Flee! - disengaging from melee in the worst possible way.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Just noticed this on the Q&A:

More specifically one of the last points where Jason mentions that a reckless disengagement allows the opponent a free attack ( can’t be parried or dodged) , which happens immediately, and doesn’t effect the characters standard actions that round.  

So potentially you can still use your standard actions ( including attacking) without any SR impediment from the free attack.

Don’t think it’s spelled out that way exactly in the rule book, but I like the interpretation.  Is this how others play it? 

[Akhôrahil]

46 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Don’t think it’s spelled out that way exactly in the rule book, but I like the interpretation.  Is this how others play it? 

This doesn't sound right - it means that if four people run away from you all at once, you get to attack every one of them (and then someone else the same turn on top of that!).

It seems a lot more reasonable that this attack on a fleeing opponent is your attack that turn (and if you didn't do an attack, like if you cast a spell instead, then your opponent just breaks off successfully while you were distracted).

I would even be inclined to rule that as long as someone remains engaged in actual combat with with enemy, others can disengage freely (although this isn't in the actual rules). Or perhaps more specifically, that if you face multiple opponents, the ones you're not attacking that turn get to disengage freely (stuff like splitting attacks vs. multiple opponents, whether you cast a spell or not, and whom you target, become tactical elements and guessing games).

Edited January 10, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[French Desperate WindChild]

I agree with @Akhôrahil

It seems too generous (if you are not flying)

My view (not rules)

1) disengagement is announced before SR1

2) the attacker could choose to attack him (with all bonus, from back, no dodge, no pary, ... ) or not

 

then 3 situations :

A vs B, B disengages ==> A attacks (Or not)

A vs B & C, B disengages ==> A attacks B (with bonus) or C, C attacks A (who can parry / dodge / ...)

A & D vs vs B, B disengages ==> A attacks B (with bonus), D attacks B (with bonus)

 

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

43 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

This doesn't sound right - it means that if four people run away from you all at once, you get to attack every one of them (and then someone else the same turn on top of that!).

Isn’t It only the ones that you are engaged with? Maybe with split attack you could be engaged with two/three max? But most would only be able to engage with one opponent at a time. 

All the same I might be inclined to house rule that you’re allowed only one free attack, and if engaged with more then one opponent you have to choose which to use the free attack on. 

[g33k]

Basically, the "free attack" is based on the idea of a trained fighter who sees (and reflexively takes) that "free shot" at an unguarded foe.

GIven the way the RAW, if treated programatically, yields unrealistic results on the 3rd & 4th &c such "free shots," there is an obvious way to integrate it back into the RAW...

Treat it like one use of a Parry, subject to the cumulative -20% with other Parries.

Because what's a Parry?  It's a trained fighter seeing (and reflexively blocking) an incoming shot from a foe.

Possible additional "simulative" step (adds complication, but... some people seem to like that?) -- after each "reflexive action" (a Parry or "free shot" at a disengaging enemy) add +1 to the SR of all actions that occur later in the round (including losing your stated action, if it gets pushed off to SR13 or later -- you just got too busy!).

YGWV

Edited January 10, 2020 by g33k
extra idea -- "reflexive action"

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

14 minutes ago, g33k said:

Basically, the "free attack" is based on the idea of a trained fighter who sees (and reflexively takes) that "free shot" at an unguarded foe.

Yeah that’s in line with the reactive RQG parry concept. Works for me 

[M Helsdon]

Would suggest that there are two distinct disengagement situations: controlled and desperate, the equivalent in a battle of retreat and rout.

Rout is faster, but your enemy is liable to have the ability to strike you, pursue and strike, and this is when most casualties occur in ancient warfare. Retreat is slower, and you may be able to parry, and be able to get away, if you are either faster, or your opponent chooses not to pursue, and if things go bad a retreat can become a rout.

[Bill the barbarian]

15 minutes ago, M Helsdon said:

if you are either faster, or your opponent chooses not to pursue, and if things go bad a retreat can become a rout.

One would imagine therefore if things went well there could be a rally as well, as a corollary to that expression.

[JustAnotherVingan]

If you just disengage from your enemy then you spend 1 round being only able to parry or dodge, but being attacked, but at the end of that round are free of combat. therefore I'd suggest the one free attack with no dodge or parry is the only penalty you face for just fleeing from combat. Up to the referee what penalty you face if your foe just chases straight after you.

[Akhôrahil]

8 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Isn’t It only the ones that you are engaged with? Maybe with split attack you could be engaged with two/three max? But most would only be able to engage with one opponent at a time. 

Anyone you’re in melee with is engaged by you,  by my reading - there is no such thing as in melee but unengaged.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 1/11/2020 at 12:35 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Anyone you’re in melee with is engaged by you,  by my reading - there is no such thing as in melee but unengaged.

In that case I’d definitely house rule it a bit.

Suggestions so far:

1. Only allow a free attack on the opponents you’re currently targeting in combat.

2. Only allow a maximum of one free attack.

3. Allow multiple free attacks but with a cumulative -20% (same as parry)

4. Consider an SR penalty for each free attack beyond the first.

Maybe some combination of the above?

Personally i’d probably be inclined to go with “only allow a maximum of one free attack”  as it’s a reactive action, but the target is also moving/running away, so only a slim chance to get one free attack in.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[French Desperate WindChild]

9 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Anyone you’re in melee with is engaged by you,  by my reading - there is no such thing as in melee but unengaged.

It depends on the melee definition

Imagine two shield walls opposition

I m not sure that the left wing can touch the opposite one (and can even know in the round that the opposite one is flying)

[Darius West]

I wonder if RQ could benefit from a modified CoC 7th Ed pursuit table?

[Akhôrahil]

10 minutes ago, Darius West said:

I wonder if RQ could benefit from a modified CoC 7th Ed pursuit table?

Pursuit rules tend to be very useful.

[Shiningbrow]

I would have thought SR penalty equal to DEX SR (minimum of 1)... Gotta be quick enough to get in that extra "free" attack.