Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is "Embattled", really?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I've been runnimg a 3e game for a while now and haven't really had much trouble with the concept. Basically the question about disengage isn't "does the other party contest this" so much as "is this movement important dramatically impprtant?" Or, "is this movement dramatically cool?".

    So, after you disarm an opponent and they're tryimg to get back to it, it's a disengage becaise this deprives them of an advantage.

    Did you uppercut your opponent into the second floor of the fragile teahouse and you both intend to continue trying to bust each other up? No disengage, jist stunt fodder.

    Basically, is a character seeking a tactical advantage that cannot be expressed by stunts and or gambits? If yes, then disengage or some other athletics or dodge contest, if not it's gravy.

    If a player feels like their athletics or dodge focus character isn't getting enough opportunities to shine I may ask for more rolls or provide cool ways to use the scenery at appropriate difficulty levels.

    What specific issues have you been having with the rule in play?


    https://exalted-golden-shackles-iron...dianportal.com Visit Golden Shackles, Iron Crowns; a 3rd Edition Exalted Campaign ongoing since 2014

    Comment


    • #62
      Janissary87

      I described one occasion in the beggining of this thread. And while you may treat the contesting as imaterial to the action and narrative, that is not what the rules say:

      "This action must be taken when a character at close range with one or more hostile opponents wishes to retreat to short range—the standard reflexive move action cannot be used to do so.Disengaging is an opposed roll of (Dexterity + Dodge) against the (Dexterity + Athletics) of all opponents who wish to contest the disengage action."

      So any movement to another range band that another party may wish to keep you from, even if your intent isn't shaking them off, can be contested by opposing parties with that opposed roll. And that is what I don't think jives very well, even understanding rules aren't setting physics, I think there should be a way to simply move, disregarding threats and dangers. Hence the "attack of opportunity" and Initiative link that where discussed.

      Comment


      • #63
        *after re-reading your golem example* The Golem is not retreating, it is moving towards a landscape feature. The disengage rules do not apply.

        If I were STing I'd prolly let a player use a gambit of increasing difficulty to halt the automaton...
        Last edited by Janissary87; 08-20-2017, 03:19 PM.


        https://exalted-golden-shackles-iron...dianportal.com Visit Golden Shackles, Iron Crowns; a 3rd Edition Exalted Campaign ongoing since 2014

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Janissary87 View Post
          *after re-reading your golem example* The Golem is not retreating, it is moving towards a landscape feature. The disengage rules do not apply.

          If I were STing I'd prolly let a player use a gambit of increasing difficulty to halt the automaton...
          You might have noticed that that is what we decided to adopt at the table. You only need to disengage if you want to put distance between you and opponents. If not you can just move.

          Though it is a house rule. According to RAW, it doesn't matter your intent, if you are "embattled", ie with opponents at Close Range, you must disengage to go to another range band. Your intent in doing so does not matter.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post

            You might have noticed that that is what we decided to adopt at the table. You only need to disengage if you want to put distance between you and opponents. If not you can just move.

            Though it is a house rule. According to RAW, it doesn't matter your intent, if you are "embattled", ie with opponents at Close Range, you must disengage to go to another range band. Your intent in doing so does not matter.
            Embattled says if a character wishes to move away from an opponent. So the intent of the character choosing to move is important. There's a case for it in the language of the rules; and the spirit of the rules is pretty obvious.

            Yeah, embattled is not a helpful term, but the intent of the rules, and a ST's ability to clarify the mechanics to fit the needs of the situation makes it clear.

            Isn't this a 3rd Edition issue in its micricosom? In 2nd the absolutely rigid reading of the rules, and a mechanical expression that required this made the game.... ugggh. Exalted benefits from gettisoning this mindset.
            Last edited by Janissary87; 08-20-2017, 04:24 PM.


            https://exalted-golden-shackles-iron...dianportal.com Visit Golden Shackles, Iron Crowns; a 3rd Edition Exalted Campaign ongoing since 2014

            Comment


            • #66
              You need to Disengage to create distance from an enemy that doesn't want you to create distance. As long as only two characters are involved, that's simple.

              The rules are less clear about moving towards a third party who isn't in the same range band as the first two.

              If moving towards the third party without a Disengage action is impossible, then the matter stops there. But if moving towards the third party is possible without a Disengage, then all opponents within close range of you may reflexively follow after you outside of their turns.


              Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

              My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                You need to Disengage to create distance from an enemy that doesn't want you to create distance. As long as only two characters are involved, that's simple.

                The rules are less clear about moving towards a third party who isn't in the same range band as the first two.

                If moving towards the third party without a Disengage action is impossible, then the matter stops there. But if moving towards the third party is possible without a Disengage, then all opponents within close range of you may reflexively follow after you outside of their turns.
                I don't see why they would gain a free movement to follow you if they haven't rushed, we let them use their RMA outside their turn to keep up with you, so you can't just move to short to use Thrown or Archery better without disengage. But a free move? Doesn't seem right.

                And, in my opinion, a strict read of the RAW says it is impossible to leave Close Range without a disengage.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
                  I don't see why they would gain a free movement to follow you if they haven't rushed, we let them use their RMA outside their turn to keep up with you, so you can't just move to short to use Thrown or Archery better without disengage. But a free move? Doesn't seem right.
                  If they don't Move, they don't remain within close range of you, which means that your Move action is an automatically successful Disengage action without the Initiative cost, and thus Disengaging is pointless.

                  The point of the reflexive Move action is to preserve the point of the Disengage action. It is to preserve the lack of distance between you and the people trying to punch you in the face.


                  Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

                  My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                    If they don't Move, they don't remain within close range of you, which means that your Move action is an automatically successful Disengage action without the Initiative cost, and thus Disengaging is pointless.

                    The point of the reflexive Move action is to preserve the point of the Disengage action. It is to preserve the lack of distance between you and the people trying to punch you in the face.
                    The point of the disengage action is not only to move to Short Range, but to also get a free Reflexive move if they chase you.

                    Giving them a RMA to follow is what makes it pointless, cause they can move away from you without you being able to follow, thusly "disengaging" from you without you having a choice to follow.

                    So to let them use their RMA out of turn to follow someone is the simplest way to handle this.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                      EXACTLY.

                      Still, I acknowledge that the exclusive running duel is the weird exception to the rule system that probably only happens when the two players and the storyteller (or the storyteller and the player in question) agree to such a thing. It's an edge case scenario that Storytellers bring upon themselves. So, they can deal with the funkiness that results.
                      It's not an edge case. It's just a case of considering an individual rule in isolation rather than in relation to all other rules that apply.

                      The game already has a very specific mechanic for restricting the movement of another character - the grapple. You don't want the water aspect to reach the river, then you better get a hold of them. This doesn't mean you have to lock them up in a greco-roman maneuver, it could be a series of martial arts moves that keep turning them about while letting you get a few punches in, or whatever else is thematically appropriate for your character.

                      Or you could use a gambit to 'trip' or delay the opponent, denying them movement for a turn, and letting you get position for the aforementioned grapple.
                      Last edited by CapitanTypo; 08-20-2017, 06:33 PM.


                      Visit me at Tales of Grey - my RPG Game-Master's blog.

                      "If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy, I could have won" - I gave you all, Mumford & Sons

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by CapitanTypo View Post
                        The game already has a very specific mechanic for restricting the movement of another character - the grapple.
                        There is nothing about the core rules that suggests to me the possibility that you can Move one range band in any direction from your opponent without Disengaging.

                        Which means that you are locked into your current range band.

                        I pasted the relevant core rules in the first post on the first page, if you want to double-check. The Move action is how you get closer to a character or landmark which is not in your current range band. You explicitly cannot use a Move action to create distance from an opponent at close range, which is what you would be doing if you could use the Move action at all, since any direction would be putting your close range opponent into short range, which explicitly cannot be done without a Disengage action.


                        If you disagree, perhaps you could kindly go through each of the rules and explain how you could come to any other interpretation?


                        Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

                        My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                          There is nothing about the core rules that suggests to me the possibility that you can Move one range band in any direction from your opponent without Disengaging.

                          Which means that you are locked into your current range band.

                          I pasted the relevant core rules in the first post on the first page, if you want to double-check. The Move action is how you get closer to a character or landmark which is not in your current range band. You explicitly cannot use a Move action to create distance from an opponent at close range, which is what you would be doing if you could use the Move action at all, since any direction would be putting your close range opponent into short range, which explicitly cannot be done without a Disengage action.


                          If you disagree, perhaps you could kindly go through each of the rules and explain how you could come to any other interpretation?
                          No, because, in all honesty, I don't care enough to bother and because you and I will never play in the same gaming group so it's not an issue for me. But if I were running a game, I'd run it the way I've outlined it.


                          Visit me at Tales of Grey - my RPG Game-Master's blog.

                          "If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy, I could have won" - I gave you all, Mumford & Sons

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                            There is nothing about the core rules that suggests to me the possibility that you can Move one range band in any direction from your opponent without Disengaging.

                            Which means that you are locked into your current range band.

                            I pasted the relevant core rules in the first post on the first page, if you want to double-check. The Move action is how you get closer to a character or landmark which is not in your current range band. You explicitly cannot use a Move action to create distance from an opponent at close range, which is what you would be doing if you could use the Move action at all, since any direction would be putting your close range opponent into short range, which explicitly cannot be done without a Disengage action.


                            If you disagree, perhaps you could kindly go through each of the rules and explain how you could come to any other interpretation?
                            Because disengage is not used to create distance between yourself and a terrain or scenery feature, disengage is used to put distance between yourself and your opponent. Even the word choice is clear, to 'disengage' is to move out of engagement range with your opponent. It has nothing to do with where you are in space, only where you are relative to your opponent. That's wjlhy the conclusion of a disengage action isn't "can you move or not" the question is whether or not your enemy can follow you, i.e. the free reflexive move action they get if they succeed.

                            If you can't see the distinction, we honestly cannot help you.
                            Last edited by Janissary87; 08-21-2017, 09:47 AM.


                            https://exalted-golden-shackles-iron...dianportal.com Visit Golden Shackles, Iron Crowns; a 3rd Edition Exalted Campaign ongoing since 2014

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Janissary87 View Post

                              Because disengage is not used to create distance between yourself and a terrain or scenery feature
                              Obviously. Why mention it?


                              That's why the conclusion of a disengage action isn't "can you move or not" the question is whether or not your enemy can follow you, i.e. the free reflexive move action they get if they succeed.
                              There are three possible things wrong with this statement.

                              1) You accidentally said "they" twice at the end, instead of "you". The pursuer does not get to pursue you when you succeed at a Disengage action.

                              2) You're confusing a Disengage action, which gives reflexive movements to the disengager, with a Rush action, which gives reflexive movements to the pursuer.

                              3) You're mixing house rules into a post about core rules.


                              Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

                              My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I apologize for mis-speaking. The "reflexive move action" to which I was referring is not actually an explicitly taken action in the economy, it's an implicit movement indicating whether or not a chatacter can stop anothet from ennacting a disengage.

                                Yes, the section using the term embattled is problematic, it is a huge rulesbook with a very abstracted movement system. Unfortunately, not everything is gonna flush out in editing.

                                What's important in a clatity sense is to focus on the fact that disengage and rush are not a tactical positioning system, they're effectively a chase system. It's not important where you are on the terrain, in fact my group has stopped using minis because it actively makes the system more fuddled rather than less.

                                The only question disengage answers is whether or not I can use my movement to get away from my attackers, not whether a character can change their current physical location.


                                https://exalted-golden-shackles-iron...dianportal.com Visit Golden Shackles, Iron Crowns; a 3rd Edition Exalted Campaign ongoing since 2014

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X