Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

thebwt
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:08 pm

Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby thebwt » Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:02 pm

Howdy folks!

I'm trying to understand the flow of combat, and one thing bugs me (this may just be because I come from a highly explicit/tactical game like pathfinder):
The first orc bandit chooses to attack Arbosh as his
action. His attack is successful.


vs.

The third orc chooses movement for his action in
order to get within attack distance of Geron (see
Determine Attack Distance, page 230) to engage him in
close combat in the next round.


Distances we never explicitly declared, I assume Geron and Arbosh approached the clearing side by side and found the orcs side by side. The first orc is able to make an attack, implying he is starting within 2 meters. Why does the third orc have to close the distance?

Movement is listed as a possible free action, couldn't it have moved and then attacked (p. 228)?

Edit: more rules quotes, typos

In each combat round, every
combatant can perform one action, one or more defenses,
and one free action.
Last edited by thebwt on Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Check out the unofficial slack channel @ https://rpg-talk.com/ , join us in #the_dark_eye

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby Thorgarth » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:04 pm

This is one of the issues I´m finding to be a negative aspect of the book. Both rules and examples miss key aspects of the mechanics they are describing, which leads or may lead to confusion as to how a certain result was reached. There´s leaps between what is said, the information effectively given, AND what is taken for granted, what serves as the bases for said rule or example.

In this case the ONLY reason I can think of, in logical terms, is that though the description actually leads to think the 3 Orcs were close together, the 3rd Orc as effectively further away than what he could cross with just his free action(movement), which meant he had to also use use his "main" action to move, and close in on his target, while the other 2 were close enough that they could reach the heroes by just using their free actions. Either that or the 3rd Orc was handicapped, and had a low Mov Stat... :lol:

This examples should be much more precise and give every information needed for the readers to fully understand the mechanics, and not raising more questions than those that they intend to help solve.

GTStar
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 2:16 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby GTStar » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:08 pm

I think it is meant like this:

Geron is shooting with a crossbow, so he maybe is some meters behind.

They all use their free action for movement, but the third orc has to use his free action AND his action to move twice the distance.


Edit: Ok, I was too late :)

Teekayy
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 2:09 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby Teekayy » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:17 pm

Well at least in the german rulebook the short story states, that the third orc "hesitates" and then starts dashing towards the heroes. Maybe this hesitation costed him the "free action".

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby Thorgarth » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:22 pm

Teekayy wrote:Well at least in the german rulebook the short story states, that the third orc "hesitates" and then starts dashing towards the heroes. Maybe this hesitation costed him the "free action".


That could be it, and somehow the translation missed that part. Either way if that was the case in the example part "by the rules", such decision by the GM, to impose the loss of an action due to hesitation should be clearly explained as such. In this English translation there is nothing really that indicates said hesitation...

thebwt
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:08 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby thebwt » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:23 pm

Teekayy wrote:Well at least in the german rulebook the short story states, that the third orc "hesitates" and then starts dashing towards the heroes. Maybe this hesitation costed him the "free action".


Is there a mechanic for this? Some sort of morale roll vs courage that I am missing?
Check out the unofficial slack channel @ https://rpg-talk.com/ , join us in #the_dark_eye

Teekayy
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 2:09 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby Teekayy » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:41 pm

Not really, but u can do many things in your free action. You dont have to use it to move. You can do a short shout for instance. Maybe the DM in this case had just rolled a D6, what the orcs do in their free action (1-2 hesitate, 3-4, react immediatly, 5-6 make a warcry). Anything is possible in TDE. Or the DM just made this orc timid. Who knows? Or the third orc was near the other two orcs but one foot farther away, so he was just outside the fighting zone after running.

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby Thorgarth » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:39 pm

It may just fall under the general power of a GM to adjudicate a certain decision or enforce a certain effect, even though there may not be a specific mechanic to support it. If this was indeed due to hesitation on the Orc´s part, and here I´m referring to the german edition, the same could be applied to the players.

I´ve done it several times in the path, on multiple systems, especially those with really fast rounds. If the players, during declaration phase (in this case they are not separate from the actual action phase), take way too long to decide what their actions are going to be or are way too hesitant to implement them, I will not think very hard about penalizing them in such a way OR applying a penalty to their initiative score for the round.

thebwt
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:08 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby thebwt » Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:11 am

And followup thought, wouldn't his have been a great time to show attacks of opportunity? If the ranger attacker WAS so many feet behind, the orc should have passed by the frontline guy. The idea of those types of rules are to make your front line sticky to protect your backline, so that some arse with an axe to grind can't just walk up to your archer and release some stress.

Additionally, why did the orc Geron shot drop? It was indicated he took two levels of pain, which is a -2 penalty on stuff, but nothing indicates that there is some rules about taking over %50 of your lp value in damage making you auto-drop. In fact it seems like you can take over 100% of your lp in damage and stay fighting as long as you make a self control roll.
Check out the unofficial slack channel @ https://rpg-talk.com/ , join us in #the_dark_eye

Thorgarth
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 1:58 pm

Re: Understanding the "Brief Example of Combat" p. 226

Postby Thorgarth » Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:14 am

I can see no mechanical reason in the rules that justify that Orc crumbling after loosing less than 75% of his (we know he lost 50% or more, but less than 75%, since he only got Pain Level II). I didn´t found any reference to Knockdown effect due to damage which could explain such occurrence (there are many systems that have a KD threshold, above which the target is knocked down or at least must make a check to remain upstanding). Such seems not to be the case so the Orc crumbling begs some explanation, unless that was just a subjective decision on the GM part without any logical explanation (I would sack such a GM, really ;) ).

As for AoOpportunity I have mixed feelings about them. In most situations they have no reason to occur, and would indeed be detrimental to the attacker condition. For instance they TDE rules for Atts of Opportunity don´t mention that the attacker needs to be, himself, unengaged to be able to do it. As such, if he was indeed engaged, be it in melee or Ranged Combat, the simple fact that he changed focus on a new attacker that "presented" himself, in most cases just as a blur or moving target, would make himself a target for attack of Opportunity from his opponent. Not only that but the att. of opportunity itself usually suffers penalties which makes it harder to hit. So a loose/loose situation. You can actually understand what I´m saying if you, for instance, play 1st person shooters on a console. If you are engage in a shooting with an opponent and you changed targets rapidly to shoot at a random target that just showed itself odds are that you will miss this shots AND the original opponent gets you fast. I know this is differently BUT actually sums it up very well. In my games I´m very conservative with the cases in which I allow ATT. of Opportunity to me made.


Return to “Rules Questions (TDE)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests