "Well, it's really not a big deal, lets not change anything after all!"

And I second Hurin's call for rules for zones of control and opportunity action. Does RMU have this?

Even so, unlike most GMs here I don't mind the inherent abuses of the percentage action/3 action limit rules in RMSS. It does tend to reinforce the idea that being outnumbered and outflanked is a bad, bad idea! Nice if you want you combat situations a little more gritty and "realistic".

Go to your local watering hole and start a fight with a group of two or more guys and see how many "zones of control" you really have (and for the pedants out there, I'm assuming equally skilled combatants). LOL

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,101
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2017, 11:45:32 AM »
And I second Hurin's call for rules for zones of control and opportunity action. Does RMU have this?

It's not as sticky as Hurin would like ;) but there are rules about moving through opponent's combat zones and about dealing with facing as opponents close with you.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2017, 12:33:11 PM »
When in doubt, you can always abuse the same mechanic against the players until they propose some solutions for you. ;)

Many times in the past when an issue has come up and new rule proposals are on the table, I always say to my player, "We can rule it that way going forward, but, just a reminder, my NPCs will be using that."

Sometimes, this is followed be a chorus of "Well, it's really not a big deal, lets not change anything after all!"

Nice! I will have to remember that one.

Quote
Even so, unlike most GMs here I don't mind the inherent abuses of the percentage action/3 action limit rules in RMSS. It does tend to reinforce the idea that being outnumbered and outflanked is a bad, bad idea! Nice if you want you combat situations a little more gritty and "realistic".

Go to your local watering hole and start a fight with a group of two or more guys and see how many "zones of control" you really have (and for the pedants out there, I'm assuming equally skilled combatants). LOL

I agree entirely; being attacked by a second combatant while you're already engaged with one should be a bad situation for you, period.

In my games, I offer characters who are not already engaged a free change of facing if another character they can see moves to engage them. This represents the basic ability people have to react to combat movement. Characters who are already engaged can move to face another combatant moving to engage them too, but if they do, they provoke an opportunity attack from any opponents they are already engaged with. This represents the fact that you do not want to turn your back on someone you are currently fighting.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2017, 12:35:17 PM »
And I second Hurin's call for rules for zones of control and opportunity action. Does RMU have this?

It's not as sticky as Hurin would like ;) but there are rules about moving through opponent's combat zones and about dealing with facing as opponents close with you.


Yes, I didn't mean to give the impression that RMU has no rules at all for this; just that I hope they can be made a bit more explicit and robust.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2017, 12:43:05 PM »
For your reference Ardem, we've discussed these issues quite a bit on these forums, so if you want to see the whole range of opinions on how to deal with these issues, you can check out the thread I started here. You'll find that several of us have had almost exactly the same problems as you, and maybe find other solutions that you like:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=17241.0
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2017, 01:06:09 PM »
In my games, I offer characters who are not already engaged a free change of facing if another character they can see moves to engage them. This represents the basic ability people have to react to combat movement. Characters who are already engaged can move to face another combatant moving to engage them too, but if they do, they provoke an opportunity attack from any opponents they are already engaged with. This represents the fact that you do not want to turn your back on someone you are currently fighting.

I like that. Allowing a change of facing as a 0% action in response to new threats seems pretty reasonable. In the past, I've asked my players to hold back 5% action for that, but maybe I'll just allow it for free.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2017, 10:36:14 PM »
We use hexes, so you have six spaces around you.  Forward, right, left, right flank, left flank and rear.

First, we assume combat is fluid.  No one moves in sudden bursts of activity during their turn while everyone around them is holding still.  That's just silly.  We assume a combatant will position themselves in the most advantageous way possible and, as a result, we typically use a default of:
2 Foes, no bonus for attackers.
3 Foes, either one attacker gets rear or two get flank.
4-5 Foes, one gets rear and one gets flank.
6 Foes, one gets rear and two get flank.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Merkir

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 667
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Long lost GM
    • Information Technology
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2017, 06:36:05 AM »
I'll simply point to one of my past posts on the subject. It's from the thread Hurin just posted...

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=17241.msg209922#msg209922

Offline MurderByNumbers

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2017, 06:14:38 AM »
I am the character in question

I hang back for a few reasons.

1. our party typically does not like to use strategy/formations to control flanks
2. i'm a squishy melee i do not want enemies getting flank/rear on me. 1-2 good hits and i'm not looking so hot.
3. I hang back to take on enemies the GM sends after the casters / to try and flank the party
4. as a mobility melee its just prudent to go after the heavy plate wearing melees do as you can protect their flanks, free them up to deal damage.
5. what the GM has also failed to mention is that in our game it is a free action at any time to change facing. so the enemies are free to change their facing to my character if i go behind them at any point in time.
So if i move behind them in the deliberate phase after they've gone, they can still as a free action face my character that has just moved behind them denying me flanking/rear bonus. This does however make them put their back to the rest of my party.
-i am completely fine with #5 as i have told the GM on multiple occasions. I'm not moving behind the enemy to steal the kill. I am moving behind the enemy to make you choose. Do you want to fight my character full on? or do you want to fight the level 11/12 fighter dwarf with the magical mace with 3 magical different elemental crits where the fighter is in essence getting 3-4 crits with 1 swing. 24E krush + 3 1 less severity elemental crits?

In either case that enemy is in for a world of pain which frees me up or the fighter to continue down the line of freeing up others / free to protect the squishy characters. this creates a domino effect and helps the party as a whole operate at a higher lethality instead of being mired in melee getting beat on for extended rounds of combat (more chances for them and myself to be severely injured or killed)

My going in the deliberate phase is dependent upon the other players in the group, i base my actions/movement/phase of action on them to try and be a force multiplier.


-We played with the GMs modified rules going by his words "more to core" but with half of the mobility of the core rules being page 6ed (removed at GM discression) the outcome was the same.
The board is a chess game where i get to move 1 piece and the GM gets to move all of his and the npcs have telepathy. Of course I'm going to move where i am not expected/can be of the most use.

Ardem, that hydra, i snuck down a side corridor that led to its flank and then rushed it. You don't allow many situations to be "stealthy/sneaky" So i use mobility, positioning, and timing to maximize not only my own survival/lethality but also members of the party. (Force multiplier)



So here is where we are today..
I have a Rogue/Assassin/TWC/Poison user

ive been able to use poison 1-2 times in over a year
Ive had ambush neutered (i do not get to modify +/-, in his defense i do have the Precision talent which is modified by enemy facing as well as their parry against me acting as -s to my roll)
Ive had mobility neutered multiple ways
Getting poison from a dead, obviously fanged poisonous animal even if my character doesn't know exactly what the poison is etc, he still knows its poison and worth collecting to have identified later is basically treated like i'm breaking some rule or rules lawyering
I've suggested rolling a different character, discussing the character, being flat out told no. 4 weeks later another party member is allowed to basically roll the major mechanical aspects of the character.
etc

and now, the reason i'm angry? You're lying to me, you're lying to the party, and you're lying to the RM community.

If you don't like the character that much you should of just manned up, said so, and i would of said alright man np i'll re-roll something else. 

Instead you re-write the rules because you feel like i'm cheating but then admit that i'm not, that i'm just playing the rules. since you've changed the rules multiple times and it hasn't changed the outcome. So maybe its not the rules or the characters that are the issue. perhaps i'm just out playing you at chess? there is no shame in that. you as a person learn from every combat just as i do. you are moving more tactically as each combat takes place. just as i move more tactically more cautious in response to your actions. some are tactical actions, some are gm actions of throwing surprises in, outnumbered, making all enemies wear plate because you know my character's weakness is vs plate, you give them magical darkness (which i can't counter), you give them teleportation to instantly flank. i mean come on dude, you have the deck stacked in your favor as much as you want as often as you want. why you hating that i'm trying to keep the party alive? next session should i just say "character tells party good bye, do not save him, he doesnt want to live anymore, commits suicide" you think that will fix the problem? no. because i'll roll some other character and play it in a way that you just personally don't like dealing with and call it me "breaking/bending the rules" there is no breaking. there is no bending. I'm doing EXACTLY no more, no less than the book states or that you've house ruled.


so lets do us both a favor and call it for what it is. you feel like youre losing and you dont like it. in combat you feel im the one that causes you to lose (i would say its the whole party but im not as selfish as you try to make me sound)

So i will thank you for giving me the opportunity to join your game for the past year and respectfully remove myself from your game. ill hop on to tell the guys bye and good luck.



Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2017, 12:24:20 PM »
Sounds like you guys need to talk that out. But for what it's worth, I think if the NPC has a free change of facing to face the moving PC, then I would say the rules seem fair to me. I think if the NPC is already engaged with another character, and the NPC has the option of turning to face the moving PC, then I don't think the PC is abusing the rules. In my game, the NPC would have to take a fee opportunity attack from the stationary PC that he is engaged with if he wants to change facing to face the moving PC. But otherwise, it sounds like the moving PC is forcing the NPC to make a choice: stay engaged with the stationary PC or change to face the moving PC. I think that is a bad situation for the NPC, but it should be a bad situation for him: fighting two people at once should be hard.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle