You step back I step Forward.. There is nothing preventing me from doing so, and the Fact that You have a gun that you could bring to bear give me EVERY motivation to Keep you in melee to prevent you from bring it effectively to bear.
Just as is properly represented in Movies and TV.
This s also Why 90% of the RPGs out there have a rule just for that situation, from attacks of opportunity, to penalties for doing so, While you attacker is still able to attack you without hindrance.
Of all the games I have Run and played in, This is actually the only one that doesn't.
You step back I step Forward.. There is nothing preventing me from doing so, and the Fact that You have a gun that you could bring to bear give me EVERY motivation to Keep you in melee to prevent you from bring it effectively to bear.
Just as is properly represented in Movies and TV.
The same thing is occurring in game though. There's nothing preventing the melee character from doing just that. It's just there is no magical once you're engaged you're always engaged option or free shots.
It all occurs near simultaneous but not simultaneously, so in that half a breath and step, a melee character cant reach a weapon to interfere with it and the shot goes off. No difference between the game and real world. If you let that opponent step back from you, you can't have an effect on that gun, so you grapple and stop them.
You step back I step Forward.. There is nothing preventing me from doing so, and the Fact that You have a gun that you could bring to bear give me EVERY motivation to Keep you in melee to prevent you from bring it effectively to bear.
Just as is properly represented in Movies and TV.
The same thing is occurring in game though. There's nothing preventing the melee character from doing just that. It's just there is no magical once you're engaged you're always engaged option or free shots.
It all occurs near simultaneous but not simultaneously, so in that half a breath and step, a melee character cant reach a weapon to interfere with it and the shot goes off. No difference between the game and real world. If you let that opponent step back from you, you can't have an effect on that gun, so you grapple and stop them.
No it is not the same thing...
It is all happen concurrent...You don't step back and then a several seconds later I move forward....
You step back and at the same time I am following you still attacking you...
You have to actually "Break" Away from me to get out of Melee from me. That is reality, And games, Regardless of what people say, Do usually try to have Things Make realistic sense to a degree, especially when those things can be Done in reality.
Now if You knock me down or stun me or topple a bunch of Boxes in my way, preventing me from following you immediately, That is different. That allows you to get some distance from me to do something out of melee. That is realistic.
I like My games to make sense.... and I like the rules to reflect common sense.
This Loop hole getting around a shooting in engaged combat without penalty, makes no sense without some reason you are able to just break that Engagement. Whether it be putting yourself at a disadvantage to do so or "Disorienting" or impeding your opponent.
You want to defend the RAW regardless of common sense, That is fine, Some people are happy with the way things are even if they don't make sense.
We will leave it at that, We disagree on that.
Regardless of what you think no one reacts instantaneously. There would be a pause when someone steps back before someone moves after them, in that fraction of time and distance, there is no way for the melee character to influence that barrel if they don't do something to prevent movement. Grabbing someone prevents that.
Regardless of what you think no one reacts instantaneously. There would be a pause when someone steps back before someone moves after them, in that fraction of time and distance, there is no way for the melee character to influence that barrel if they don't do something to prevent movement. Grabbing someone prevents that.
In that fraction of an instant is exactly why firing while engaged is more difficult than Short range... You may or May not get that gun lined up before the Other guy reacts and Comes at you or knocks your hand away.
Several meters is not a fraction of an instant.
sev·er·al
ˈsev(ə)rəl/determiner & pronoun
It's "up to several meters", not starting at several meters. Engaged is not a specified distance as much as a state.
Here is some Piratical examples.
In the video take note of the "try to disengage" at 1:11 in the video.. Note how easy it was for the officer to disengage.... The fact that the officer didn't have his weapon out yet is not the point.. it's the fact that he tried to disengage from an Aggressive persistent attacker. In all these situations Neither side, in close quarters had weapons ready to begin with. Officers are trained and taught that in close quarters, with an aggressive Attacker, Resort to physical force to defend or subdue, Even if they already have their Gun in hand, if they are in close quarters they are to use physical force to defend, Trying to disengage only leads to the officer more likely getting hurt than being able to shoot his opponent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo
Here is a video without Guns, but where one guy tries to get away from his aggressive attacker, Note, he couldn't get any distance. Even if he had had a gun, He wasn't getting out of Melee to shoot it, and this was a guy who turned away and tried to run. If you try backing up, the Most likely thing to happen is you are going to trip and fall or just get knocked to the ground.
I'm not watching your videos. I've got 25 years of doing it under my belt thanks.
What does your attacker do that prevents you from backing away?
He punches you in the face, or kicks the side of your knee, or stomps your foot, or lunges with his sword, or smacks you with his staff, etc.
Or even more simply. he doesn't 'prevent you from backing away', he simply keeps pace so that you're never in the clear.
Easily found examples of two people engaged in melee combat: boxers.
When one boxer wants to get clear of the second, how does the second prevent it? He follows, and stays on the attack. (And boxing is a "gentleman's sport", where people aren't *actually* trying to kill one another.)
Combat is fast and fluid, and the effective reach of a trained combatant is a few *multiples* of his arm's length, even with fighting bare handed. Throw a sword into the equation, and even I, with the minimal training I have, can attack someone within about 15 feet of me quite easily.
Read up on the Tueller Drill. An attacker with a knife is a lethal threat to anyone within 7 yards (plus a few, depending on the circumstances).
What does your attacker do that prevents you from backing away?
He punches you in the face, or kicks the side of your knee, or stomps your foot, or lunges with his sword, or smacks you with his staff, etc.
Or even more simply. he doesn't 'prevent you from backing away', he simply keeps pace so that you're never in the clear.
Easily found examples of two people engaged in melee combat: boxers.
When one boxer wants to get clear of the second, how does the second prevent it? He follows, and stays on the attack. (And boxing is a "gentleman's sport", where people aren't *actually* trying to kill one another.)
Combat is fast and fluid, and the effective reach of a trained combatant is a few *multiples* of his arm's length, even with fighting bare handed. Throw a sword into the equation, and even I, with the minimal training I have, can attack someone within about 15 feet of me quite easily.
Read up on the Tueller Drill. An attacker with a knife is a lethal threat to anyone within 7 yards (plus a few, depending on the circumstances).
Actually I am aware of it and have been trained in the concept for 25 years. It actually proves my point thanks for posting it.
The reason why someone is a threat from that distance is part of the OODA Loop first defined by Col Boyd, which means Observe Orient Decide Act. In that drill the reason the knife wielder is a threat is because the person with the gun first has to Observe the threat, Orient involves processing the information we have observed in our wet computer and applying the sum of our knowledge, training, and experience to what we have Observed. The next step is Decide, in which we choose a course of action in our wet computer, finished with Act, in which the signals are sent to our muscle groups to execute the course of action we have selected. To a trained person who is ready, that can happen quickly, but it isn't instantaneous.
There is a pause, and in that pause is what I am talking about, at that point someone with a gun in their hand will be able to move away. There is no instantaneous 'you're right on them' response, that's a myth that the human body is not physically capable of performing.
Same applies if they choose to run away, if you don't have hands on them, I refer you to p. 241 EoE CRB.
Same concept applies in actual total braking distance on automobiles. There is the physics of bringing the car to a halt from its velocity, but reaction time is added in total braking distance, as the operator has to perceive the threat and then react to it.
Read Bill Lewinski's studies on perception reaction time.
the Average response time for a Human being in an Emergency or Fight or flight situation is 0.25-0.4 seconds, You are not getting away from a Persistent attacker in that amount of time, He isn't Thinking about his actions. he isn't reacting, he is acting. Which is Why Police are taught and trained not to try to disengage from an attacker. At that point it is the person trying to disengage who is reacting to the attacker.
the Average response time for a Human being in an Emergency or Fight or flight situation is 0.25-0.4 seconds, You are not getting away from a Persistent attacker in that amount of time, He isn't Thinking about his actions. he isn't reacting, he is acting. Which is Why Police are taught and trained not to try to disengage from an attacker. At that point it is the person trying to disengage who is reacting to the attacker.
In .4 seconds you can cover 6 to 10 feet easily, that .4 seconds is you standing there not doing anything while the person is running away. If you don't have hands on that person, I refer you to p. 241 EoE CRB.
Edited by 2P51in that 0.4 seconds as you turned to run that 6-10 feet I just... stabbed you 5 times. Welcome to being dead.
in that 0.4 seconds as you turned to run that 6-10 feet I just... stabbed you 5 times. Welcome to being dead.
Hahahaha, I'll take that comment as a win.
in that 0.4 seconds as you turned to run that 6-10 feet I just... stabbed you 5 times. Welcome to being dead.
You do realize that if we make restrictions on running away from the guy with a knife, we need to also make such restrictions on the guy charging a guy with a gun. He can shoot you several times as you approach just as you might stab him several times as he tries to break away. The game should cover both or neither, and it currently covers neither. if you switch to both, then most melee guys will be shot to hell before they ever get to swing.
in that 0.4 seconds as you turned to run that 6-10 feet I just... stabbed you 5 times. Welcome to being dead.
Hahahaha, I'll take that comment as a win.
I wasn't aware that it was a competition.
Personally I think if you change that one sentence on p.210. under making ranged attacks while engaged it would work.
Any opponent engaged with the character when he makes a ranged attack (no matter who the target is), may add BOOST to his next Brawl or Melee check against that character. He automatically loses this bonus if either he or the character are no longer engaged with the other.
Any opponent attacking a character that wields a ranged weapon may add BOOST to his next Brawl or Melee check against that character.
Regardless of what you think no one reacts instantaneously. There would be a pause when someone steps back before someone moves after them, in that fraction of time and distance, there is no way for the melee character to influence that barrel if they don't do something to prevent movement. Grabbing someone prevents that.
I don't mean to offend or incite, but this sounds like you never knew the meaning of the words "engaged in melee". In this game it is refered as "close enough to touch", and please believe me If somebody intent on hurting you is close enough to touch you, and in addition has a knife, sword, stick or whatever...you don't get to simply "step away".
If you want to quickly advance a few meters there are few options.
1. Is the way the system works right now.
2. Would be based advantage/disavantage.
But in this game the reach of melee weapons is the same for a Force Pike and my arm, so there goes realism in the sci-fi opera 
So, the thing I find interesting in this thread is knowing (or wondering) who is actually a trained police officer or former military personnel with many years of experience in hand-to-hand melee combat, versus who is not.
I have some ideas, but I’ll let the respective folks speak up for themselves.
in that 0.4 seconds as you turned to run that 6-10 feet I just... stabbed you 5 times. Welcome to being dead.
You do realize that if we make restrictions on running away from the guy with a knife, we need to also make such restrictions on the guy charging a guy with a gun. He can shoot you several times as you approach just as you might stab him several times as he tries to break away. The game should cover both or neither, and it currently covers neither. if you switch to both, then most melee guys will be shot to hell before they ever get to swing.
This.
So much this.
Speaking as one of the folks with (competitive martial arts) experience trolling these boards, I am perfectly happy that the rules are an abstraction. The only concession to this, where the actions of another party can affect the actions of the first (in terms of range/reach) out of turn is the Defensive quality. And I am fine with that.
in that 0.4 seconds as you turned to run that 6-10 feet I just... stabbed you 5 times. Welcome to being dead.
You do realize that if we make restrictions on running away from the guy with a knife, we need to also make such restrictions on the guy charging a guy with a gun. He can shoot you several times as you approach just as you might stab him several times as he tries to break away. The game should cover both or neither, and it currently covers neither. if you switch to both, then most melee guys will be shot to hell before they ever get to swing.
This.
So much this.
Speaking as one of the folks with (competitive martial arts) experience trolling these boards, I am perfectly happy that the rules are an abstraction. The only concession to this, where the actions of another party can affect the actions of the first (in terms of range/reach) out of turn is the Defensive quality. And I am fine with that.
I agree with you on the abstraction part.
The problem is that there is basically a rule with very little point to it. Why have a rule if there is a Loophole n the rule to completely avoid the rule? No one with a proper understanding of the rules is going to stay in melee with a ranged weapon at difficulty, when they can step back and be at 1 difficulty. Where as the melee will always be at 2 difficulty.
derroehre
said by
Any opponent attacking a character that wields a ranged weapon may add BOOST to his next Brawl or Melee check against that character.
I actually like this, simple and straight forward. Still allows the Ranged guy to step back and fire at short range, But if he doesn't take the melee guy down, the Melee is Going to have that boost die against him.
If you can engage your opponent in difficult terrain then it's much easier to keep them from moving away, and that might he a good use of Triumph on your melee attack (to have them treat their current location as Difficult terrain for the next turn), or just knock them down. Preferably, do both.
just want to share, I used advantages for "holding them in melee" in the past.
In the current campaign no PC has invested in melee, but in the last campaign I felt dirty if the big bad melee marauder charged into a minion group, only for them to scatter and burn a few holes into his pelt, after which their buddies join to shoot the now unengaged PC. IMO this makes some sense for stormtroopers or other well trained adversaries, but some random thugs in a cantina...unlikely and cheesy, especially if it happens turn after tun.
If you can engage your opponent in difficult terrain then it's much easier to keep them from moving away, and that might he a good use of Triumph on your melee attack (to have them treat their current location as Difficult terrain for the next turn), or just knock them down. Preferably, do both.
Even when knocked down you could use one maneuver to stand up, and one maneuver to move to short range, then shoot. You suffer 2 strain and are unable to aim, but since combat in this game doesn't last long and the difficulty for the attack on short is still easy it's still way better than staying in melee and aiming.
I personally didn't think about difficult terrain....*insert maniacal laugh*
the Average response time for a Human being in an Emergency or Fight or flight situation is 0.25-0.4 seconds, You are not getting away from a Persistent attacker in that amount of time, He isn't Thinking about his actions. he isn't reacting, he is acting. Which is Why Police are taught and trained not to try to disengage from an attacker. At that point it is the person trying to disengage who is reacting to the attacker.
In .4 seconds you can cover 6 to 10 feet easily, that .4 seconds is you standing there not doing anything while the person is running away. If you don't have hands on that person, I refer you to p. 241 EoE CRB.
You're *seriously* overestimating the speed and/or acceleration of humans (and similar species).
Usain Bolt, the fastest human runner in the world has a *measured* acceleration rate of about 10m/s^2. (Note: That's from a sprinter's starting block, not from a mostly vertical, combat ready position.)
That means in the 0.4 seconds you're talking about, *he* would have covered at *best* 0.8m (roughly 2.6 feet). That's assuming he doesn't have to turn away from anything before he starts moving.
Assuming it only takes him 1/10 of a second to turn around so he can run, he'll only cover 0.45m (roughly 1.5 feet) in the remaining 0.3 seconds.
Covering 10 feet would take him roughly 0.8 seconds. (Probably better than a full second assuming he has to turn, and isn't starting positioned on sprinter's starting blocks.)
The *average* human runs about half his speed, and has a slower rate of acceleration. As a result, they'll cover even *less* distance.
In 0.4 seconds, a normal person already at a full run can, indeed cover 10 feet (noticeably more actually), but that doesn't describe a person engaged in melee, and if it did, it would indicate that the person they were fighting was *also* already at a full run, and therefore already keeping pace with them.
Here's a site where you can see what acceleration rates mean as far as distance covered over time.
http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/displacement_v_a_t.php
The required maneuver to disengage quite simply represents the time and attention taken to disengage *safely*.
It could be as simple as briefly knocking the target off balance, or even kicking them back a couple meters to give yourself the 'breathing room' needed to turn and run.
It simply isn't a matter of turning tail and running away. That'll get you seriously hurt or killed if someone actually wants to hurt you.
So is that him measured in a race or him deciding when the clock starts?