forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Majestic wrote:I agree with Earendil and Dunkelbrink, though I usually simply allow PCs to attack who they want to, generally (not requiring a roll of any kind). I rarely concern myself with "engagements", though it often turns out that players end up attacking the adversary that's already matched up with them.

I'm the same, playing pretty fast and loose with the Engagement rules, in particular the order in which they occur. Usually, we declare Engagements before the players select their character's close combat Stance. The RAW does it the other way but I think it makes more sense that characters that are engaged in melee would know who they were facing before they decided how to fight (eg, defensively, aggresively, etc). Before that we already know if characters can select Rearward (due to the ratio of PCs vs. Adversaries within the battle) so it isn't a problem resolving it in the way that I do and seems to flow a little better. So, normally I resolve this part of a combat round as:

1) Determine which PCs are fighting close combat and who, if any, are not (ie, Rearward)
2) Establish engagements of close combatants
3) Players select the Close Combat Stance for their character. Other character(s) are placed in Rearward Stance

Under normal circumstances I also have PCs engaged round after round with the same enemy/enemies rather than re-engage each round with potentially different ones. I'm not sure what the RAW is on this actually as there is a line in the rules that states "A combatant remains engaged until he defeats all opposition" which could easily be interpreted as how I run it. Again, this feels more satisfying than characters or creatures selecting a new, and possible different, target round-by-round. Obviously, depending on the situation and fluid nature of a battle this can change and the exception-based mechanics of character and adversary abilities can also override these things just like in the normal rules.

I use Great Leap when the Engagements are being established, but after the PC's have chosen their stances. Cawdorthane's quote is correct - the LM really governs this aspect of combat, but this is really because I assume that Attercops and Wolves are (reasonably intelligent) creatures and know which foes should be targeted (such as elven archers trying to kill their brothers with arrows!

As I keep hammering on, as LM you need to think as the adversary! Then Great Leap makes perfect sense mechanically (how can I get at that pesky elf archer who is killing my brothers??) It is then up to the PC's with Enemy Lore (Wolves) or Enemy Lore (Spiders) to know how they are going to fight!

Nobody said combat should be easy! (in fact the more deadly, the greater the players will appreciate their victories)
Robin S.