Basic Strike rank questions

[g33k]

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!

[Bill the barbarian]

8 minutes ago, g33k said:

The things Bill does to those poor rules... Absolutely barbaric!

Poor rules my butt. They had it comin'!

[g33k]

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.

[klecser]

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.

[g33k]

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.

 

[Bill the barbarian]

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,..."

[g33k]

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