Was playing some combats out to get a good feel for the abstract system and one player noticed that if he had a ranged weapon, like a longbow and he shot a creature then manouevred away from them each round the creature could never reach him without spending 4 wounds for extra manouevres. We were thinking of letting a creature or player give up their attack/action in order to get an additional free manouvre - thoughts?

That is a very interesting idea.

Of course the players should have the same option, but running is not attacking, so it might work.

I will definitely try this out on the nearest occasion.

Yeah, I totally would offer it to both creatures and players.

Kaptain O said:

Actually had the same problem in my group. Characters using ranged weapons/spells and then backing away. This pretty much breaks the game when it comes to enemies that dont have ranged attacks themselves.

Your idea of being able to give up attack/action in order get an additional free maneouver seems to be both a great solution and a simple one. (... and a much needed one, lets hope they'll errata it in).

Someone on the rules question board had an awesome idea that works within the frame of the rules - allow monsters and players to "perform a stunt" as an athletics check to get an additional manouevre - it is essentially the same, exchange your action for a manouevre but there is a roll (since they are running) it rewards more athletic people and it works completely within the rules as written! You could add challenge dice based upon footing or if someone wanted to exchange the action for multiple manouvres (sprint) you could add a handful of purple dice - increasing the amount of fatigue they may take as a result of banes or tripping occuring possibly from banes of a chaos star or something.

havent thought it fully through but its a great use of the card.

It has also been suggested to allow monsters to use A/C/E pool dice to gain additional maneuvers.

Kaptain O said:

I'm doing this. use the perform a stunt to gain a manoevre. Been thinking about it for a week now, and that's the solution I came up with.

I don't personally see why either idea is better than the other...my opinion both sound like a great solution. Monsters should be fierce and deadly so let them spend that a/c/e for whatever they want. The free maneuver for an action also gives combat more tactical freedom for bad guys and PC'S. You also have to look at the other side of the coin too, that if the the PC'S run into some Bow-armed-baddies and all they have is melee weapons, the NPC can kite away.

One thing that I think you might be missing though is it takes a maneuver to draw an arrow and load it, an action to shoot it. So it would take another maneuver for the PC to move after shooting so he gains a fatigue.

Another simple solution is you could require shooting after moving requires a prepare action. Therefore if you run the previous or same turn, the following turn you must prepare your weapon pushing the fatigue cost up to 2 if you move and shoot on the same turn or the following turn.

Also, another simple way is if they fire conservatively and roll a delay, simply say they cannot run as it took them too long to prepare the shot and now the enemy is on them.

Kiting is a lame way to handle combat, for PC and NPC and is boring game play imo. Tell the PC'S this (since you're obviously frustrated by it) and just ask them kindly to, knock it off.

commoner said:

Nope, bow and longbow don't require a manoeuvre to reload, just xbow, guns and other weapons with "Reload 1" trait. Under examples for manoeuvres it suggests that stringing a longbow would be a manoeuvre not reloading.

I like the "Preform Stunt" option for PC's-way more potential for dramatic faliure/complications with the right roll-imagine the arching attempting to scramble up (or down) a muddy slope, through underbrush and slipping and sliding on dead leaves as the Big Bad comes charging up on him....All it will take is one time...maybe he will live to learn a new tactic.

Parzival said:

Solutions also associated with the problem of "kiting" archers:

• Where are they fighting? Kiting works on an open plain, but try this in a city, or a town, or a forest, or the mountains. If you move away from close range, chances are there are now obstacles between you and your target. These would add misfortune to their next attack, and if the terrain were sufficiently crowded (say a dense forest) or particularly treacherous, they might have to tack a check with appropriate modifiers to avoid tearing a ligament or breaking an ankle.
• The fatigue will start to add up (if the beasty/NPC lasts long enough), but with all the running in between shots I can guarantee their aim is going to suffer. Why not force a degrading effect on them; i.e. add a misfortune die for each running maneuver they committed in the prior round? I can tell you from first hand experience: running your ass off and then shooting, then running and shooting does not make for good accuracy. There's already a maneuver suggesting this very thing > "significant movement before an action."
• If the PC is running from the main body of combat (i.e. away from his allies), use that to the NPCs advantage if possible. A/C/E was listed as an official optional rule; so expend that A to get more maneuvers; so close that gap to engagement and force the archer to stand their ground or disengage and build up serious fatigue in conjunction with the above suggestions.

I am not saying that a GM should punish a player for thinking of solutions, but clearly this is a case of metagaming or twisting the system to gain some benefit that wouldn't survive first contact in the "real world." It's one of those cases, as suggested in the rules about saying "Yes to your players" that a good GM says, "Okay, but you are going to suffer in this way. Still want to do it?"

All good ideas indeed. And they show just how a GM can discourage player hoping to exploit a "hole" in the rules. Or what they believe to be a "hole" any way.

Sinister said:

This worked very well last night. We will keep doing it.

Hmmm,

I thought all creatures had access to a basic melee and basic ranged attack.

I would just presume that all creatures that carry equipment would carry some minor ranged weapon. Throwing knives, axes, etc.

Sinister said:

What diff did you make the check? 1d?

Kaptain O said:

yes, a 1d check.

Kaptain O said:

Right, so instead of modifying an existing rule, writing a bunch of new rules is better? Thanks for point that out though, I totally missed it. I would either simply modify the reload rule (give everything a reload of 1 then boost pistols up to 2 - they should be an action to reload anyway, but that is the simulationist in me and that surely would slow down gun kiting - but that is for a whole other post).

Additionally, and possibly the simplest solution, increase the difficulty by 1 purple or two black for moving and shooting. It makes since that you do not have as much time to prepare and aim or say that you must take a prepare or a ready maneuver if you want a new term after moving to shoot your bow.

I still like the idea of exchanging an Action for an additional maneuver as it makes since. After all execution shot (which is free) has a great deal more "moves" than simply drawing a sword, so to me, if I had to choose between the two methods, I would go with that one. If you want a roll to it, just have them make a Strength check to run there (or coordination if it is down a ledge). Difficulty modified as all running checks are after they give up the action. They succeed, they close the distance. Boons could give more distance, Banes, maybe they trip, stumble, or take fatigue from it. To me that is easier than creating almost a sub set maneuver card as is being proposed here. The dice do amazing things all by themselves if we just let them do it and special action rules are not necessary if we get the hang of them. Everytime we play, I keep finding new ways those buggers have made gaming so much easier and eliminated so much need of pointless subsystems.

I am glad to see so much creative work though on it. I really do like the effort this forum puts foreward, unlike some I have been to, where the work is more deconstructive than constructive.

Actually I think it ended up that we wouldn't be writing additional rules, instead using the Perform a Stunt action card to make the additional movement.

Here is the 'Rule Clarification' we're using:

[Rule – Clarification]

‘Perform a Stunt’ for an additional Manoeuvre

There are times when you just can’t use an action card, like when you are too far away, or when the conditions aren’t just right. The ‘Perform a Stunt’ action card is the perfect example of a versatile action meant to fill the gaps when a situation is not covered by the rules or another card. Like the Caster’s ‘Cantrip’ card, it is meant to encourage player creativity.

One of the ‘creative’ things you can do with the Perform a Stunt card is to perform unusual moves and actions. Reading the card I see no reason why it couldn’t be used to perform an additional manoeuvre (such as a move). Most of the actions you will be performing with the Perform a Stunt action will be manoeuvres anyway.

If you have no other action available to you, or choose not to use the actions that are, you may use the ‘Perform a Stunt’ action card to gain an additional manoeuvre. This requires a roll, just like any other action and is situational. It may be used in this manner to gain an extra move manoeuvre, but is not limited to movement.

As ‘Perform a Stunt’ is a basic action, this option will be available to enemies as well.

Note: Action cards are played after the manoeuvre phase. This means that if you wish to perform 3 total manoeuvres (and use ‘Perform a Stunt’ for one of them), you will need to perform 2 of them in the manoeuvre phase (1 free and 1 additional that causes fatigue or stress) and then use the ‘Perform a Stunt’ in your Action phase to gain a third. This means that there is a chance the third action might fail if the roll is botched.

[Rule]

You could also vary up the 'Perform a stunt' action card for movement with varrying successes such as:

1 success = +1 free manoveure

3 successes = +2 free manoveures

2 banes = +1 fatigue

Chaos star = You trip!

Just some thoughts

- Mordak

I'm glad people are taking to the Perform a Stunt option.

I'll give the specific example in our first play which caused me to do this.

In the demo adventure the party comes across the beatman raiding party at Medium Range. One of my players wanted to, draw weapons and move to close range. He didn't want to take any other actions. By the rules as written he could have done all that and cost himself 2 fatigue. So I suggested that he Run as Perform a Stunt . So the action allowed him to cover the distance (usually 2 maneuvers) and he took his free maneuver to draw his weapons.

Since this was on an open road, and the rain had not yet started, I made this an easy (1d) action.

So while I applaud some people of trying to force more rules into the action. I think that a very general approach is better. The more "extra" maneuvers that a player tries stuffing into the action the more challenging it becomes. That's at least my method.

Oh and thanks Kaptain O', its good to know at one person remembers something I post.