Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMSS/FRP => Topic started by: ardem 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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=17241.msg209922#msg209922)
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
It sounds like a clash play styles. Does your GM prefer simple direct combat? I get the impression he might consider stealth and dirty tricks as cheating, or at least not fun for him to run. Hey, we GMs need to have fun too!
I prefer to do it by giving the players everything they want, but crushing them anyway. That's were the challenge is.
My game, until recently, had a very similar character: A rogue specializing in stealth, alchemy and poison. I would allow him to harness animal/monster venom because he had invested ranks in Use/Remove Poison and Poison Lore. Would have requires an appropriate Fauna Lore for more exotic animals and monsters.
Once, he encountered some Green Slime in a dungeon, and, because he had brought some basic tools and empty ceramic flasks, I let him harvest some slime for future study and cultivation. He was going to weaponize the slime, using Green Slime laden bolts for his hand held crossbow! I though it was a great idea.
Ok, neutering Ambush is a big no no for me, but I will say that the Precision talent is the work of the Devil and should be wiped clean from all rules tomes, as if by the wrath of God.
I think GMs should encourage their players to be creative and occasionally let them blow apart their scenarios and story-lines. The unexpected direction things take might be even better than what you were planning!
A small example; Just this week my players were faced with a smooth wall with three deep, six inch wide holes at chest level. Runes engraved above the three holes stated that to open the secret door and continue on someone would have to put their arm in a hole, pull a lever, and lose a hand.
Very straight forward dungeon B.S. (I've adapted this particular dungeon from a DnD 3rd edition module). Pulling the lever within the right side hole is safe, and opens the secret door. The runes are there to intimidate them into thinking that they will lose a hand no matter what.
So my players said screw this! One of them is a necromancer and thought it was worth the risk exploring the rest of the dungeon level in search of a dead body to animate (or humanoid to kill, and then reanimate). Now that is a good idea if your a necromancer.
It turns out there are the remains of three unfortunate adventurers on the level, and by luck and perseverance they find the bodies, loot them, and drag two pack to the dead end. The bodies are animated and after two undead hands are lost, the door is opened. Now they can proceed to their doom with all their hands.
Frankly, over my years of gaming, I've known of GMs that would have been pissed at the player for thinking to do that and would have done everything they could to have stopped it. Because of playing under GMs like that that I try to let my players do anything they could logically do given the situation they are in. Sometimes that means I have to change my expectations to accommodate them.
-
I agree with you for sure there Vector. As a DM, you have to go with the flow and allow players to solve problems in ways you hadn't anticipated.
One last point: part of the OP's problem I think is that the moving PC can essentially strafe around the stationary NPC without penalty. This is a problem in DnD 5e too, since they changed the rules from 4th (and possibly 3rd?) edition. In 4th edition, a character could not move through or out of an enemy's zone of control without provoking opportunity attacks unless the moving character spent his entire move to just move 5' (which represented careful, guarded movement). 5th edition DnD however simplified these rules, making only movement out of (not through) an opponent's square/hex provoke opportunity attacks. This produced problems because players soon realized they could circle strafe around opponents and not provoke opportunity attacks so long as they just never moved out of the zone of control. Characters thus began to do 'conga lines' around their enemies, moving constantly to allow their allies to reach advantageous positions, thus exploiting the loophole in the new movement rules.
So what you need to have in RM is a rule that states that careless movement out of or through an opponent's zone of control provokes opportunity attacks.
-
So what you need to have in RM is a rule that states that careless movement out of or through an opponent's zone of control provokes opportunity attacks.
Yeah, I would be pretty happy with a rule for opportunity attacks. I would probably require a certain amount of action percentage (20?) to be held back to represent that the individual is on guard for foes moving about him. I can imagine a situation were a person/creature is too involved with one or more opponents to launch an attack at a passerby.
Question: If I were to tell my players that they can take "opportunity" attacks if they have held back 20% action, what would you say was the OB of these attacks. They are sort of free attacks, but I don't see them as being made with 100% OB.
Free attacks at half normal OB? Quarter of normal OB? The same OB that was available that round after penalties for movement, parrying and other actions?
A +0 OB attack would seem fairly worthless in most cases. What do you think?
-
Well we had a chat last night, and it a case of jumping to conclusions and miscommunication for than anything dramatic. Pity he did not chat to me first before going nuclear on here, sorry for that guys i hate to see this type of stuff on the forums myself. <smile>
Play style has some of what this is about, it also about the limitations of the system to deal with opportunity attacks and those that attack last has an advantage others do not, I think linked with a very powerful rogue that can stun pretty much anything that is not undead.
Its not about the Gm desire to 'win', I think all GM's know that is not our role however we have the tough job in making combat fun for everyone and interesting however if there is a player character that makes it impossible due to a flaw in the system, and I do believe moving through zone of control is a flaw, at the end of a turn and attack the rear which means there is no parry full rear bonus and there is not a thing as a GM you can do once the stun issues now compound. Rinse and repeat every battle, now yes as a GM you can change it an add in more numbers of monster that increase combat from 2 hours fights to 4 hour fights leave little time for RP. Players just never understand there is not just one consideration that goes through our heads. Its the case of the players looking at the tree and the Gm looking at the forest.
As express to the player last night its not a personal issue or a player issue, which he thought from the original post. It is a rule issue that I need to resolve to make sure the game a) is challenging for all b) is fun for all and is fast. I think rogue characters highlights the issue but any character could go though zones of control without limitations. DnD controls this by the opportunity action, where it seems to stop the whole flank/flank issue as there is a risk and reward in trying to get behind an enemy. However its not compounded with 0 parry and a +35 on attack, its only a +2 on roll if I remember rightly.
Now if took time to get in the rear or it was not easy to pass a character , by moving through their zone without risk then yeah this would be a non issue. Without Metaing from a GM perspective every combat to basically account for knowing exactly that move and attack in the rear on the last round
-
So what you need to have in RM is a rule that states that careless movement out of or through an opponent's zone of control provokes opportunity attacks.
Yeah, I would be pretty happy with a rule for opportunity attacks. I would probably require a certain amount of action percentage (20?) to be held back to represent that the individual is on guard for foes moving about him. I can imagine a situation were a person/creature is too involved with one or more opponents to launch an attack at a passerby.
Question: If I were to tell my players that they can take "opportunity" attacks if they have held back 20% action, what would you say was the OB of these attacks. They are sort of free attacks, but I don't see them as being made with 100% OB.
Free attacks at half normal OB? Quarter of normal OB? The same OB that was available that round after penalties for movement, parrying and other actions?
A +0 OB attack would seem fairly worthless in most cases. What do you think?
I actually like your thought process here, I agree a 0% attack would be not worth it however, the risk reward thing would go into affect as the 20% opportunity action for a 1/2 OB, would make a tumbling roll through more needed. Nobody tumbles as this do not need too, and its a huge risk as people always max there weapons but not there athletics or acrobatic skills. The risk is a player or NPC lose 20% action when they never needed too and 20% is not something to laugh at.
-
I think the major issue here isn't the rule issue. It's the lack of understanding of the role of the GM. The player appears to believe he's competing against the GM with words to the effect that he is "winning" and the GM is "losing". The GM and players should never be adversaries. The GM is a facilitator.
As a GM, I believe my main role is to ensure everyone has fun. To do that I work with the players as a collaborative effort to ensure they do whatever they want, however they want, as long as it isn't outrageously unrealistic. When I (or a player) believe something is a bit unfair or unreasonable, and there's no adequate rule, we all discuss it in good spirit and decide by consensus the most common-sense solution. Luckily, the groups I've played with are all very friendly and reasonable.
My suggestion, GM, is to sit down with all of your players prior to your next session and have a friendly chat about the relationship between players and GM. I'd be saying that we're actually one big team, creating an epic free-form story together.
-
I apologize to everyone here for going off. I have also apologized to Ardem in TS as well as email.
It is a series of miscommunication as well as personally feeling singled out which Ardem has explained that it may feel like I'm being singled out but it's more of using my actions as an example to explain the situation. Which I readily admit I and my character use more than anyone else in the party to a combat advantage. It is also used by myself at an opportunity which causes a cascade effect in the npc lines that is not easy to stop/counter. "If you throw a pebble into the water on one side of the ocean, it can create a tidal wave on the other side." Once the wave starts it's impossible to stop or at the very least extremely difficult.
Where the fight was at a evenly matched almost stale mate, I tend to try and act in a way which causes the lines to collapse due to myself and other members of the party becoming free to move and attack at will. Too much momentum for npcs to stop.
As far as suggestions from a player side..
-Enemy positions which stop, limit, or would provoke an opportunity attack for a PC/NPC if the movement is attempted.
-I think leaving an enemy controlled square (square within range of melee attack of the NPC/PC) without a disengage action being taken to result in a 0% action cost opportunity attack with 1/2 to Full OB is fair. (Yes, can full attack 1 PC, and attack of opportunity a PC who tries to move between characters and doesn't take some defensive measure [tumble, parry, disengage] against the potential threat)
-I also think free 0% action to rotate a model whichever way that character chooses (essentially a "in response" instant action) is also fair (to limit rear/flank bonus) so long as the new facing would not have resulting in another character getting flank/rear bonus. Example: Full face 1 threat and receive an attack from that threat. Then later in combat put their flank/rear to that character. This would reflect a pc/npc attempting to turn in the midst of combat to protect their rear/flank to an enemy trying to circle them. While it would put them on the defensive positionally they could not simultaneously front face both opponents on opposite sides.
I personally believe these are fair to both sides the PCs and NPCs, this also gives Risk/Reward to both sides while maintaining the balance of not getting "free rear" attacks. This would also maintain combat purpose of a fast, lower HP, lower AT character.
would gladly discuss other opinions/suggestions/thoughts/concerns on it
-
I actually like your thought process here, I agree a 0% attack would be not worth it however, the risk reward thing would go into affect as the 20% opportunity action for a 1/2 OB, would make a tumbling roll through more needed. Nobody tumbles as this do not need too, and its a huge risk as people always max there weapons but not there athletics or acrobatic skills. The risk is a player or NPC lose 20% action when they never needed too and 20% is not something to laugh at.
I could go for a 1/2 OB opportunity attack. I think I would stick with asking my players to keep 20% action back to represent a more guarded stance. Your right, they could waste that 20%, but if they think there are no unaccounted for combatants about and want to take a chance they don't have to reserve the 20%. I'm just a little reluctant to go with 0% opportunity action because RMSS isn't big on "free" actions and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.
Hey, if this could get a player to actually invest in Tumbling Evasion I would consider it a worthwhile miracle.
Realistically, even fantasy "realistically", sometimes a group of guys/orcs/whatever are just going to stomp a mud hole in an outnumbered combatant.
"I didn't know how many guys it was going to take to kick my ass, but I knew how many they were going to use."
If you leave your flanks and rear positions accessible, I think any character - especially Rogues and Thieves - should take advantage of it.
-
-I also think free 0% action to rotate a model whichever way that character chooses (essentially a "in response" instant action) is also fair (to limit rear/flank bonus) so long as the new facing would not have resulting in another character getting flank/rear bonus. Example: Full face 1 threat and receive an attack from that threat. Then later in combat put their flank/rear to that character. This would reflect a pc/npc attempting to turn in the midst of combat to protect their rear/flank to an enemy trying to circle them. While it would put them on the defensive positionally they could not simultaneously front face both opponents on opposite sides.
Another option for facing and attacks, which is more of a departure from the rules as written (although not as much as opportunity attacks IMO), is to split the round: first everyone moves, then everyone takes their action. If you do that, you can allow everyone to pick their facing with knowledge of where all the attacks are coming from, which means you'll only get flank if the person is being attacked by two foes.
-
-I also think free 0% action to rotate a model whichever way that character chooses (essentially a "in response" instant action) is also fair (to limit rear/flank bonus) so long as the new facing would not have resulting in another character getting flank/rear bonus. Example: Full face 1 threat and receive an attack from that threat. Then later in combat put their flank/rear to that character. This would reflect a pc/npc attempting to turn in the midst of combat to protect their rear/flank to an enemy trying to circle them. While it would put them on the defensive positionally they could not simultaneously front face both opponents on opposite sides.
Another option for facing and attacks, which is more of a departure from the rules as written (although not as much as opportunity attacks IMO), is to split the round: first everyone moves, then everyone takes their action. If you do that, you can allow everyone to pick their facing with knowledge of where all the attacks are coming from, which means you'll only get flank if the person is being attacked by two foes.
+1 for what I think is a good idea as well, very simple while effective
-
Another option for facing and attacks, which is more of a departure from the rules as written (although not as much as opportunity attacks IMO), is to split the round: first everyone moves, then everyone takes their action. If you do that, you can allow everyone to pick their facing with knowledge of where all the attacks are coming from, which means you'll only get flank if the person is being attacked by two foes.
That is quiet an eloquent solution, but does it really change the issue in moving through zones of control to lower your activity percentage to get the highest possible points to fight. Does this now benefit the lower of the people that roll initative, as they see where people are moving.
We have also been playing with squares rather then hexes as online maps tend to prefer that style so moving diagonally through two opponents is a lot easier then in hexes.
I need to think on it, as I think Merkir is right there is also need to be more conversation between the party, but I needed to get options first which was reason for this post.
-
Another option for facing and attacks, which is more of a departure from the rules as written (although not as much as opportunity attacks IMO), is to split the round: first everyone moves, then everyone takes their action. If you do that, you can allow everyone to pick their facing with knowledge of where all the attacks are coming from, which means you'll only get flank if the person is being attacked by two foes.
+1 for what I think is a good idea as well, very simple while effective
In other threads we've had regarding this I've mentioned that I use this, referring to it as the BattleTech Round.
Basically you do movement first and actions second (two phases), with the winner of initiative deciding if they want to take their movement/actions before or after anyone with a worse initiative.
So you can move to block someone trying to escape a room, or you want wait on them and react to their movement.
Likewise you can attack someone first that maybe you need to take down before they attack, or you can wait on the actions of others in order to react to something they do, such as defend an ally for example.
Your group can also choose if you want movement to cost a %, limiting your potential actions, or if you merely want to have movement penalize actions based on the 'degree' of movement.
-
I need to think on it, as I think Merkir is right there is also need to be more conversation between the party, but I needed to get options first which was reason for this post.
Other than all this rules crunchy goodness, I'm not actually sure what the problem is. Is the party just steam rolling through all your NPCs and scenarios because of flanking and high mobility? Is the character in question outshining everyone else on the battlefield, leaving the other players bored and/or resentful? Given these tactics, has it been hard to construct a scenario that isn't too easy or a potential TPK (Total Party Kill)?
Are you using Rolemaster's terrible (IMHO) experience system where this character is "stealing" all the Kill Points awarded by getting in that final one shot one kill?
All the above aside, I do agree with everyone that Rolemaster can definitely use some rules for zones of control.
-
I apologize to everyone here for going off. I have also apologized to Ardem in TS as well as email.
I can relate to this kind of thing coming to a head to some extent. Over the years we wound up with groups where this kind of drama doesn't happen much anymore and, when it does, we generally have a short discussion about how whatever caused the issue will be handled going forward. But, to speak to what used to sometimes happen...
I once played under a GM that stopped following certain rules in order to provide a challenge to the party, rules the PC's still had to abide by, and it eventually led to a rather heated discussion. I'm not going to go into the whole story or comment no certain personality traits at the time, but I'm just going to say what I said then: The GM and the players need to play by the same rules. It's a real pet peeve of mine. The GM wasn't 'out to get us' or anything, but he felt he needed to skirt the rules in order to provide a challenge when there were better ways to more effectively challenge the party. Now, I don't know if that was going on here, but it certainly seems like someone may have felt that's what was going on and I can fully understand the frustration.
Also, provided everyone is roughly equally intelligent, odds are the group will often collectively outsmart the GM and the GM can become quite frustrated by this if it happens a lot. My #1 recommendation here is this: Learn from them. Since you should be playing by the same rules you can often use a groups own tactics against them. Both in the sense that if they, as an experienced group, realize a certain tactic is very effective then experienced foes should realize this and also in the sense that if they become predictable you can lay a trap. I'd refrain from using out of character info to do that, but if the party (and their tactics) become known it's a completely reasonable result.
-
I need to think on it, as I think Merkir is right there is also need to be more conversation between the party, but I needed to get options first which was reason for this post.
All the above aside, I do agree with everyone that Rolemaster can definitely use some rules for zones of control.
This is a pretty typical problem. We've basically ruled that moving into melee range with a foe, and not leaving it (which still allows you to circle them), will not draw an attack and that the foe can turn to face you if desired, but when moving OUT of melee range with a foe you need to do it carefully (1/4 movement for example) or potentially draw a melee attack. Differing group play-styles would need to determine how much of a bonus you get (i.e. if you used all your action do you just get a +0OB, or do you get more?).
Potentially, moving out of melee with a foe: 1/4 movement is backing away (no free attack), 1/2 movement is turning and moving away (free attack no OB), and full movement is outright turning and running (free attack full OB).
-
So what you need to have in RM is a rule that states that careless movement out of or through an opponent's zone of control provokes opportunity attacks.
Yeah, I would be pretty happy with a rule for opportunity attacks. I would probably require a certain amount of action percentage (20?) to be held back to represent that the individual is on guard for foes moving about him. I can imagine a situation were a person/creature is too involved with one or more opponents to launch an attack at a passerby.
Question: If I were to tell my players that they can take "opportunity" attacks if they have held back 20% action, what would you say was the OB of these attacks. They are sort of free attacks, but I don't see them as being made with 100% OB.
Free attacks at half normal OB? Quarter of normal OB? The same OB that was available that round after penalties for movement, parrying and other actions?
A +0 OB attack would seem fairly worthless in most cases. What do you think?
There are multiple ways of doing it, but we have up to now been allowing full OB attacks. That may seem very generous to the attacker, but remember that the RM combat round is already very abstracted. IIRC, both the RM2 and the RMSS round is 10 seconds long. In reality, you can swing a sword many more times than once in 10 seconds. An untrained person can probably swing 10 times in that span; a trained one, 20 or more. It only takes one to kill. So while an opponent who is fully aware and defending himself might only let one or fewer good blows in during that period, a defenceless person would let in multiple ones; it doesn't seem that unreal to me to allow a full OB attack.
The way we are running it in our RMU game that is just starting is that an opportunity attack like this would follow the rules for instantaneous actions: the first costs 0 AP, the rest in the same round cost 1 AP (equivalent to a 25% action in RMSS I think). These attacks follow the same rules as normal ones: they get a -75 for being essentially a 1 AP attack (you get -25 for each 1 AP less than the full amount a melee attack normally costs, which is 4 AP; this is the standard rule in RMU). But since the opponent is defenceless, they also benefit from the opponent being 'flatfooted' (essentially, the opponent is not defending himself carefully), which is a +60 bonus. So the total OB = full OB minus 15.
-
In other threads we've had regarding this I've mentioned that I use this, referring to it as the BattleTech Round.
Basically you do movement first and actions second (two phases), with the winner of initiative deciding if they want to take their movement/actions before or after anyone with a worse initiative.
We do that too, with a slightly different vocabulary. We just allow anyone who has won initiative to either take an action or defer it to a later point in the turn. This makes winning initiative always good: winners get to decide whether they want to act before other characters or after.
-
In other threads we've had regarding this I've mentioned that I use this, referring to it as the BattleTech Round.
Basically you do movement first and actions second (two phases), with the winner of initiative deciding if they want to take their movement/actions before or after anyone with a worse initiative.
We do that too, with a slightly different vocabulary. We just allow anyone who has won initiative to either take an action or defer it to a later point in the turn. This makes winning initiative always good: winners get to decide whether they want to act before other characters or after.
I think, personally, that doing this with movement and actions separately creates a much more interesting round by not having everyone take their entire turn at once, but doesn't extend the round into multiple action phases. Basically, it's a compromise between the old D&D round and the RM2/RMSS rounds.
-
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.
I completely screwed up the original post above (looks like one long quote), so I'll post this again. Guess I shouldn't post after midnight!
Other than all this rules crunchy goodness, I'm not actually sure what the problem is. Is the party just steam rolling through all your NPCs and scenarios because of flanking and high mobility? Is the character in question outshining everyone else on the battlefield, leaving the other players bored and/or resentful? Given these tactics, has it been hard to construct a scenario that isn't too easy or a potential TPK (Total Party Kill)?
Are you using Rolemaster's terrible (IMHO) experience system where this character is "stealing" all the Kill Points awarded by getting in that final one shot one kill?
All the above aside, I do agree with everyone that Rolemaster can definitely use some rules for zones of control.
-
Personally, Vector, I think the player in question was playing smartly within the rules, it is just that the rules need to be expanded a bit to make zones of control truly controlling, and to give characters an appropriate chance to react in a turn-based system. Free changes of facing when unengaged, and/or opportunity attacks for characters that push carelessly through an enemy's zone of control, would I think solve most if not all of the issues (they certainly have for us). But of course I am looking at this from an RM2/RMU perspective, and my solutions might not be apt for RMSS. I am just throwing them out there for those that might find them useful.
-
Personally, Vector, I think the player in question was playing smartly within the rules, it is just that the rules need to be expanded a bit to make zones of control truly controlling, and to give characters an appropriate chance to react in a turn-based system. Free changes of facing when unengaged, and/or opportunity attacks for characters that push carelessly through an enemy's zone of control, would I think solve most if not all of the issues (they certainly have for us). But of course I am looking at this from an RM2/RMU perspective, and my solutions might not be apt for RMSS. I am just throwing them out there for those that might find them useful.
Although it's not really been an issue in my game, I'm going to present some of these ideas for ZoC Rules to my players next session.
So thanks to everyone for the great ideas!
-
Personally, Vector, I think the player in question was playing smartly within the rules, it is just that the rules need to be expanded a bit to make zones of control truly controlling, and to give characters an appropriate chance to react in a turn-based system. Free changes of facing when unengaged, and/or opportunity attacks for characters that push carelessly through an enemy's zone of control, would I think solve most if not all of the issues (they certainly have for us). But of course I am looking at this from an RM2/RMU perspective, and my solutions might not be apt for RMSS. I am just throwing them out there for those that might find them useful.
I agree the player is playing smartly and within the rules. This not the issue, as a GM if I was to use the same tactics when outnumbering the players someone would be killed, a squishy at the back or whatever. Because in a room 10x10 squares you cannot create a link and someone could play Chinese checkers diagonal through a gap.
Any time in the past 'prior' to you joining Murder that I done something that remotely avoid the front ranks and goes for a squishy, there is an outcry from the players same is unrealistic BS as the NPC should be able to be blocked or stopped going to the back ranks. And its not about outsmarting the players, hell if this was board game where I wanted to win with the resources I have every battle would result in a party wipe, that not the point of RPG, it is a point in creating a challenge.
The problem is I do not want this game turning into chinese checkers because the rules allow it. I want it to what rolemaster tries to be a gritty realistic approach to combat.
I think I have made my choice, move and turn does not resolve the problem of chinese checkers.
I am going for a Moving Maneuver roll one level up from the base, and an opportunity attacks at 1/2 OB in you leave a zone of control square, even if it going into another zone of control adjacent to the player. Just the same as in DnD, so you go through multiple zone of controls squares you still only receive the one attack.
-
Something I think a lot of people fail to think about is that combat isn't a series of specific actions that start and stop on a player initiative or specific phase. That's just how your allowed amount of actions is measured.
To give an example, in RMSS, if you move cast Bladeturn in Snap, move 20% in Normal, and attack in Deliberate. You didn't stand still casting a spell, then suddenly shoot over to the foe, come to a stop, then perform your swing like wooden toy. You cast Bladeturn as you moved towards the foe, making your attack (or series of feints, thrusts, etc) as you approached.
So 'going around' someone in melee shouldn't really be a matter of "But I have enough movement to do that!" Always assume everyone involved in melee is continually moving. This is why we assume two foes never get a flank on you. Because the three of you are constantly moving and the person getting double-teamed is going to constantly keep the two foes on his forward flanks. No, this isn't FULLY realistic, but melee will NEVER be fully realistic. So some common sense rules need to be put in place that, unless given a very wide birth (i.e. the person would have to disengage melee in order to block you), you should be able to 'block' people. All the people involved just need to remember melee combatants aren't static. You don't just stand there taking turns swinging at each other.
This not the issue, as a GM if I was to use the same tactics when outnumbering the players someone would be killed, a squishy at the back or whatever.
I realize you're trying to avoid being too deadly, but in the end I think your players will either need to position themselves better, learn they can't win every fight, or suffer the conditions any intelligent foe would create.
-
Personally, Vector, I think the player in question was playing smartly within the rules, it is just that the rules need to be expanded a bit to make zones of control truly controlling, and to give characters an appropriate chance to react in a turn-based system. Free changes of facing when unengaged, and/or opportunity attacks for characters that push carelessly through an enemy's zone of control, would I think solve most if not all of the issues (they certainly have for us). But of course I am looking at this from an RM2/RMU perspective, and my solutions might not be apt for RMSS. I am just throwing them out there for those that might find them useful.
I agree the player is playing smartly and within the rules. This not the issue, as a GM if I was to use the same tactics when outnumbering the players someone would be killed, a squishy at the back or whatever. Because in a room 10x10 squares you cannot create a link and someone could play Chinese checkers diagonal through a gap.
Any time in the past 'prior' to you joining Murder that I done something that remotely avoid the front ranks and goes for a squishy, there is an outcry from the players same is unrealistic BS as the NPC should be able to be blocked or stopped going to the back ranks. And its not about outsmarting the players, hell if this was board game where I wanted to win with the resources I have every battle would result in a party wipe, that not the point of RPG, it is a point in creating a challenge.
I see, I was not aware of this prior issue.
Personally I do think the players should be forced to using tactics/positioning especially vs an intelligent opponent.. but that's me. I think we have too much "leeroy" happening which is excused as "role play". I don't buy that as all of our characters have survived to level 10+, been in plenty of combats, and most of our physical characters come from some militaristic backstory.
For any of us to be "leeroy" should come at severe consequences at this point...as that character wouldn't of survived to level 10+ anyway.
The problem is I do not want this game turning into chinese checkers because the rules allow it. I want it to what rolemaster tries to be a gritty realistic approach to combat.
This is also why i think people need to be forced to treat combat with care and thinking not just RAAARRRRRRRR ALL YOUR BASES BELONG TO ME type actions. We should be having some positioning, we should be trying to cover each others flanks/rear. We should be doing this while limiting access to our support party members.
I think I have made my choice, move and turn does not resolve the problem of chinese checkers.
I am going for a Moving Maneuver roll one level up from the base, and an opportunity attacks at 1/2 OB in you leave a zone of control square, even if it going into another zone of control adjacent to the player. Just the same as in DnD, so you go through multiple zone of controls squares you still only receive the one attack.
Maneuvering roll to walk? :o on even, flat, paved surface? ???
-
For the reason that Cory mentions, I always require a contest of maneuver skills when one character tries to outmaneuver another, e.g. circling around to get behind them. It's not that running around on an even, flat, paved surface is difficult, but the rolls show which character is doing it better. So instead of a "Chinese checkers" approach where we go one at a time in artificial fashion, I depend on the character's skills and rolls to see how well they do.
Of course I expect that a character who is primarily a flanker should be good at those maneuvers and will often succeed. But that's ok, they've invested DP in being good at it.
-
For the reason that Cory mentions, I always require a contest of maneuver skills when one character tries to outmaneuver another, e.g. circling around to get behind them. It's not that running around on an even, flat, paved surface is difficult, but the rolls show which character is doing it better. So instead of a "Chinese checkers" approach where we go one at a time in artificial fashion, I depend on the character's skills and rolls to see how well they do.
That is a simple way to do it; do you find it slows the game down though JDale? How often are you rolling for these things, and how do you decide specifically who gets to move where? For example, if someone is trying to maneuver to someone's rear, and the mover beats the stationary target's roll by say 5, how do you decide how far to the rear he gets? Is there partial success (e.g. he gets flank not rear), or what would be the threshold for full success? Or is that just decided on an ad hoc basis by GM judgement?
Questions like these are perhaps easily answered, but personally, I prefer a system that doesn't need a lot of rolls or GM adjudication, because I feel these things slow down the game and add an element of judgement that can cause friction between GMs and players.
-
Maneuvering roll to walk? :o on even, flat, paved surface? ???
In fairness I think he is just proposing maneuvering rolls for contested movement through zones of control.
I have an idea! How about all battles in this campaign be fought with each side forming a shield wall?
No pesky movement issues then. :P
-
For the reason that Cory mentions, I always require a contest of maneuver skills when one character tries to outmaneuver another, e.g. circling around to get behind them. It's not that running around on an even, flat, paved surface is difficult, but the rolls show which character is doing it better. So instead of a "Chinese checkers" approach where we go one at a time in artificial fashion, I depend on the character's skills and rolls to see how well they do.
That is a simple way to do it; do you find it slows the game down though JDale? How often are you rolling for these things, and how do you decide specifically who gets to move where? For example, if someone is trying to maneuver to someone's rear, and the mover beats the stationary target's roll by say 5, how do you decide how far to the rear he gets? Is there partial success (e.g. he gets flank not rear), or what would be the threshold for full success? Or is that just decided on an ad hoc basis by GM judgement?
Questions like these are perhaps easily answered, but personally, I prefer a system that doesn't need a lot of rolls or GM adjudication, because I feel these things slow down the game and add an element of judgement that can cause friction between GMs and players.
You really only need a roll for the things that are interesting. Do I get flank? Does that foe get flank on me? Am I able to get past that foe, or stop that foe from slipping past me? So if a roll happens, which I don't find is particularly often, it's something that is often interesting to the player and adds a little suspense.
It does mean the game is more like a roleplaying game with skills and less like a combat board game. That means more decisions by the GM.
-
You really only need a roll for the things that are interesting. Do I get flank? Does that foe get flank on me? Am I able to get past that foe, or stop that foe from slipping past me?
Ok, I understand your point better now. One thing though I was trying to get at though is that a lot of these cases are not absolute either/or cases (wasn't there a term for them in RM2? can't remember it right now). Rather, many of these cases admit partial success or degrees of success. So someone is trying to get as close to the troll's rear as possible (as unappealing as that sounds), or as far past the guard at the city gate as he can. Here it seems you not only need a two-roll contest, but GM adjudication on top of it to see the degree of success. So the way you are doing it here both slows the game down (opposed rolls) and requires adjudication. I recognize that there is some fun and tension in the opposed rolls, but if they happen frequently for basic movement then I think that the fun will wear out pretty soon, and the necessity of GM judgement has no benefits that I can see.
It does mean the game is more like a roleplaying game with skills and less like a combat board game. That means more decisions by the GM.
I'm not really sure GM adjudication is a necessary feature of roleplaying. Take the spell roll for example. We used to require two rolls to cast a spell: ESF roll and then attack roll. Now we've combined them into a single roll. Has that reduced the roleplaying aspect of the game? I would say no.
Maybe we just have a difference of philosophy here, and I understand why you want to keep doing things the way you've been doing them. For me though, the benefits of removing the need for rolls for routine movement actions, and simultaneously removing the need for GM adjudication, far outweigh any potential roleplaying benefits (even if they do exist).
-
I have an idea! How about all battles in this campaign be fought with each side forming a shield wall?
No pesky movement issues then. :P
Yes, kill each other in a more civilized, gentlemanly manner!
-
Any time in the past 'prior' to you joining Murder that I done something that remotely avoid the front ranks and goes for a squishy, there is an outcry from the players same is unrealistic BS as the NPC should be able to be blocked or stopped going to the back ranks.
Now there's the rub. Your player, and MurderbyNumbers, need to understand what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I really believe that NPCs and PCs should operate under the same rules.
If they leave their flanks exposed and spell casters vulnerable then they should suffer the same fate as any of MurderbyNumbers victims. Sometimes a party has to retreat when things start to go wrong. I occasionally set up a potentially mismatched encounter opportunity to remind the players that the world does not scale around them like some sort of video game.
If you insist on poking your nose in a dragon's lair at 5th level I WILL KILL YOU! Well, not me, the dragon will.
-
It is sure amazing how much the battle changes when the enemies have one more party member than the PCs. Suddenly, the PCs are all watching their flanks and rears.
-
It is sure amazing how much the battle changes when the enemies have one more party member than the PCs. Suddenly, the PCs are all watching their flanks and rears.
Isn't that half the fun?
-
It is sure amazing how much the battle changes when the enemies have one more party member than the PCs. Suddenly, the PCs are all watching their flanks and rears.
I always liked using archers in overwatch positions. Nothing says "I see you" to a flanking PC like an arrow in the breadbasket...