g33k Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said: ... As I am demonstrating above, I am afraid that jury is still out... Oh, a JURY is it? Not just insane, but /criminally/ insane? The things Bill does to those poor rules... Absolutely barbaric! 1 Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill the barbarian Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, g33k said: The things Bill does to those poor rules... Absolutely barbaric! Poor rules my butt. They had it comin'! Quote ... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 19 minutes ago, klecser said: ... I'm still a bit confused about "Engaged," but I'll do some reading on that. I mean, I get the general concept and comparison to AOO, but not sure I understand yet when it applies in this game. I'm a bit worried about introducing my players to too much too quickly. I think "Engaged" is a bit more common-sensical and less mechanical... In reach of one another's melee attacks, aware of one another, in a ready-to-attack-or-defend posture. That's pretty much it. The mechanical consequence is giving the foe a free attack if you just turn-and-run, or needing an active disengagement to do it safely. 2 Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klecser Posted May 27, 2019 Author Share Posted May 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, g33k said: I think "Engaged" is a bit more common-sensical and less mechanical... In reach of one another's melee attacks, aware of one another, in a ready-to-attack-or-defend posture. That's pretty much it. The mechanical consequence is giving the foe a free attack if you just turn-and-run, or needing an active disengagement to do it safely. Ok, that is pretty easy to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 17 minutes ago, klecser said: Ok, that is pretty easy to play. I think it is. It follows a common-sensical assessment. Implemented into game mechanics, it works out similar (but not identical afaik/iirc) to an AoO in PF/3.x .... if you are fighting my ally and I try to move by you... You and I become Engaged. If I just try for the move-by as a MOV action, you get that free attack on me (like an AoO) as I have effectively done the "just turn and run" thing. If I slow down, take care, go on-guard, it gets less AoO-ish! If you strike at me, I parry-and-dodge (NOT a free attack) ... this follows the normal combat rules and it is your attack for the round (and you don't get that attack against my ally!). I still get to Disengage (i.e. I do still get by you (unless you drop me with an attack!)), but whether you attack or not, doing it carefully takes me the whole round, I lose momentum on a charge/rush, etc; but not much like an AoO. === My feeling about the RQ rules is to always try a practical / common-sensical interpretation first, and if necessary presume an awkwardly-written rule rather than one that violates common sense; only if I cannot see ANY way to presume the authors meant that interpretation do I begin trying to torque game-reality into some non-sensical understanding. YGMV. 1 Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill the barbarian Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 9 minutes ago, g33k said: afaik/iirc) to an AoO in PF/3.x Game Master: "Statement of intent, please." Lhankor Mhy Sorcerer: "Hmmmm, cast translate,..." Quote ... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted May 27, 2019 Share Posted May 27, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said: Game Master: "Statement of intent, please." Lhankor Mhy Sorcerer: "Hmmmm, cast translate,..." As Far As I Know / If I Recall Correctly ) to an Attack of Opportunity in PathFinder / (d&d)3.x (Attack of Opportunity being a specific thing with non-trivial tactical rules (and IMHO some very-silly mechanical consequences) in the D&D3 family of rules, which includes PF). Edited May 27, 2019 by g33k Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.