Knights & Knaves Alehouse

No - AOE is still a volume of space, it's still Newtonian physics, whereas the melee abstraction has become a matter of quarks & eigenvalues! I think the concept model helps when applied to conceiving of placement in melee, not so much as a definition of what melee "means" to the environment it takes place in.

Odhanan wrote: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?

This is an interesting question, because during any period of time inside a round the PC and monster will be within an area rather then a fixed position (indicated on the table by the fig). Its impossible to say in any one round how big or small that cloud may be or when during that round a character will be on the extreme edge or in the center.

You have to fall back to using the PC and monster "holders" as the average location. So, if on the table you have a fire ball spell go off, those pieces that lie just outside that area of effect (even by a foot) are OK because on average they are out of it (even though during that round its possible that the combatants may have stumbled into that area for a few seconds). At least this is the easiest and most logical way to handle it and how I've always seen it done. And probably why people confuse 1E figs in combat as fixed things (ala 3E) rather then moving around for a full minute and those figs just being approximate.

AxeMental wrote:You have to fall back to using the PC and monster "holders" as the average location. So, if on the table you have a fire ball spell go off, those pieces that lie just outside that area of effect (even by a foot) are OK because on average they are out of it (even though during that round its possible that the combatants may have stumbled into that area for a few seconds). At least this is the easiest and most logical way to handle it and how I've always seen it done. And probably why people confuse 1E figs in combat as fixed things (ala 3E) rather then moving around for a full minute and those figs just being approximate.

This was exactly my thinking (although this seems to be the "characters get individual average positions in melee" approach).

Odhanan wrote: 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?

Yeah, that does not seem right to me. If models are attacked only based on their average position it makes better sense for saving throws to me.

Because of the simultaneous "cloud" and "non-dimensional" nature of AD&D melee everybody in the melee is considered to have the same "average position" -- a non-dimensional point in the center of the cloud. So it's not a case of one participant in the combat having an average position 3' from the center of the cloud, another 7' and 90 degrees clockwise, etc.; once they're engaged in melee together their assumed position all moves to the center of the melee-cloud and, I would say, if the AOE of a spell or effect includes that point then everybody is affected, if it doesn't then nobody is, even if the AOE included a large chunk of the melee-cloud space (though I could see handling this another way -- if the AOE includes more than, say, 25% of the melee-space then everybody must make a saving throw but with a bonus (and/or a successful save = no damage instead of 1/2) and spells/effects that don't normally grant a save (e.g. Sleep) would get a save in this circumstance; that would work, but is an extra level of complication that might not be necessary).

Hm. I'm not sure I'm liking the implications of this. I see the logic of it, and it makes sense, but it's a whole another layer of abstraction I'm not sure everyone would go for. It feels like the opposite extreme from square-counting to me, where your position on the battlefield no longer matters for the sake of combat abstraction. I'm not sure that'd make the game more fun to play for me and my buddies.

EDIT/Addendum: I do think it's worth a try, however. I can see this working with simple sheets of paper/white-erase board/maps, indicating clusters of enemies in melee and the like.

T. Foster wrote:Because of the simultaneous "cloud" and "non-dimensional" nature of AD&D melee everybody in the melee is considered to have the same "average position" -- a non-dimensional point in the center of the cloud.

This is the thing that's bothering me, as it could mean getting some nifty little towers to stack miniatures at a single point on your tabletop. That just wouldn't look very cool.

It seems very apparent that some positioning and facing should be considered after melee begins, else why would the rules make mention of (for example) flanking to negate a shield benefit?

I figure that, given individual average positions, it makes sense if you are (on average) to someone's flank, you get to make your attack roll assuming your positioning is as such.

The downside is that miniatures or markers become practically necessary, and it is possible for you to be in melee range of someone who is already in melee, without being yourself in melee range of that character's opponent. I think that makes sense, but there are opinions to the contrary.

This line of thinking is what led me to wonder how the details of shifting your average position or facing might be handled, once melee range has been achieved, even if it has taken half the thread to solidify and express what I was really talking about. These issues never used to bother me, but I'd like give miniatures a go without screwing up the game's assumptions.

Random wrote:This is the thing that's bothering me, as it could mean getting some nifty little towers to stack miniatures at a single point on your tabletop. That just wouldn't look very cool.

Since AD&D combat isn't designed for miniatures, this isn't an issue. The cloud and dimensionless abstractions work for a generalized imagining of the scene, not for placing figures on a table. It's one thing to say the party encounters the monsters from 5" away; it's quite another to believe that the dozen hobgoblins they encountered are all 5" away. But when dealing with melee, there is no reason why those dozen monsters can't all close on the party and engage in a single mass melee, provided there is enough room in the area. The abstraction only applies to combat; it doesn't apply to things like how many combatants can stand abreast in a corridor, or how many monsters will fill a room, or how to get a 50'-long dragon in a 10'x10' room.

Using miniatures really requires adjusting the rules to take the more fixed positions of the figures into account. (Hint: use Chainmail.)

It seems very apparent that some positioning and facing should be considered after melee begins, else why would the rules make mention of (for example) flanking to negate a shield benefit?

When you face one enemy, you face him directly. When you face two enemies, one will be in front, the other will be on your shield front flank. If you face three, the first two are as before, and the third will face your weapon-side front flank. And so on. You can always turn to face enemies, but with enough of them you can't put them all in convenient positions. If you face six of them, some of them will be attacking you from behind.

Stormcrow wrote:When you face one enemy, you face him directly. When you face two enemies, one will be in front, the other will be on your shield front flank. If you face three, the first two are as before, and the third will face your weapon-side front flank. And so on. You can always turn to face enemies, but with enough of them you can't put them all in convenient positions. If you face six of them, some of them will be attacking you from behind.

Fair enough. I haven't read that section recently (I haven't been near my books).

Storm Crow (or anyone) do you know if the DMG addresses how to deal with lateral movement during combat (ie slowly moving in one direction to gain some sort of advantage in a future round)? For instance, a PC is batteling 2 orcs in the middle of a room. He sees a narrow corridor leaving the room 10 feet away, and thinks if he can get to it he can position himself so only one orc can attack him at a time rather then both. The corridor is to his back and 10 feet away. Would the PC be able to slowly start backing toward that corridor (so the next round he might be inside it) or is that sort of controlled movement not allowed (if not why)?

AxeMental wrote:Storm Crow (or anyone) do you know if the DMG addresses how to deal with lateral movement during combat (ie slowly moving in one direction to gain some sort of advantage in a future round)?

It does not deal with such movement. The particular situation you describe can be handled by a withdrawal maneuver, especially if the doorway is more than 1" distant. Whether a character can take advantage of a tactical terrain feature already within melee range depends on the ruling of the DM; the DMG is silent on this.

Stormcrow wrote:It does not deal with such movement. The particular situation you describe can be handled by a withdrawal maneuver, especially if the doorway is more than 1" distant. Whether a character can take advantage of a tactical terrain feature already within melee range depends on the ruling of the DM; the DMG is silent on this.

Consider this: Three orcs are trying to, rather than slay a fighter outright, press him back until he either topples over a nearby cliff, or has to give them an advantage due to his restricted movement.

Would it be best to rule that the fighter can always easily stand his ground unless his player chooses to withdraw? Then again, orcs aren't exactly weaklings and they do outnumber him.

[In game terms: The orcs want to move the entire melee some short distance over the course of the round. The fighter wants the fighting to stay right where it is. If the DMG doesn't cover this, how would you rule?]

(I see that Axe gave an example, but it's different as it doesn't involve a compulsory movement; i.e., one group pushing another group.)

I would either wing it, or use something based on the weaponless combat rules for overbearing.

My view: Don't sweat the details -- except when they are particularly important.

Is there some formation, terrain or other reason a guy can't block a blow from his right? Then his shield is outflanked. If it's a whirling melee, in which we don't know precise facing at precise moment, then the shield applies to up to X attacks per round per the PHB. Enemies coming up 180 degrees from those on which somebody is concentrating get the benefit of rear attack.

"I'm gonna stand fast in the doorway." Okay. Maybe some short-sword wielder will get past your spear point, and you'll have quickly to back up, choke up, or switch weapons. If that comes up, we'll deal with it.

If nobody has specified anything but joining a melee, then everybody is in the melee. It's a phenomenon over here, and over there is another melee. There's potentially a 30' diameter roiling mass centered on guy B, edges overlapping into melee zones A and C.

We could pick some other focal point (such as wherever a spell hits) and get another circle. "Silence 15' Radius, the edge just inside of where our guy is standing in the doorway."

A lot of dungeon rooms, though, are just big enough for one melee.

Basically linear features -- a wall, a trench, a tree line -- can define positions.

On initiative: Most of the time, it doesn't matter who strikes 1st, 2nd or 24th. It's just hit points ticked off that would be the same any which way.

Whether magic spells are interrupted tends to be the big issue, and the 1st ed. AD&D books plus all the contradictory things "Gary said" leave it a potentially contentious one. Just have a clear rule, whatever it is, and players can get on with using it to assess tactics.