Zone of Control (or Threatened Areas) and Disengaging

[imported_Rasyr]

Another thing that came up is that there are no rules for disengaging from melee  and about zones of control (sometimes known as Threatened Areas)


In the attached image, presuming that each hex is 5', then there are 4 specific zones.....

Rear - totally behind the character. Attacks from here get a +4 bonus.
Flank -  to the sides, but behind the character. Attacks from here get a +2 bonus
Melee Zone 1 -- Any creature or being within this zone is subject to being hit from Medium sized weapons or smaller (basically any weapon under 6' in length)
Melee Zone 2 -- this area is threatened by large or huge weapons (i.e. 6' or longer weapons). Weapons that threaten Zone 2, cannot be used to strike foes in Zone 1 normally.

Now, I don't want to turn Novus into some sort of semi-war game with requiring hexes or squares, but would it be a good idea to include an image of this sort to show basic positioning and how it can benefit combat?

As for rules for disengaging -- I am not sure if I want to add something like that. There are many ways to actually disengage, so IMO, there shouldn't be any specific rules for doing so. Thoughts? Comments?

Attacks of Opportunity -- if we have "threatened areas" should we have attacks of opportunity? Please note that IF I did include such, that the AoO would count as the character's action for the round (not be separate like it is in D&D). The idea being that if a faster foe enters your zone, you might get to attack him before he can react or make an attack on you. The problem is that you have to set up all sorts of special conditions or rules to make it work -- not something I am fond of considering at all...


[attachment[/attachment]

[imported_Witchking20k]

Sweet.  This is one of the aspects of D&D4E I enjoyed.  Controlling area around you is a very effectinve tactic in that game....and it kinda makes sense.  Having people enter into it should give the controller an initiative bonus vs. them for the first round.

[imported_Rasyr]

 Having people enter into it should give the controller an initiative bonus vs. them for the first round.

But shouldn't that depend upon how a foe enters the control zone? For example, a foe approaching cautiously shouldn't trigger an AoO, but one who charges/runs up to you should?

Initiative Bonus on the first round? I like the sound of that better than giving an "Attack of Opportunity", say something like a +10 to init for that first round.

However, this might be an issue if you are in combat with Foe A when Foe B comes along and enters your Zone in a manner that triggers a Zone IP Bonus/AoO. For example, what if Foe B enters your Zone before you take your action for the round? After you have made your attack (and he is using a Move & Attack Combat Move)? Can you even use Combat Moves against a Zone intruder?

This would definitely need a lot of working out and testing, that much is sure...

[imported_Witchking20k]

In D&D4E being engaged by 2 foes gives them a "comabt advantage" I believe. 
As for the point at hand.  I think if we delve too deeply we could run the risk of over compliating the actions.  I would hate to see attack bonuses/penalties as they would greatly favour high level characters..., initiative doesn't progress the smae way....making it a little more easily tweaked. IMO

[imported_Rasyr]

I like the idea of tweaking init instead of bonuses - let me be clear there.

I am also of the opinion that any Opportunity Attack (OA) that is triggered should count against the character's AP/actions for the round (i.e. it is NOT a free attack).

In fact, we could simply say that anybody who enters/leaves a Melee Zone without spending 1 AP for an Engage/Disengage action (which includes a half move  -- regardless of pace) triggers a OA. The person who gets this OA may then make an attack against the foe before the foe can attack him, regardless of his initiative (in the same round if the character has not taken his action yet, or the next with a +10 to init if he has already acted this round). This attack does count against the character's actions for round. This OA is lost should the character use Boon Points to allow him to make an attack against the OA foe.

What this means is:
1) Foe enters into Melee Zone without "Engaging" - character may, instead of normally declared action, make an OA against this foe if he has not performed his action for the round.
2) If character has already taken part or all of his action for the round, he gets a +10 to init against foe (and only that foe) in the following round.
3) If the character, upon finishing his declared actions/attacks, has enough Boon Points to allow him to attack this new foe, he may do so, but loses the init bonus the following round (remember multiple attacks have the secondary attacks take place at the end of the round, so the character could possibly earn Boon points to be able to attack the foe).

Disengaging -- this is simply a half move away from the character, done in such a way so as to not trigger an OA. Thus if a foe tries to move away without spending 1 AP to disengage properly, the character that he is moving away from can attack him before he gets too far away (so long as he as not taken his action for the round already)

How does that sound? I am trying to keep it as simple as possible, yet still workable...

[imported_Witchking20k]

In 4e if you enter into a controlled zone with the intent to engage there is no OA.  But, if you move through, or disengage w/o shifting, you trigger a OA.  FYI

[imported_Rasyr]

Okay, How is this (for a first draft)

Control Zone (CZ) - This is a 5' area to the sides and front of the character/creature, approximately a 180 degree arc. The next 60 degrees on either side of this control zone are the flanks, attacks from the flanks gain a +2 modifier. And the last 60 degree arc, directly behind the character/creature is the the rear, and attacks from the Rear gain a +4 modifier. Large humanoid creatures have a 10' Control Zone and Huge humanoid creatures have a 15' Control Zone. Non-humanoid creatures, especially those that are Large and Huge will have similar Control Zones, but the actual shape is likely to depend upon the shape of the creature. Just keep in mind that the Control Zone rarely extends behind the creature's shoulders, and that the rear zone will always be directly behind the creature, with the remaining sections on either side being the flank zones.

Opportunity Attack (OA) - This is an attack that happens outside the normal initiative cycle, but it still counts against available actions for the round. A character who has multiple attacks (high skill, multiple weapons, etc.) may use all of their attacks for the OA or they mayuse just one of their attacks for the OA and then take the rest normally according to initiative procedures. Opportunity Attacks are triggered by a potential foe entering or crossing a character's Control Zone without the intent to attack the character.

Disengaging from Melee - To safely disengage, without triggering an OA from the foe, a character must spend 1 AP for Disengaging and then move, spending other AP, out of the foe's Control Zone.

[samwise7]

Personally I've never cared for such things, but I know others do.  It's one of the reasons I don't like to play the more modern versions of D&D.  All I ask is that I can ignore such rules without too much hassle. 

[imported_Rasyr]

Oh, definitely.

One of the goals here for such rules is that they are there for those who want them, without interfering with how you have played the game to date. I want Novus to be able to use squares and hex maps, but not require them (part of the reason behind the 5'/10' base movement, and why my description above used "feet" instead of squares or hexes.

As you can see from the way that I wrote them in my last post, you can ignore them without any hassle at all because they basically sit upon the existing rules rather than being woven through numerous rules....

But, it also gives me the opportunity to tack on things later on, that might play to these rules...

And, at the very least, it allows me to slip in modifiers for position (i.e. rear attack).

[imported_Witchking20k]

I like the rule.  Spending an AP to avoid an OA makes sense.

[imported_Rasyr]

Plus, by not defining "how" the disengage is accomplished, it can then be done in any number of ways - all of which can be described however the player wants (from saying he feints then retreats to saying that he does a sudden dodge or a surprise acrobatic roll out of range of the foe's weapon and then backs off...)

The choice is up to the player.....

Now, I just have to figure out how to fit it into the manuscript.. hehe