Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum
does the Retreat option requires to use the step allowed by most combat maneuvers?
Rules are not truly clear about that ( Basic Set, Campaigns, page 377):
"To exercise this option, you must move away from your attacker: at least one yard, but not more than 1/10 your Move – exactly as for a step (see Step, p. 368)." Does "exactly as for a step" means that it is a step, the only step you are allowed to do during your turn, or that it is an additional free step? |
There's been confusion about this as far back as 3e, that they actually answered the question in page 68 of
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Compendium2/ called "Retreating Clarified"
The backward step taken when retreating does not count against your character’s Move score on the following turn.
The justification is that your character is being driven back by the force of an attack, not just stepping.
It's definitely a strange explanation, since "driven back by the force" sorta makes sense if you were making contact (like a block or parry) with a force that could inflict knockback, but not in other situations like a dodge (contact doesn't happen) or an attack which doesn't inflict knockback (like a laser)
It even goes so far as to suggest amending the standard rules (retreats do not use your step) by suggesting an OPTIONAL rule that it uses a step from your next turn:
However, there are those who feel that this is unrealistic.
As an optional rule, a character who retreats has his Move and Step each reduced by 1 on the following turn.
Since most characters have a Step of 1, this means that they may not take the “Step” portion of a “Step and . . .” maneuver;
a character with a Step of 2 could only Step 1 hex, etc.
What I don't like about that is it assumes you'd have a step the next turn to spend - that's not the case if you're forced to Do Nothing.
Even that seems generous IMO, it'd be even more brutal if you had to have an unspent step from your current maneuver to pay for retreats, then you could only get that option to retreat if you weren't advancing.
I do like the idea of a block or parry harnessing knockback from a neutralized (successful block or parry) crushing melee attack to aid retreats though. I'm not sure how to implement it. Maybe something like allow Roll With Blow even on a successful Block/Parry and still roll damage but just to see if you can get some knockback to harness, defender's option?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding
Having a polearm and the ability to unimpededly retreat is a huge advantage and should be.
|
Yeah although if we wanted a realistic balancing option I think the cure would be representing people's lack of situational awareness, like accidentally backing into a team-mate, tripping over a body, etc.
This is why sometimes people won't retreat directly backward and will do sort of a sideways retreat so they can use peripherhal vision both to monitor the threats they're retreating from but also where they're stepping behind them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Or, you could just change the turn length into one that actually permits doing those things. For example, moving 5 yards from a standing start in one second is not only beyond the capabilities of an average person, it's impossible for a human to achieve (world record sprint times, starting from a runner's crouch on blocks, are about 3 yards in the first second).
|
There might be solves for this other than changing the 1s turn, because that seems to work decently for how many punches and stuff people can throw.
Like what if for example we changed the size of a hex from 1y to 1f? Then to move 3y/s (9fps) you would need Move 9, nearly double the standard Move 5.