Beyond spending a Manoeuvre, does disengaging yourself from combat cost you something ?

If so, how do I prevent my goblins from disengaging themselves from the Fighter to attack directly the Mage behind ?

That's an awesome question I forgot to get around to asking!

I don't think there is something in the rules yet. I'd handle it with a taunt talent, maybe a few other ones for tanky characters.

I haven't looked at creating new talents yet but maybe something like a version of "Defensive Stance" where every opponent engaged with you gets +1 Difficulty per strain suffered if they attack anyone else but you until the end of your next turn? Not sure if the strain cost in addition to the most likely incoming damage is making this too "expensive".

It would be 1 maneuver to disengage the fighter, and unless the goblins are ranged another maneuver to engage the mage. Unless the goblins are rival or nemesis level, they have to spend their action to take a second maneuver as they can't willingly take strain.

So minions "stick" but neither rival nor nemesis ?

Still... rival or nemesis could be an issue if they hop from target to target... or player character for that matter.

Deimos119 is right. If the goblins are in a melee with the fighter, they have to spend 1 Maneuver to disengage him and a send to engage someone else for melee. If they're ranged, they don't have to disengage the melee guy, but it's probably in their best interests to do so.

As there talents out there that could help you with crowd-control ?

23 minutes ago, Tabulazero said:

Beyond spending a Manoeuvre, does disengaging yourself from combat cost you something ?

If so, how do I prevent my goblins from disengaging themselves from the Fighter to attack directly the Mage behind ?

Tell the mage to not stand so close.

2 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Tell the mage to not stand so close.

Yes but if you move out of Engage you move to Short-Range and aren't the characters in your typical party at Short-range of each other ?

Disengage is more status than movement. It would be an additional maneuver to then engage a different target. In addition, moving to a different location within any given range band is also a maneuver.

5 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Disengage is more status than movement. It would be an additional maneuver to then engage a different target. In addition, moving to a different location within any given range band is also a maneuver.

So basically, with a rival/nemesis it would play as follows

1st round

-1st Maneouvre to Disengage from the fighter

- Convert action into manoeuvre -> 2nd Maneouvre: Move toward the Wizard

2nd round

- 1st Maoeuvre to engage the wizard

- Action: Attack the wizard

Correct ?

.... but if so doesn't this mean that Minions cannot "charge you" ?

edit: actually, it looks like you can engage with anybody who is within short range, so you do not need to use a move action to move from fighter to wizard before engaging

A nemesis can spend Strain so they didn't have to burn their action if you didn't want to. Alsowhether that move maneuver in the middle is needed is a judgement call. Say the mage was in short range but on the otherside of a table I'd say yes. Just standing behind the fighter, nah.

1 minute ago, saethone said:

1) Goblins would have to disengage fighter (maneuver)

2) Goblins would have to move to wizard (1 maneuver if in short range, so action for minions, or 2 strain for nemesis/rival)

3) A nemesis/rival could perform some kind of action here if they want. minions have exhausted all options.

4) Goblins would have to engage wizard (1 maneuver, on 2nd turn)

5) goblins can now melee attack wizard

You can see how the maneuver to disengage is a signifcant cost. Don't forget, that at the end of the goblins turn, the fighter could just choose to use his maneuver to re-engage the goblin, and the wizard could use his to move further away.

But if you treat the engage as a separate maneouvre from the move to cover the distance... does this mean that minions cannot charge you in the sense of "I run toward you and smack you with my axe" in the same round ?

If theyre within short range and there's no intervening obstacles sure they can. Requiring a move maneuver in my eyes requires a reason.

+1 to what 2P51 said. You don't necessarily need to go 1) Disengage Target A, 2) Move within Short, 3) Engage Target B. If Targets A and B are close together, I'd rule that the goblins could just do 1) Disengage Target A, 2) Engage Target B.

As for charging in, that's certainly possible if the goblins have a maneuver to spend. Say they're at Short range of the party. On their turn, they Engage the mage (their one maneuver) and then attack him (their action). You can narrate it however you wish, as a charge for instance.

I think what 2P51 is saying, and I would agree, there is no need to engage at short distance if you want to make a melee attack (I know the rules say otherwise). The engaging should be part of the attack action in my mind.

Sorta, what I'm saying is if you're at short range and there isn't any sort of obstacles, I'd just require the maneuver to engage, not an additional one for movement.

So, to change melee targets: disengage, engage, attack instead of disengage, move within short, engage, attack. Yeah, that makes sense. Maybe my version lacks some balancing as you could jump from target to target without any penalties (just one maneuver and one action).

2 minutes ago, siabrac said:

So, to change melee targets: disengage, engage, attack instead of disengage, move within short, engage, attack. Yeah, that makes sense. Maybe my version lacks some balancing as you could jump from target to target without any penalties (just one maneuver and one action).

I don't think it's unbalanced if both targets are within short range of you. But, yes, it should be two maneuvers and an action: Disengage A, Engage B, Attack B.

And again the Move is situational imo.

Bottom line, use the rules to create a fun, challenging RPG experience for your PCs. Don't use them to use them.

I've also had a GM rule, at times, that you could disengage and engage a different enemy in a single maneuver. This usually only happened when A) the two enemies were very close together or B) the enemy you wanted to disengage from was obviously not paying as much attention to you do to attacking a different entity engaged with it or something similar. It usually required both.

Pure houserule, but I think its something for GMs to consider, especially in a game with lots of melee fighting.

I think at short range I'd let the minions disengage with the tank and re-engage with the wizard. Yeah, they lose their attack, but they get to jam up the glass cannon. If they had to move around obstacles, too, they'd need to break free this turn and engage the next.

As someone who had played Pathfinder for way to long and am used to the AOO rules I would probably upgrade one or two defense dice for disengaging and engaging a second opponent where any Despairs rolled on the upgraded die would allow the opponent you disengaged with to get a single attack in.

Just a thought and it hasn't come up even in my SW games but it could be a potential penalty to ignoring a single target

Actually, the Engage/Disengage mechanic is precisely a way to avoid having to fiddle with attacks of opportunity. Spending a maneuver to get away from someone who's trying to clobber you with a club is all about dodging the guy's swings as you back away carefully. Then engaging with your intended target is all about getting into position to clobber him without him smacking you while you do so.

Your houserule would only really work if you didn't require the character to spend those maneuvers to Disengage and then Engage. It also would bog combat down quite a bit to add in extra attacks whenever a character tries to move away from a skirmish, but if you really want AOOs, I'd remove the requirement that Engaging or Disengaging requires a maneuver.