How many maneuvers to disengage 3 ghouls who engaged you?

jh

That's a very situational question. In the fiction, is the PC surrounded or are the ghouls approaching from one direction? If it's one direction I would say it's only a single manuever.

If you're surrounded, you could make the person make a skill check (strength?) to disengage or maybe even force them to perform a stunt.

Good points, but I'm looking for a RAW answer since "engaged" ignores direction, etc. With Grapple, this seems pretty clear (until the 2nd person gets on you), but how about simple engagement? What does the rulebook say?

The reason I'm asking is it comes up every session and I usually just say "one maneuver," but if I can screw my players over more when they're outnumbered, that's fine with me (yes..rat-bastardry, I know

jh

As you can see from my post in your other thread, I'm leaning towards an interpretation that would require a separate maneuver to disengage from each opponent that is attacking you. But I also agree with Charlest in that it could be very situational as well. Just as a thought exercise though, I like what I'm seeing narratively in my head when you begin to apply the mechanics of my interpretation. It certainly makes being outnumbered much more significantly dangerous and not something to take lightly. I could also see perhaps using a stunt in some cases to get free, sort of like what Charlest is saying. I think it would perhaps create some more detailed combat situations where folks are having to figure out how to cover for allies so that they can get off of the front line. Would certainly make flat out running an interesting chain of events, burning fatigue to disengage and then hoping you've got enough gas to continue the escape should it turn into a chase.

That could be a harsh interpretation though, as it makes it extremely difficult to escape from being outnumbered which shouldn't necessarily always be the case. I'd be interested to hear more from folks with some extended play experience to see how this would affect combat. What do you think Emirikol?

Also meant to add, as far as RAW is concerned I'd have to look back over it but I don't think its specifically clear on the matter. It does say that you have to perform the Disengage to safely get away from an opponent once you're engaged with them. That makes me think you'd have to disengage from each. But then it goes on to say that you don't have to use it when disengaging from an engagement of just allies. That sort of makes it sound like you just need to use it for hostile engagements as a whole, in which case it would only require one maneuver.

I'm gonna look the rules over a bit closer and see what I come up with. Just keep in mind that this rules set is really focused on the narrative aspect of what's happening, thus the sort of ambiguous nature of combat. In the end, when its unclear, just make sure the rules are helping to tell the type of story you want them to tell. For example, one maneuver to escape a 3 on 1 situation isn't nearly as gritty and dangerous as having to spend 3 to do it. I'm not even sure which is the most realistic, but little differences like that can make big thematic differences in play.

After studying back over the pages I still don't think its specifically clear. As a matter of fact I've started this post three different times, going back and forth between interpretations. I think the closest you can get is with the illustration on p.53. It mentions that all standups that are in contact with each other are considered engaged. That seems to mean everyone in an engagement is engaged with everyone else. So a literal interpretation makes me think that it would require 3 maneuvers, one for each opponent with which you're engaged. Consequently this also would mean that you wouldn't have to use a maneuver to engage your ally in the same engagement to treat him with first aid...which is contrary to my interpretation in the other thread.

That said, I bet the official answer would come down as it only taking one maneuver. The reason? Ease of representing with standups. Otherwise you'd end up with complex situations where, for example, you've disengaged with two of the three ghouls but not the third. That leaves you at close range with two and engaged with the third but all three ghouls are still in the same engagement. Which makes literal sense to me but sort of goes against the spirit of what the abstract range rules are trying to accomplish in their simplicity.

I'm spent on this one, gonna bow out and see what others have to say...

I think this is one of those situations where you do what ever feels right.

For example - if the combat was taking place in the corridor of a tomb, with all the ghouls in front of the character (ie there was an obvious direction for the character to move become disengaged) then it would be a single manoeuvre. If on the other hand the character was surrounded - well, it would be much harder to disengage, and I would rule it would cost multiple manoeuvres.

In other words, I would let the situation decide how the disengagement worked.

As for first aid - I wouldn't allow it unless both characters were disengaged from combat. Combat is not static, and I can't see how anyone could do first aid on someone who is bobbing, weaving, whirling a very sharp (or blunt and heavy, or pointy etc) weapon about etc.

Even then I think I would only allow it if there were no threatening enemies about. I don't think anyone would stop to apply bandages if they had a howling ghoul charging towards them.

as one of charlest players, im inclined to agree with him, i would force the player to make a strength check against the most potent opponent in the engagement assisted by all the other opponents in the engagement. the check should be athletics or coordination in my opinion.

Here's how I call it as a GM...

1) each adversary is engaging you, so you need to use 1 manoeuvre per standard adversary who engages you. And that could be a Lot of manoeuvers. If you play videogames, think about Left4Dead and how exhausting it is to disengage a lot of zombies. It always gives to the engaged character the opportunity to use your action card during that turn.

2) Instead, a engaged character may perform a manoeuver to disengage many adversaries, adding 1 misfortune dice per engaging ennemy above 1. That way, the character can't use its action to hit or perform some cool action.

3) However, you only need 1 manoeuvre to disengage a henchmen party because they act as one. It gives a good opportunity to make the PC feel like a big bad heroe against a bunch of losers.

It's so easy to make a simple and effective GM call during the game. One excellent reason to try GMing and instantly love WFRP3.

I'd have to agree with others. It's situational. 3e is very-GM dependent for these sort of situations. I would agree that 'technically' it costs 1 maneuver to move out of an engagement, just like in 2e a single Disengage action disengaged you from all enemies. However, as a GM, I would increase the number of maneuvers needed should the enemies make disengaging more complicated, such as surrounding. Likely, 1 for each enemy in such a situation.

willmanx said:

did you mean "perform a stunt" the action card? this statement seems a bit nonsensical. but i like the idea of using that card to get away, and it makes sense as bulling your way through or dodging past three people would be a stunt in my book!

What about 1 maneuver and roll 1 misfortune die per additional engaging NPC. Each bane rolled equals a stress for pushing past/evading them all?

i think if we are needing to make up special rules for this as a maneuver it fits perfectly as "preform a stunt" that action card is supposed to be 'using a skill check in an extraordinary or unusual way' or, as i see it, using a skill check that seems a bit much for just one maneuver. the ambiguous definition of a maneuver in this game makes it hard to really pinpoint what this might entail, but i think physically pushing past or dodging past a bunch of mooks seems closer to an action than a maneuver.

Similar to what I've posted in the other thread, if the 3 ghouls are all "in front" of a PC, one maneuver to disengage from them all. However, if the ghouls have him surrounded, then they will need to Perform a Stunt to use Athletics to push past one of them or perhaps Coordination to dive between the legs of one.

But would all the ghouls just 'stand in front' of the character?

I think one of the nice things about the abstract system is it removes some of the static impressions people have regarding their placement. I keep seeing engaged as they're actually engaging one another in some combaty way, which to me means they're shifting around, jockeying for a better angle of attack/position. The ghouls are trying to swarm around the character while he's trying to keep all 3 at bay and constantly moving to keep them from completely surrounding him. They're not just forming up at the line of scrimmage and swiping at him.

It doesn't matter so much as the npcs can engage the pc on their turn. If you want to both disengage and move it's two maneuvers though.

evilben said:

Gosh. Yes I meant : 2) use the Perform a Stunt action card to get a better but harder result than only fatigues and manoeuvers as said in 1).

And still 3) a henchmen party is disengaged with only 1 manoeuver because they are henchmen and they act as one

I'm not really worried about whether or not they can disengage, I'm more wondering how many free attacks the Ghouls would get.

jh

Emirikol said:

They get none but as a house rule you could allow a free basic melee attack on a disengage unless the person disengaging succeeds some kind of roll.

There are no free attacks in nWFRP. We've covered this in another thread and I thought the consensus was that you have to use a maneuver to disengage. The bit in the rulebook about having to do so or else you would be attacked is just a fluff justification for why you need to spend the maneuver to disengage, not an option to disengage without spending a maneuver by accepting free hacks. Regardless of the answer to your original question is one or three maneuvers (and I believe it is just one), there's zero attacks from the ghouls.

So they dont' get a free attack but they get to HOLD you there?

I interpret as "free attack" just because there's no evidence that they get to hold you there (unless I missed something somewhere).

jh

They don't get to hold you there, but since you haven't spent a maneuver you're still engaged with them. You haven't done anything to change the situation.

Let's back up a bit and think about what the abstractions mean. As mac40k has eloquently stated, the maneuvers and ranges are used to help us get a feel for how the characters, the surroundings and the NPC's are interacting with one another. Spending maneuvers indicates the character doing something (spending a resource: maneuvers) to get his intention. In descriptive terms he's walking, running, riding a horse, riding piggy back on someone else or being flung through the air in a catapult. However you want to describe it, but the main point is that mechanically speaking he's spent a maneuver to change his position relative to some object. The details are only of interest to the players & GM at the table.

So when a character engages he's basically signaling that he's doing something to interact directly with that object. It might be as simple as crossing swords, getting real close or touching, those are descriptive details. Mechanically speaking he's committed and engaged with that target. Great, so far so good.

Now, when a character wants to disengage it means he (or someone else) has to do something to change the current situation. Either he walks away, he stops touching the object, he turns his back, hides behind a wall, turns his face away, scurries amidst other guests. He has to do something to indicate he's no longer going to maintain engagement. Seems fair enough to me.

So by the RAW, if he doesn't spend a maneuver it doesn't happen. He doesn't disengage. Simple as that, it doesn't mean the ghoul holds him, it doesn't mean the ghoul keeps him fixed to the floor. It just means that since the character hasn't spent a maneuver resource he's not going to get his way. He has to spend the maneuver to disengage.

And it really is just like all other uses of maneuver, I don't see why people would think this is any different. Extreme range isn't holding you down by requiring you spend 3 maneuvers, your character is moving and traversing the terrain, but until he crosses that magical threshold of having spent 3 maneuvers he's still within extreme range. Similarly with disengaging, until you (or someone else) does a maneuver expenditure you'll both be engaged. You can't skip that maneuver expenditure and go directly to moving from close range to medium range without disengaging first.

I believe that's why many people say disengaging has really no effect, because they believe they can disengage for free. You can't.

You're fighting with a goblin and want to run over to your fallen ally at medium range? Disengage and move from medium range to close range. You don't get to just move for free, and since you've moved you're no longer engaged. That's silly.

I don't know what thread its in any more since there seems to be 2 or 3 active threads about this exact same topic right now, but I mentioned there that in this system, "engaged" is just another range increment.

Extreme...Long..Medium.Close.Engaged.

So, if you and another target are Engaged, you are as close to each other as this system allows, touching to approx 5 feet or so. If you spend one maneuver you move from Engaged, to Close range. Close range is a distance where you cannot touch, or typically interact with someone using a melee weapon, approx 6-12ish feet? Then if you spend another maneuver you can move from Close to Medium range. Medium range is a distance where highly inaccurate or low powered ranged weapons won't reach, or at least be effective. Then for a cost of spending 2 maneuvers, you can traverse the distance between Medium and Long Range. Long range is a distance where only ranged weapons with a modicum of accuracy can reliably be used. Then for the cost of another 3 maneuvers you can move from Long to Extreme range. Extreme range is just that, a range that you can just barley interact with another target on the tactical level, this would be all the way across a battle field or some other similar lengthy distance, even with weapons designed and capable of acting at this range it would be difficult to do so reliably.

The point being, that there isn't a need to think of "Engaged" like grappled from 3rd edition D&D, Engaged isn't a status effect, or some type of special grasp that one character holds on another, its simply another level of abstract range. This is needed in this system to help account for groupings of people or objects, if engagement A is at medium range from engagement B then it would take a character in Engagement A 3 maneuvers to move from engagement A to engagement B.

1.) Leave Engagement A, This would make the character at close range from engagement A and Medium range from engagement B.

2.) Move toward B, This leaves the character at close range to engagement B and at medium range from engagement A

3.) Enter Engagement B, This completes the characters movement, he is now a member of engagement B and is at medium range from engagement A.

The reason it takes the same amount of "effort" meaning the same number of maneuvers to leave an engagement and to move from close to medium range is that moving the 5 ish or so feet to leave an engagement is just as taxing and time consuming as moving the 10-15ish or so feet it takes to move from close to medium. Leaving an engagement means having to watch your back, and beware of incoming attacks etc etc, so it is hard to do, and takes a whole maneuver even though you cover much less distance.

But the rules do state that you need to spend a manoeuvre to safely disengage... that implies that it is an effect. Nothing about what happeneds if you refuse to spend the manoeuvre and still try to disengage though. But it's not a big deal The rules can be the basis of any level of detail.

Gallows said:

You can't disengage without spending a maneuver.