Statements of Intent: Attacking a Different Character Than First Stated

[Stan Shinn]

Let's say you make your statement of intent that you are going to attack enemy #1. Then, as you resolve actions, enemy #1 dies before you get to attack them, but enemy #2 is within reach.

Would you rule that:

(1) The PC's original target is down so you lose your attack.

or

(2) The PC can use their 'attack action' to attack enemy #2, or any enemy with reach.

or something else?

-- Stan

[Peter Fitz]

I don't think the statement should be a straitjacket. Obviously the character would adapt to changing circumstances. Maybe you could require an Idea roll or something to be able to change targets on the fly, but as long as there's no obvious attempt to abuse the system I wouldn't even bother with that.

[Saki]

I'd allow the PC to redirect their action, but I'd probably give them a Dex rank penalty of 5 to represent needing to make a split second change to their plan

[g33k]

On 4/2/2024 at 5:27 AM, Saki said:

I'd allow the PC to redirect their action, but I'd probably give them a Dex rank penalty of 5 to represent needing to make a split second change to their plan

☝️This☝️   I think; @Saki has it right.

Over in RuneQuestLand, they have something called the "Battle" skill.  I treat it as a sort of "situational awareness" in cases like these:  If your SOI gets invalidated before your SR, a successful "Battle" roll lets you re-target with no SR penalties:  you saw it coming, and switched on the fly.

If you miss your Battle roll, I use INT instead of DEX to calculate a similar "INT Rank" penalty:  how quickly can you figure out a next-best target (which just seems like an INT-y rather than a DEX-y thing to be doing).

These are among my House Rules for RQG.
 

I also allow (in fact, I encourage) a simple "conditional" SOI -- something like "I'm gonna move up and attack <NPC X>, but if they go down before I get there, I will ..."
(e.g, "attack <NPC Y> to the left of <X>" or "attack <NPC Z> behind <X>" or similar).
Generally, I only allow 1 such "conditional" fallback state... not a domino-chain of "if X is down and Y is down, then Z."

I believe a simple "conditional" SOI like this to be entirely within the letter & spirit of the RAW.

(also note that I apply much larger delays if it's a complete change-up of Intent; all the above presume something minimal, like re-targeting your already-stated attack; shifting from "I swing my sword at..." to "I cast a spell at..." is IMO a much-bigger change, which is harder to do in the confusion of combat)

Edited April 4 by g33k
HR vs RAW

[AndreasDavour]

On 4/2/2024 at 2:27 PM, Saki said:

I'd allow the PC to redirect their action, but I'd probably give them a Dex rank penalty of 5 to represent needing to make a split second change to their plan

This

[Squaredeal Sten]

On 4/1/2024 at 10:07 PM, Stan Shinn said:

Let's say you make your statement of intent that you are going to attack enemy #1. Then, as you resolve actions, enemy #1 dies before you get to attack them, but enemy #2 is within reach.

Would you rule that:

(1) The PC's original target is down so you lose your attack.

or

(2) The PC can use their 'attack action' to attack enemy #2, or any enemy with reach.

or something else?

-- Stan

We are talking about a 12 second melee round, and if there is movement involved half of that must be gone.  I would never allow a change to statement of intent to undo that.  The most I would allow would be to change to strike at a second adjacent enemy. 

Next question, do the NPC enemies also get to change SOI when the situation changes?  If not, this is just another munchkin push and should go to the munchkinrythread.

Edited April 4 by Squaredeal Sten
Spelling

[Peter Fitz]

34 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

We are talking about a 12 second melee round, and if there is movement involved half of that must be gone.  I would never allow a change to statement of intent to undo that.

Twelve seconds in combat is a looooong time. 

[Questbird]

It just requires a bit of common sense. If the statement of intent was to attack, and the target changes to another within range, sure do the -5 DEX rank and allow it. It's still an attack in range, still very close to the original 'intent'. If the player wants to pivot to something completely different like run across the room or perform first aid on a fallen comrade, then don't.

[Joerg]

"I'll attack the hostile melee participant in range, which currently is NPC X."

[radmonger]

If you are engaged with multiple enemies, attacking one rather than another is not really a change of statement of intent. Bob kills the broo on the left at SR6, you attack the one on the right at SR7.

If you change engagement during the round, the unengaged movement rules do not apply. So you must pay SR to move, starting from at best the SR on which the guy dies (adding DEX SR to that wouldn't be unreasonable). So it would be rare to be able to move and get a different attack in, or switch to a bow. This is where attack spells and thrown spears can come in handy.

The way I play it, the statement of intent is not a commitment, it is about deciding who is engaged with who. Something like 'we hold the line against whoever comes to us' can mean you are engaged with all of a horde of broo. If you choose a solid defensive position, not all will end up in position to attack, and you may even survive.

[Nozbat]

I always go back to what a melee round mechanic is.. it's a series of thrusts, parries, feints, dodges, etc to try and get an opening with one opportunity to damage your opponent and to parry in the 12 seconds of time. I also think that, as others have said earlier, common sense should apply.

Describing the combat scene is also critical, helped if its TTG by using figures or counters or accurate use of counters if VTTG. Players can then see what is possible to do, either switching targets, with or without a possible DEX SR penalty. If there is a penalty, for movement or for reaching further, then a strike might not happen that round. I would always rule that if this happens the attack (opening) happens on the DEX SR of the next MR using a formula such as Initial SR + SR penalty - 12 (for the missed round). That means the players strike might happen on DEX SR 1 or 2 of the following round. After that, in the next round, SR reverts to normal, unless of course there is another change of SoI !!!

In missile combat or spell casting, I'd use different rules and as others have said applying DEX SR penalties might be appropriate.

I like @g33k's idea of appraisal of the situation by using a Battle or INT based roll to be aware of the surroundings to be able to make the switch in a highly stressful situation. Attention shift and awareness is likely part of the general risk assessment of combat situations and a skill that the best combatants have to survive a combat. Those that only focus on their direct opponent in a melee are likely to be short lived. Those that are capable of taking in a wider environment are more likely to survive and continue to use that behaviour, which is more adaptive, in future.

I have never been in combat so this is very hypothetical but I am reminded of sporting situations in football or rugby where as I am about to make a pass, I see an opposition player that could intercept the ball. I delay the pass, move forward several metres to create a new angle, and then make a safer pass. It all happens in a blink of an eye but requires the use of many skills to assess the situation and adjust my 'statement of intent'. Can I also point out that my sporting career ended a few decades ago.

[glarkhag]

5 hours ago, Nozbat said:

I always go back to what a melee round mechanic is.. it's a series of thrusts, parries, feints, dodges, etc to try and get an opening with one opportunity to damage your opponent and to parry in the 12 seconds of time....

Actually I think you have hit on something really important there. Effectively if you attack on SR6 (without having moved or cast magic)  you start your attack on SR 1 so it takes 6 strike ranks to potentially hurt that target. So for me, if they go down on SR5 you take a SR to review for a new target (battle or INT or whatever) then any movement necessary, then your 6 Strike ranks of attacking starts. So chances are in this example you wouldn't have time to move *and* attack.

 

[Mugen]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:00 AM, Questbird said:

It just requires a bit of common sense. If the statement of intent was to attack, and the target changes to another within range, sure do the -5 DEX rank and allow it. 

And then, your new target dies in that 5 DEX range. 😆 

That's a sound advice, though.

[Atgxtg]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:27 AM, Saki said:

I'd allow the PC to redirect their action, but I'd probably give them a Dex rank penalty of 5 to represent needing to make a split second change to their plan

Yeah, that pretty much how old RQ used to handle it. The new attack would get delayed by 5 Strike Ranks (or 3 with the 10 SR melee rounds of RQ3).

 

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

And then, your new target dies in that 5 DEX range. 😆 

LOL! I saw that happen in RQ2 to a player, thrice in the same round. The player had declared a Disrupt (SR 2), but the target got drooped on SR1 with  a Sunspear; so the player switched targets (+5SR) and waits for SR7, but that target got dropped by an arrow on SR3, so they switch to a third target (+5SR more, but I think the GM started the count from SR3 for SR 8 rather than 12); impaling spear dropped the third target on SR 7; player out of targets, fight ends.  So the faster PC in the group tried to throw off the fstest battle magic spell but the fight was over before he got the chance to act!

[Akerbakk]

I think it all depends on how granular/ gritty/realistic you want your combat to be!

For me, penalizing a character for changing plans against their statement of intent feels pedantic. As a caveat, I tend to run more on the cinematic side of things.

Were I to run something that is more tactical I may consider a DEX or INT penalty to action.

[g33k]

16 minutes ago, Akerbakk said:

... For me, penalizing a character for changing plans against their statement of intent feels pedantic ...

I don't think this is an unreasonable perspective, at all!
Personally, I like the SOI & the penalty for changing actions... if feels very "chaos of battle" to me.  But I understand your perspective!

I am considering adding a House Rule to prevent most "you lose your action for the round" effects:
 - anyone who "dithered away" the round with changed SOI's and SR-penalties may take a final action, after all else is resolved... but only at half skill.


FWIW:  the system was largely designed -- back in the day -- by Steve Perrin, who was one of the very-early medieval-combat "recreation" folks at the SCA.  His mechanics (invented for the RuneQuest game, originally) were very-much informed by his real-life experience on the battlefield, in armor, swinging a sword/etc.

 

[Mugen]

18 hours ago, g33k said:

FWIW:  the system was largely designed -- back in the day -- by Steve Perrin, who was one of the very-early medieval-combat "recreation" folks at the SCA.  His mechanics (invented for the RuneQuest game, originally) were very-much informed by his real-life experience on the battlefield, in armor, swinging a sword/etc.

But I remember someone from that group say that they were still relatively inexperienced at that time (compared to what they became later), and it showed in the design of the combat system.

[Atgxtg]

On 4/5/2024 at 11:16 AM, Akerbakk said:

For me, penalizing a character for changing plans against their statement of intent feels pedantic. As a caveat, I tend to run more on the cinematic side of things.

Well, then why not get rid of statement of intent?. Just count down DEX ranks and let people act on thier turn.

Or, allow for more open ended statements such as "I'll shoot my handgun," with making player declare their targets. That way they could just react to the fight as it happens. Now personally I think aiming should be an exception to this (you have to aim at someone/thing) but otherwise it works out fine

 

[g33k]

11 hours ago, Mugen said:

But I remember someone from that group say that they were still relatively inexperienced at that time (compared to what they became later), and it showed in the design of the combat system.

That's entirely possible... but I hadn't heard that anyone proposed a superior core mechanic, that worked as-smoothly in play but as-reasonably / as-accurately captured the flow of combat.

There have been many attempts, over the years, to get combat to be "more accurate."  Everything that's "better" (than RQ/BRP) in this regard is dramatically worse as an at-the-table RPG  experience (with the possible exception of RQ6/Mythras, which I was unable to "sell" to my group, and thus have never gotten to see done "in-depth" at the table).
 

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, g33k said:

That's entirely possible... but I hadn't heard that anyone proposed a superior core mechanic, that worked as-smoothly in play but as-reasonably / as-accurately captured the flow of combat.

There have been many attempts, over the years, to get combat to be "more accurate."  Everything that's "better" (than RQ/BRP) in this regard is dramatically worse as an at-the-table RPG  experience (with the possible exception of RQ6/Mythras, which I was unable to "sell" to my group, and thus have never gotten to see done "in-depth" at the table).
 

That's a subjective conclusion. One of the reasons why BRP isn't the most widely played RPG is because most people prefer something else. Yeah, you're kinda preaching to the choir here, but " Everything that's "better" (than RQ/BRP) in this regard is dramatically worse as an at-the-table RPG  experience" has not be objectively proven.

Edited April 7 by Atgxtg