Melee Ranges

[Luca Cherstich]

I must confess that I like the new rules on Melee Ranges. I know they somehow make combat more complicated, but to me it also becomes more interesting.

I have only one problem: the use of Normal-sized weapons at Long Range, as the rules on p. 136 are not quite clear about it.

• Close Quarter Weapons can be used at Normal Range with -5/+5 but are ineffective beyond Normal distance.
• Normal Weapons can be used at Close Quarter with a -5/+5 penalty but are ineffective "beyond two yards"
• Long Weapons can be used at Normal Range with no penalty but also missing the usual +5 vs non-Long Weapons, but are ineffective at Close Quarter.

Now the question is: Can I use my sword to deal Damage to a Spear-wielder when we are at Long Range?

Given the way most spears are wielded, there are usually not 2 yards between the two fighters....I feel the sword should be allowed dealing damage at Long Range (and, if the fight is won, be also allowed to move to Normal Range in Step Five: Movement).

What are your opinions?

 

 

[Morien]

Yes, you are able to damage the spear wielder if you win the opposed contest. Just because the combat starts at long range doesn't mean it stays there. The whole +5 to long weapons is because they can attack while normal weapons have to close, but once the swordsman wins, he can change the range and deal the damage. And even step back again to keep the range Long if he really wants to challenge himself.

[Josh Neff]

I think that's a good example of why I like Pendragon combat--it's fast and abstracted. You all roll the dice and then write the narrative around the results. "Sir Bran lunged with his spear but Dame Katherin knocked it aside with her shield, moved in close, and slashed Sir Bran through his armor. He grimaced and pushed her back with his shield, hoping to keep her at his spear's tip."

[Morien]

Yep, and then the next opposed roll dictates if he succeeds or not in opening the range again.

Although to be pedantic, the rules for Long Weapons state that they need to be used two-handed so Sir Bran wouldn't have a shield. There is some confusion about that, discussed in the Great Spears thread.

[Mugen]

23 hours ago, Morien said:

Yes, you are able to damage the spear wielder if you win the opposed contest. Just because the combat starts at long range doesn't mean it stays there. The whole +5 to long weapons is because they can attack while normal weapons have to close, but once the swordsman wins, he can change the range and deal the damage. And even step back again to keep the range Long if he really wants to challenge himself.

Does that mean I can close range AND deal damage as the result of a successful opposition ? If so, why say you can't deal damage in this situation, because you'll always be able to deal damage after a successful opposition nonetheless.

And if I, as the swordsman in your example, chose the "berserk stance" (sorry, I forgot the real name...) where our rolls are not opposed, do we still get the +5 and -5 modifiers ?

[Luca Cherstich]

33 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Does that mean I can close range AND deal damage as the result of a successful opposition ? If so, why say you can't deal damage in this situation, because you'll always be able to deal damage after a successful opposition nonetheless.

You can deal or not deal damage according to the weapon you use and the Melee range you are in this round (not the one you'll be after movement in Step 5, if succesfull).

Check p.136 where "effective" = "Deals damage"

• Close Quarter Weapons (Dagger, Fist, Claws) are effective/deal damage at Contact, Close Quarters and Normal (suffering -5/+5) ranges;
• Normal Weapons (Swords, axes, maces, etc.) are effective/deal damage at Close Quarter (suffering -5/+5), Normal and Long (at max 2 yards) Ranges;
• Long Weapons (Spears, Halberds) are effective/deal damage at Long range (getting +5 vs non-long weapons) and Normal Range.

If I well understood, all weapons can be used at any range: in case of success you deal damage only if the weapon is "effective" at that range, otherwise you only get a free "movement to your favourite range" in Step 5 of the Combat sequence.

 

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

And if I, as the swordsman in your example, chose the "berserk stance" (sorry, I forgot the real name...) where our rolls are not opposed, do we still get the +5 and -5 modifiers ?

The Reckless Attack is no longer unopposed in 6e, so this issue doesn't arise. So yes, the modifiers do apply.

[Morien]

41 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

If I well understood, all weapons can be used at any range: in case of success you deal damage only if the weapon is "effective" at that range, otherwise you only get a free "movement to your favourite range" in Step 5 of the Combat sequence.

Personally, I would let the shorter weapons to deal damage even when starting at Long Melee range, but they would suffer the -5/+10 modifiers vs. a Long weapon and would have to end the round (if they win) at Normal or shorter range (not really a problem, as they probably want to be at least Close Quarters). 

Reason for this is that a knifeman CAN in real life dash in, and (if lucky/skilled/armored) avoid being skewered and then shank the spearman to death. But then again, I do a lot more Theater of the Mind stuff, where the round is not so strictly regimented into steps. Also, I don't think the Spearman should get a 'Free' Reckless Attack at +10/0, which is what it would be if the Knifeman cannot hurt him. The +10/-5 is bad enough for the Knifeman, which probably would push him to try to do Defensive (and thus not do damage), but +10/+5 is still bad news for the Knifeman if they have similar skills.

Edited June 19 by Morien

[Luca Cherstich]

51 minutes ago, Morien said:

Reason for this is that a knifeman CAN in real life dash in, and (if lucky/skilled/armored) avoid being skewered and then shank the spearman to death.

In the new rules to perform this feat the Knifeman should win two rounds in a row (1 to get near, the other to deal damage). I somehow like it, but I must confess I've not tried that situation on the table yet.

[Luca Cherstich]

55 minutes ago, Morien said:

Reason for this is that a knifeman CAN in real life dash in, and (if lucky/skilled/armored) avoid being skewered and then shank the spearman to death. But then again, I do a lot more Theater of the Mind stuff, where the round is not so strictly regimented into steps. Also, I don't think the Spearman should get a 'Free' Reckless Attack at +10/0, which is what it would be if the Knifeman cannot hurt him. The +10/-5 is bad enough for the Knifeman, which probably would push him to try to do Defensive (and thus not do damage), but +10/+5 is still bad news for the Knifeman if they have similar skills.

As a sidenote, the ranges description on p.136 should have been written in a more explicit way.

We deduce that Close Quarters weapons can be used at Long Range without dealing damage, but there is no mention of applying the same -5/+5 modifier they receive when fighting at Normal Range (dealing damage).....maybe they do not suffer it? (it's all quite complicated...)

[Morien]

4 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

In the new rules to perform this feat the Knifeman should win two rounds in a row (1 to get near, the other to deal damage). I somehow like it, but I must confess I've not tried that situation on the table yet.

As I suggested in my reply, the knifeman would likely have to take Defensive to have a chance of winning the opposed rolling, so that is your 'one round to close' and then the second round to fight normally to do damage.

Ah I see you replied. I think you are starting to see why I am not so fond of this complication of melee ranges. 🙂

[Luca Cherstich]

1 minute ago, Morien said:

Ah I see you replied. I think you are starting to see why I am not so fond of this complication of melee ranges.

I still like them.

They add a whole new level to combat......but they should have written them better and more explicitly.

The text is frankly a mess, causing a lot of confusion.

[Morien]

Thinking about this a bit more, the knifeman's best bet is likely to evade but instead of moving back, he'd be moving in. This would model what you said but allow the knifeman avoid the modifiers due to the weapon ranges. 

[Mugen]

5 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

You can deal or not deal damage according to the weapon you use and the Melee range you are in this round (not the one you'll be after movement in Step 5, if succesfull).

Check p.136 where "effective" = "Deals damage"

• Close Quarter Weapons (Dagger, Fist, Claws) are effective/deal damage at Contact, Close Quarters and Normal (suffering -5/+5) ranges;
• Normal Weapons (Swords, axes, maces, etc.) are effective/deal damage at Close Quarter (suffering -5/+5), Normal and Long (at max 2 yards) Ranges;
• Long Weapons (Spears, Halberds) are effective/deal damage at Long range (getting +5 vs non-long weapons) and Normal Range.

If I well understood, all weapons can be used at any range: in case of success you deal damage only if the weapon is "effective" at that range, otherwise you only get a free "movement to your favourite range" in Step 5 of the Combat sequence.

 

Does that mean I should use Defensive stance, since I won't be able to deal damage ?

[Luca Cherstich]

13 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Does that mean I should use Defensive stance, since I won't be able to deal damage ?

That's a logic consequence. Everybody likes a +10 (albeit it seems like metagaming, exploiting the rules exploiting a gap in the Melee Ranges mechanics) ....but I guess we need some official answer from Chaosium people, to see if all of this line of reasoning reflects or not their design.

[Luca Cherstich]

33 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Does that mean I should use Defensive stance, since I won't be able to deal damage ?

Thinking again...

Defensive is not always the answer.

A Knifeman (Close Combat Weapon) should attack a Swordman (Normal Range weapon) has two opsions:

• Attacking at -5/+5 for 1 round and, in case of success, dealing damage and closing-up in Step 5.
• Defend at +10, -5/+5 = +5/+5 and, in case of success, NOT dealing damage and closing-up in Step 5. 

Edited June 19 by Luca Cherstich

[Mugen]

9 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

That's a logic consequence. Everybody likes a +10 (albeit it seems like metagaming, exploiting the rules exploiting a gap in the Melee Ranges mechanics) ....but I guess we need some official answer from Chaosium people, to see if all of this line of reasoning reflects or not their design.

But what happens if the character with the long weapon choses Reckless Attack ?

In older editions, it would have countered the Defensive Stance, resulting in a standard melee opposition.

[Luca Cherstich]

17 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Thinking again...

Defensive is not always the answer.

A Knifeman (Close Combat Weapon) should attack a Swordman (Normal Range weapon) has two opsions:

• Attacking at -5/+5 for 1 round and, in case of success, dealing damage and closing-up in Step 5.
• Defend at +10, -5/+5 = +5/+5 and, in case of success, NOT dealing damage and closing-up in Step 5. 

The problem is, again, for Knifeman (CC weapon) VS Spearman (Long Weapon), since the mechanical relationship of CC weapons and Long Range is not explained on p.136.

Off course the Knifeman is not going to deal any damage at Long Range but we do not know whether he will suffer the -5/+5 (as he should suffer, for common sense).

In both cases (with or without the -5/+5) a +10 with the Defend option is always the choice which every player will make while getting closer to the prefered Melee Range.

 

Edited June 19 by Luca Cherstich

[Luca Cherstich]

13 minutes ago, Mugen said:

But what happens if the character with the long weapon choses Reckless Attack ?

In older editions, it would have countered the Defensive Stance, resulting in a standard melee opposition.

Good suggestion.

As per p. 142 the "Reckless Attack" cancels "Defend" and vice-versa = Combat is resolved normally as the "Defend" option (with its +10) is cancelled.

So....it looks like the Pendragon system has its own "ways" to fix any gap!!

However the players and GM should remember the Defend/Reckless rules....which are all counterintuitively applied in this case, as they have nothing to do with Melee Range mechanics, but are applied only for metagaming and not simulationistic reasons. 

Edited June 19 by Luca Cherstich

[Mugen]

4 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Good suggestion.

As per p. 142 the "Reckless Attack" cancels "Defend" and vice-versa = Combat is resolved normally as the "Defend" option (with its +10) is cancelled.

So....it looks like the Pendragon system has its own "ways" to fix any gap!!

Well, it only happens if you have a way to know what stance the other character chose.

Still, i think it's a pity they simply cancel each other.

I think the stances would benefit from being designed as a game of rock/paper/scissors, where each one has an edge against another.

[Luca Cherstich]

14 hours ago, Mugen said:

I think the stances would benefit from being designed as a game of rock/paper/scissors, where each one has an edge against another.

Check p.132. 

When timing of Declaration is important order the combatants per DEX (as suggested by the red text on the side) or make opposed DEX rolls (as suggested by the main text).

[Morien]

17 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Check p.132. 

When timing of Declaration is important order the combatants per DEX (as suggested by the red text on the side) or make opposed DEX rolls (as suggested by the main text).

I'll comment here rather than in the corrections thread since that is intended for errata rather than discussion...

These might be for two different things.

1. Declare intentions in the order of DEX, lowest to highest.

2. RESOLVE actions in the order of opposed DEX rolls, if timing is important.

Admittedly, the use of 'if timing is important' also in the first is confusing, but it could reference the idea that it is important to know if the other guy is doing Reckless Attack or not before you choose between a Normal attack or a Defensive.

[Mugen]

34 minutes ago, Morien said:

I'll comment here rather than in the corrections thread since that is intended for errata rather than discussion...

These might be for two different things.

1. Declare intentions in the order of DEX, lowest to highest.

2. RESOLVE actions in the order of opposed DEX rolls, if timing is important.

Admittedly, the use of 'if timing is important' also in the first is confusing, but it could reference the idea that it is important to know if the other guy is doing Reckless Attack or not before you choose between a Normal attack or a Defensive.

It makes DEX a much more valuable attribute. My players used stances a lot, so we needed DEX order all the time.

However, I'd be tempted to use personality traits here. Prudent for declaration step, and Energetic for resolution.

[Morien]

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

However, I'd be tempted to use personality traits here. Prudent for declaration step, and Energetic for resolution.

I like that idea, although I might use Prudent and Reckless, in order to give both of them weight, and it sorta fits. The Reckless is going with the gut, already moving, while the Prudent is waiting for the Reckless to make the first move. Reckless needs something to make it useful occasionally.

Energetic is already a super-Trait. .:P

[Mugen]

8 hours ago, Morien said:

I like that idea, although I might use Prudent and Reckless, in order to give both of them weight, and it sorta fits. The Reckless is going with the gut, already moving, while the Prudent is waiting for the Reckless to make the first move. Reckless needs something to make it useful occasionally.

Energetic is already a super-Trait. .:P

The reason why I chose Energetic instead of Reckless is because I wanted to use two different stats. Using Reckless is basically the same as using Prudent in reverse order.