Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Ragnorakk wrote:hope this didn't come off as a non-answer

Not at all (and the same for ScottyG).

I figured it might boil down to that, but I wondered how others deal with the arbitrary positioning of hand-to-hand combat having interplay with the not-so-arbitrary positioning of other combat-oriented actions.

I don't normally use miniatures, so it's gets BSed a lot (although sometimes I put dice on a grid). But, I'm getting enough painted to consider bringing them in in full force, and I feel like this will come up at some point. So, here's to sitting down sometime and scribbling a house rule on it.

Random wrote:Axe:
That implies that the instant two figures enter melee range, they are somehow bound to a special point exactly between the two, and this this special point, not the two figures in melee, determines distance that a third figure has to travel to join.

This would be the "melee are like clouds" interpretation from above.

How do you figure out who in the melee gets hit by a fireball that includes only part of the "cloud?"

I agree with Trent's analogy of a probability cloud. There's a further aspect: D&D rules tend to assume that groups of combatants, whether on the same or opposite sides, are dimensionless points. That is, the party can be, say, 50' away from a group of monsters. This doesn't just measure the distance between their frontage; if your party is 50' from the monsters, then everyone in your party is effectively 50' from the monsters, at least as far as the combat rules go.

With groups as points without area, it makes sense to say that all combatants engaged in melee together are at a single point. Thus, a fireball that includes the point of melee hits everyone in the melee. The melee group, or point, has its own 1" cloud, and any character entering the cloud joins the melee point.

This is, of course, a complex way of looking at a simple statement like "the party moves to within 1" of the monsters and engages in melee."

Random wrote:Axe:
That implies that the instant two figures enter melee range, they are somehow bound to a special point exactly between the two, and this this special point, not the two figures in melee, determines distance that a third figure has to travel to join.

This would be the "melee are like clouds" interpretation from above.

How do you figure out who in the melee gets hit by a fireball that includes only part of the "cloud?" (This is in the BTB section because I haven't been able to locate this information, but it may well be there. Still, I'd prefer a house rule that doesn't conflict with anything in the regular rules if possible.)

I think its fair to say their is a center to any cloud. But that center is floating in the air, and not fixed to a point on the ground. I'd say the location of the figurine is the "average" location of the PC.

As for the fireball or other area effect spells, the DM would probably say "your on the edge" and give them a special save to see if they can move out of it. He might say "you see a fireball spell heading your way, your fighting this orc what do you want to do"? If the PC says run like hell in the other direction, the DM would allow the orc a free attack and the DM might allow the PC to escape without a special role (say he only had to clear two feet to get out of the danger zone).

I think as far as leaving combat areas (alluded to by Storm Crow) its always been my experiance at many tables that if a combatant tries to leave melee combat he is subject to attack unless he has cover (ie. comrads of some sort to keep the opponent occupide, and even that is iffy and obviously up to the DM as everything ultimately is).

Storm Crow: " In the meantime, he is still vulnerable to rear attack. Remember, though, that one cannot choose one's target in a mass melee; if the fight is more than one-on-one, one cannot specifically select the fleer as a target."


So, if a single fighter is fighting two orcs, he can't choose the one he wishes to swing at? I realize thats how the book seems to read, but I don't know any DM that sticks by this. It just seems to be one of those removal of "free will" things that cut against the grain of the game. As DM you should always want to enhanse the feeling of the player that he is really there in control, not on some auto-pilot (which is what this seems to suggest). When we play make believe as kids we picked our target, the same should be true in 1E (unless its just a mass of bodies and impossible, or your shooting arrows from a great distance at a group that would move about before the arrows arrived).

Stormcrow wrote:I agree with Trent's analogy of a probability cloud. There's a further aspect: D&D rules tend to assume that groups of combatants, whether on the same or opposite sides, are dimensionless points. That is, the party can be, say, 50' away from a group of monsters. This doesn't just measure the distance between their frontage; if your party is 50' from the monsters, then everyone in your party is effectively 50' from the monsters, at least as far as the combat rules go.

With groups as points without area, it makes sense to say that all combatants engaged in melee together are at a single point. Thus, a fireball that includes the point of melee hits everyone in the melee. The melee group, or point, has its own 1" cloud, and any character entering the cloud joins the melee point.

This is, of course, a complex way of looking at a simple statement like "the party moves to within 1" of the monsters and engages in melee."

That doesn't make as much sense when you start thinking about it. A fireball either affects no one in the melee or everyone in the melee, the determinor between cases being an infinitesimally small distance?

Random wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:I agree with Trent's analogy of a probability cloud. There's a further aspect: D&D rules tend to assume that groups of combatants, whether on the same or opposite sides, are dimensionless points. That is, the party can be, say, 50' away from a group of monsters. This doesn't just measure the distance between their frontage; if your party is 50' from the monsters, then everyone in your party is effectively 50' from the monsters, at least as far as the combat rules go.

With groups as points without area, it makes sense to say that all combatants engaged in melee together are at a single point. Thus, a fireball that includes the point of melee hits everyone in the melee. The melee group, or point, has its own 1" cloud, and any character entering the cloud joins the melee point.

This is, of course, a complex way of looking at a simple statement like "the party moves to within 1" of the monsters and engages in melee."

That doesn't make as much sense when you start thinking about it. A fireball either affects no one in the melee or everyone in the melee, the determinor between cases being an infinitesimally small distance?

You're probably not going to like this answer, but I think the intended determinor is which figures made (= outside the AOE) or failed (= inside the AOE) their saving throws.

Trent, your description is how I do it in my head but trying to explain this nearly a year ago on Matt's S&W board I was unable to do so. Thank you. I'm taking your explanation for future use (with citation).

And Stormcrow, thank you for that eminently sensible extension of the idea.

Posts like these are why I keep drinking around here.

T. Foster wrote:You're probably not going to like this answer, but I think the intended determinor is which figures made (= outside the AOE) or failed (= inside the AOE) their saving throws.

It's a fine answer , but what about something like a sleep spell?
(Also, that's not quite what Stormcrow said. He was saying that if the fireball AoE included the point, everyone would need to save or, if it didn't, no one would need to save.)

@Flambeaux: Hooray, the thread has purpose!

AxeMental wrote:So, if a single fighter is fighting two orcs, he can't choose the one he wishes to swing at? I realize thats how the book seems to read, but I don't know any DM that sticks by this. It just seems to be one of those removal of "free will" things that cut against the grain of the game.

In general, yes, that's the case. It's not about free will; it's about which target makes itself available to you.

As we all know, a round is one minute long, and all combatants move and attack constantly during that minute. Human reactions being what they are, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see an opening, decide whether this target is the target you want to hit, and strike before the window of opportunity has passed. And this doesn't even consider the possibility of a friend's body simply getting in the way of your otherwise correctly aimed swing.

To take a much-exaggerated example: consider a cartoon fight where the participants are swirling inside a literal whirlwind. Imagine trying to hit one exact target in that whirlwind. You can't. Now, a melee isn't that bad, but it's bad enough that you have an equal chance of hitting a friend as hitting a foe.

Notice that there is nothing to force your melee from joining a nearby melee. Two groups might split into multiple single combats, or multiple groups of two on one, or any number of combinations. This seems to be the case in the example of combat in the Dungeon Masters Guide. The DM might even allow multiple melees to be within 1" of each other without combining them. The participants must all respect this division to keep it intact, or else the two groups will merge into a single melee.

Stormcrow wrote:Now, a melee isn't that bad, but it's bad enough that you have an equal chance of hitting a friend as hitting a foe.

Whoa, where does it say you might hit a friend in hand-to-hand combat?
I always thought your target was random, but determined from your possible opponents.

Random wrote:Whoa, where does it say you might hit a friend in hand-to-hand combat?

Weeellllll, it's doesn't say so, in so many words. It says, "As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee." Now, it's certainly possible that "as with missile fire" doesn't include the target-selection algorithm for missile fire; indeed, it simply says to "use some random number generation." It also only speaks of targeting "opponents," but then, so does the section on missile discharge, although that may just mean "opponents of each other." It only ever talks about hitting Side A and Side B.

This may be a misinterpretation on my part. In fact, the more I think about it, the more likely it seems to be that determining targets in a melee works differently than choosing targets with missile fire.

Stormcrow wrote:In fact, the more I think about it, the more likely it seems to be that determining targets in a melee works differently than choosing targets with missile fire.

Whew, I thought you were going to come back with some really nasty book quote that I wouldn't like! It just seems like bonking your buddy while fighting side-by-side against some bad guys would spoil the fun of the game.

60 seconds is a very long time for mortal combat, and that's exactly why the probability cloud is the most sensible representation of location. Think of something as simple as a school yard fight, especially a gang fight with multiple fighters on both sides of the fray. Unless all combatants are grappling on the ground, they're constantly moving around to get an advantage. You'll notice that the fight rarely stays in one small vicinity for more than several seconds, and indeed, the melee can range over a considerably large area during 60 full seconds of combat. Imagine how much maneuvering you'd do if you were fighting for your life.

Fixed positions only work for games that use rounds of just a few seconds, because there's less time to move.

Stormcrow wrote:

Random wrote:Whoa, where does it say you might hit a friend in hand-to-hand combat?

Weeellllll, it's doesn't say so, in so many words. It says, "As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee." Now, it's certainly possible that "as with missile fire" doesn't include the target-selection algorithm for missile fire; indeed, it simply says to "use some random number generation." It also only speaks of targeting "opponents," but then, so does the section on missile discharge, although that may just mean "opponents of each other." It only ever talks about hitting Side A and Side B.

This may be a misinterpretation on my part. In fact, the more I think about it, the more likely it seems to be that determining targets in a melee works differently than choosing targets with missile fire.

Yeah, I think that's a misreading. The firing-into-melee rule is meant to specifically discourage characters from doing so, to be a more detailed procedure that ultimately maintains the same result of the prior (Chainmail) rule: "missiles cannot be fired into a melee."

AxeMental wrote: So, if a single fighter is fighting two orcs, he can't choose the one he wishes to swing at? I realize that's how the book seems to read, but I don't know any DM that sticks by this. It just seems to be one of those removal of "free will" things that cut against the grain of the game.

I usually have monsters randomly determine their targets, but have recently enjoyed having players randomly target their enemies. There are obviously intended to be exceptions, though.

So... just trying to understand. According to the "character cloud" interpretation, does that mean that if you shoot say, a fireball, into a melee, or just on the side of a melee, if one of the opponents is in the area of effect, then everyone in the melee is subject to the fireball's damage?

Doesn't that increase the spells' areas of effect tremendously?