Disengaging from combat

[Clovis]

You're welcome! Always happy to be of use.

[Gully]

I've run a lot of scenarios now, but I was recently reviewing the rules and I'm still not sure about this one (I've been making my own rulings)...

Player A is attacking, Player B is trying to leave:
( "A" has speed of 9, "B" goes later at 7, no rolling on initiative for this example )

Option 1: Player B Flees
– Player B declares Move attitude
– Player A declares Offensive attitude
– Player A attacks
– Player B now flees ...

1) Does Player A now get another attack when Player B flees?
2) Does Player B need to say he if he/she is fleeing or disengaging before Player A attacks so Player A gets the proper bonuses (+2, no Defense bonus, etc) due to Player B fleeing?


Option 2: Player B Disengages (successfully)
– Player B declares Move attitude
– Player A declares Offensive attitude
– Player A attacks
– Player B disengages, rolls Feat
– Player A rolls Close Combat, but result is lower than Player B
– Player B moves away

--------Second Round--------
– Player B declares Move attitude
– Player A declares Move attitude
– Player A moves (roll opposed Feat roll for chase now?)
– Player B (successful Feat roll) moves away, (failure) is engaged again?

--------Third Round----------
(Player B failed chase roll)
– Player B declares Move attitude
– Player A declares Offensive attitude
– Player A attacks
– Player B disengages, rolls Feat
continues to repeat as above ....

3) If Player B fails the chase roll in the second round, is he able to do anything? I assume he is gets no movement because he failed the opposed chase Feat roll.
4) If player B is successful in the opposed chase Feat roll in the second round, he moves away, but does Player A get another chance in round three if he moves next to Player B again?


BONUS QUESTION

New Scenario
Player (speed 9) is being attack by Bear (speed 7)

5) Can the player say that they want to go at slot 7 after the Bear up moves to them? Do they still go at slot 9 next round or slot 7?

Thanks!

[Clovis]

1) Does Player A now get another attack when Player B flees?

No. It is an absolute rule in Esteren that, barring special circumstances, a Character can never attack more than once in a turn. Here "His opponent can attack him with a +2 bonus on his Attack roll, whatever the order of action." simply means that the Character fleeing will necessarily have to suffer an attack.

2) Does Player B need to say he if he/she is fleeing or disengaging before Player A attacks so Player A gets the proper bonuses (+2, no Defense bonus, etc) due to Player B fleeing?

Yep. This is announced during phase 2 ("Announcing attitudes") of the round.

– Player A moves (roll opposed Feat roll for chase now?)

Yes. Feats roll to represent one or more Characters chasing after another are made on the round after a successful disengagement.

– Player B (successful Feat roll) moves away, (failure) is engaged again?

That's right!

3) If Player B fails the chase roll in the second round, is he able to do anything? I assume he is gets no movement because he failed the opposed chase Feat roll.

If the one(s) running after him have bested him in a contested Feats roll, then Player B is engaged in combat again. The fight resumes on the following Round (during which Player B is obviously free to try to disengage again if he wishes to do so).

4) If player B is successful in the opposed chase Feat roll in the second round, he moves away, but does Player A get another chance in round three if he moves next to Player B again?

Well, the idea with the contested Feats roll is that the Characters are running after each other, so if Player B has won the contest, it means he is at least several yards ahead of his pursuer(s), who do not manage to catch up with him.

5) Can the player say that they want to go at slot 7 after the Bear up moves to them? Do they still go at slot 9 next round or slot 7?

Players are obviously free to delay their action if they wish to do so for one reason or another. However, this also means they might miss some opportunities or expose themselves to danger! For example, here, because the PC remains waiting for the bear to attack, the beast may suddenly charge at him and attack first, grievously wounding him!


Did I bring satisfactory answers to your questions?

[Gully]

Yes, thanks! One clarification on the final answer.

If the player waits for the bear, the bear then chooses the Move Attitude to close with the player and will not get an attack, so the player gets to swing first, correct?

If the bear wants to charge (move and attack) doesn't he have to move close in the first round, then attack in the second?

Thanks again for the excellent feedback!

Edit: Just to be as clear as possible, the bear is starting a distance away (~15 yards).

[Clovis]

Well, it's all a matter of common sense. If the Players are dealing with a wild animal, then logic dictates that the beast is most probably going to charge straight ahead, biting and mauling on its path.

Here's how I would manage things: I would consider the bear to be in an Offensive attitude (representing the wild charge), and have the various Characters involved roll for initiative normally. If one PC says "Well, I'm gonna wait for the bear to get closer before attacking", I would most likely consider that a Defensive attitude.

After all, it's not like all the combatants involved are on a neatly separated grid, with their actions clearly delimited. It's up to you, as the GL, to make use of the rules as coherently as possible according to the situation.

Does that help?

[Dragoslav]

When it comes to combatants moving and attacking, under normal circumstances I would only let a combatant move and attack if he were moving no more than a few feet and using an Attitude other than Movement (as written in Book 1 about moving in battle).

For certain characters--ferocious animals especially--you could certainly give them a special feature that lets them charge (move a longer distance and attack) with some sort of bonus to the attack (or giving them the bonuses of both the Offensive and Movement Attitudes).

You could also make "Charge" a new combat talent that players can purchase for their PCs with XP. Actually, I really like that idea, so I think I might use it in my game.

[Gully]

(Sorry for taking the thread off topic ...)

The broader question (no bear needed) is that if you have two combatants facing each other at a distance ... one of them is going to have to move first into sword "range". Whoever moves first does not get to attack, because the Move Attitude does not allow an attack so ... no one wants to move into sword range first because they will also get hit first. No real solution by the book (I think?), but I like Dragoslav's idea for a house rule.

(edit: surprised this hasn't come up before, but some of my player can be overly tactical in what is otherwise a more narrative driven game.)

[Clovis]

(Sorry for taking the thread off topic ...)

Well, as long as it does not last several pages, that's okay! However, if you want to talk about it more in depth, you should probably open a new thread.

The broader question (no bear needed) is that if you have two combatants facing each other at a distance ... one of them is going to have to move first into sword "range". Whoever moves first does not get to attack, because the Move Attitude does not allow an attack so ... no one wants to move into sword range first because they will also get hit first. No real solution by the book (I think?), but I like Dragoslav's idea for a house rule.

(edit: surprised this hasn't come up before, but some of my player can be overly tactical in what is otherwise a more narrative driven game.)

I think that's the core of the problem: since there is a "Speed" system (which is very similar to D&D or WoD's "Initiative" systems), we can easily get stuck on the idea that action is segmented, with the combatants acting one after the other when reality is actually way different.

You (and your Players) must not take the rules too literally. Of course, the rules state that a combatant can not move more than a few feet when fighting, because they have to focus on attacking, dodging, parrying, watching, etc. However, this does not mean that choosing any other attitude than Movement magically restricts their ability to move.

The idea that you first have to choose a Movement attitude to get closer suggests that the one coming closer is going to do so without even considering striking their opponent, when they will actually be charging, or will simply stay wary, weapon at hand, waiting for the right time to strike.

Just stick to the basic rules, and use your common sense to depict realistic scenes

Of course, the way I think about it, it all seems very logical to me, but if you are still not sure about what point I am trying to make, don't hesitate to tell me!

[Gully]

Thanks Clovis, that makes sense ... coming from more tactically focused games its easy to get too literal with the rules, but part of what I find enjoyable about the game is its flexibility to enable a good narrative.

[Clovis]

You're welcome! And if you have other questions or require assistance on some point or another, you know where to ask for advice!