Movement in Melee

[Random]

Okay, this line of thinking was provoked by a certain Dragonsfoot thread, but I figure you guys could give a more thoughtful answer.

Let's say two fighters are more than ten feet away from each other at the beginning of combat, and that they decide to close to striking range during the first round. Now, this means that they move until they are at most ten feet away (so far as I can tell).

But, can they move closer? Can they move, perhaps, to be only five feet from each other instead? This seems reasonable if both fighters desire, but what if one is wielding a long sword and the other a glaive? Obviously, the guy with the glaive would prefer the additional space.

If some movement is assumed in the one-minute combat round, this could include both forward and backward movement, so perhaps the guy with the long sword could advance to five feet, but the glaive-wielder would be assumed to step back a wee bit before attacking.

I'm not sure how to explain this situation, as it seems silly to have strange ten-foot gaps, but it seems also odd if all combats might turn into wrestling matches.

Why bother when this is all supposed to abstract, you say?

I figure it might be important when considering the area of effect for certain spells, and also for determining how far some third fighter must move to enter the melee (i.e., he must stop no farther than ten feet from someone already involved in the melee).

For example:

Fighter 1
(ten feet)
Fighter 2
(seventy feet)
Fighter 3 with a movement rate of 6, advancing to close on Fighter 2

[He can arrive this round without charging.]

OR

Fighter 1
(five feet)
Fighter 2
(seventy-five feet)
Fighter 3 with a movement rate of 6, advancing to close on Fighter 2

[He cannot arrive this round without charging.]

As a related question, should mass melee be a big brawl with totally random targets, or should more precise positioning be considered, allowing participants to strike only those others who are less than ten feet away (but be otherwise random is this regard)?

For a particular case, can Fighter 3 in the first example above, assuming no further movement (by any combatant) after closing, attack Fighter 1 or Fighter 2 (since those guys are in melee together), or can he only attack Fighter 2? The former seems easier to manage, but could lead to absurdity in contrived circumstances.

[Matthew]

But, can they move closer? Can they move, perhaps, to be only five feet from each other instead? This seems reasonable if both fighters desire, but what if one is wielding a long sword and the other a glaive? Obviously, the guy with the glaive would prefer the additional space.

Yes, I would say so, though there is not too much point as far as I can tell.

As a related question, should mass melee be a big brawl with totally random targets, or should more precise positioning be considered, allowing participants to strike only those others who are less than ten feet away (but be otherwise random is this regard)?

For a particular case, can Fighter 3 in the first example above, assuming no further movement (by any combatant) after closing, attack Fighter 1 or Fighter 2 (since those guys are in melee together), or can he only attack Fighter 2? The former seems easier to manage, but could lead to absurdity in contrived circumstances.

That is how I ran the last combat we played, and it was a lot of fun, but there were some issues with one of the player characters being invisible.

[T. Foster]

You're looking at it wrong -- don't think of every figure as having a specific position and a 10' zone of control, think of each figure as being sort of a 10' radius "cloud" -- over the course of each minute-long melee round the character can be anywhere (and everywhere) within that space, so exact positioning is irrelevant (and undefinable). A character doesn't start out 73' from an opponent and advance to be 2' away, he starts out approx. 70' away and advances to be "within 10 feet." And yes, by extension this pretty much means within 10' of whoever that opponent is already within 10' of -- if character A is in melee range of character B and character C closes on character A then he's also de facto within melee range of character C as well because characters A & B were already floating around within the same melee range cloud-space and now character C is in that space as well. This is how you get mass melees where who's attacking who on any given round is determined by die roll rather than deliberate choice.

[Benoist]

Oooh. That's an interesting take, Trent. I didn't think of it that way.

[Philotomy Jurament]

That's how I approach 1e combat, too (and one of the reasons I think 1e combat rules are so well suited to running combat when you're not using minis). The only other thing to consider is that position is cloudy unless it's fixed. That is, sometimes movement is constrained: a fighting man holding a doorway, a fight in a 5' wide corridor, et cetera. But even then the 1 min round and level of abstraction gives the DM enough wiggle room to make it work.

[Random]

Trent, it's likely not that I'm looking at it "wrong," it's that I think of the abstraction a bit differently (which I consider warranted under the vague description in the rules).

I consider a specific fixed position (the location of a miniature) to be the average position of the corresponding melee combatant during a round of fighting (while he is really fighting around a bit within a cloud as you put it, which is exactly what the rules say), and this is the location I use for spell AoE and such.

So when I say "can they move closer," I mean "can their average positions change to be closer, possibly affecting interaction with forces outside the melee?"

And, surely all melee does not occur within perfect little ten-foot clouds, regardless of the number of participants. That's just melee range, right?

(This doesn't quite jive with the long sword and glaive example. Apologies for that. But it makes sense for the rest. I suppose it's that I consider position fixed until melee begins. That's the issue there. Still, for the sword and glaive, a shorter average position would still be unfavorable for the guy with the glaive.)

[Random]

don't think of every figure as having a specific position and a 10' zone of control, think of each figure as being sort of a 10' radius "cloud" -- over the course of each minute-long melee round the character can be anywhere (and everywhere) within that space, so exact positioning is irrelevant (and undefinable).

---by extension this pretty much means within 10' of whoever that opponent is already within 10' of -- if character A is in melee range of character B and character C closes on character A then he's also de facto within melee range of character C as well because characters A & B were already floating around within the same melee range cloud-space and now character C is in that space as well.

Also, which is it, are characters like clouds, or are melees like clouds?

---

Apologies for bringing up this age-old topic by the way. I was mostly curious how (after closing) if further movement could make a difference in the cases mentioned above (spells or more closers).

[Benoist]

That's how I approach 1e combat, too (and one of the reasons I think 1e combat rules are so well suited to running combat when you're not using minis).

Heh. I guess it's the type of rules that I like to use with miniatures because then that doesn't devolve into square counting and other such metagame BS. Basically you've got the base visual representation and eye candy, but you use them as springboard for your imagination rather than the purpose of the game itself.

[Random]

That's how I approach 1e combat, too (and one of the reasons I think 1e combat rules are so well suited to running combat when you're not using minis).

Heh. I guess it's the type of rules that I like to use with miniatures because then that doesn't devolve into square counting and other such metagame BS. Basically you've got the base visual representation and eye candy, but you use them as springboard for your imagination rather than the purpose of the game itself.

They aren't just for eye candy; they also make sure no one has a horrible misperception about what is going on. But yeah, it's not that strict or anything.

[AxeMental]

A minute is a long time. For "realism" (even with all the fainting, skirmishing, posturing, blocking, backing up, etc.) its probably a bit too long (when you figure average battle length is over 5 rounds). Still, from what P&P mentioned yesterday on another thread about posturing, perhaps not. The thing is, once two opponents are within striking range (within 10 feet) with hand held weapons, they are effectively "locked". All that means is that to leave that "cloud" as Foster put it, you have to either turn and flee, allowing the opponent an extra strike, or get reinforcements to help you disengage (because the guy your fighting is out to kill you and isn't going to just let you leave).

I see the cloud this way: imagine setting up a tripod and camera and photographing two people fighting at a distance of 30 feet, and leaving the shutter open a full minute, and pretend the film doesn't get over exposed, that blurry area where they moved threw would be the cloud. Sometimes they would be touching face to face, other times jumping back at perhaps slightly more then 10 feet but only briefly. Now its possible the two (or more) could move (as a pair) within the room a greater distance then 10 feet (say the PC wants to carefully back up while the orc is pressing during combat, to gain some sort of advantage for the following round...say slowly moving to a narrow passage off the main room. The orc may be able to stop that progression by blocking him (seeing what the fighter is up to), and the fighter attempting this may trip so its risky (depending on conditions). The DM will likely role saves of some sort, or hand wave it. I'm not sure what distance such a dance pair could move in a single direction within a minute inside an open room perhaps the DMG states this (I'm sure it depends on the conditions), certainly more then 10 feet in a single direction (if successful and conditions allow) but less then their movment rate (because they have to consentrate on not being killed, doding assumed blows etc.).

As far a entering other peoples 10 foot spheres, yes, once you have entered within melee range its a new opponent (assuming they are free to engage you hand to hand), and your locked (say two orcs now) for that and future rounds (meaning to leave that "combat group" you have to flee (slowly backing up isn't fast enough) and open yourself to a free attack by both unless you get help from comrads to cover your retreat). Note, if one of the orcs wish to flee you would also get a free attack at them (unless the other orc is able to block his escape, a DMs call....if I remember correctly. Thats how we do it anyway).

The miniature combat systems of games like 3E don't apply. It might appear that way because of the use of figurines in 1E. But those are just place holders for order and approximate location within a space (that sphere).

[Random]

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.)

[Random]

Also, with the notion that figures are anywhere and everywhere in some little ten-foot circle, what of breaking away? If position is totally arbitrary at that point, what's to keep someone from bolting in any old direction?

Given some recent words by P&P about actual combat (circling and whatnot) this might well be the case, but what if you're trying to prevent someone from spinning you around like that? What if you want to always be facing (essentially) a certain direction?

[ScottyG]

Then the DM adjudicates; it's part of the job. No rule will work in every situation. You would use what's there as a guide, apply a hefty dose of common sense, and make a ruling.

[Ragnorakk]

Then the DM adjudicates; it's part of the job. No rule will work in every situation. You would use what's there as a guide, apply a hefty dose of common sense, and make a ruling.

I agree, and I think that Foster meant that the combatants are like clouds, not the melee itself - I could be wrong.

In the end I think it would be up to you to make a ruling that satisfies your own interests in this case - a fighter wanting to get in for close-fighting vs. a spear carrier could be handled only in a narrative sense, or you could give the spear carrier a saving roll to keep the stabber at bay, etc - it just depends on how granular you feel like taking it.

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

[Stormcrow]

All that means is that to leave that "cloud" as Foster put it, you have to either turn and flee, allowing the opponent an extra strike, or get reinforcements to help you disengage (because the guy your fighting is out to kill you and isn't going to just let you leave).

I'd like to point out that the text in the Players Handbook about fleeing melee doesn't say anything about an extra attack. It says "it exposes the character to rear attack at the time," but that "subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow..."

Exactly how this is handled in the combat sequence is unspecified and unclear. This is especially true since the Dungeon Masters Guide doesn't mention anything about parrying, falling back, or fleeing. A sensible interpretation would be that a fleeing character doesn't actually disengage from the melee until the beginning of his next turn, and any attacker has only one chance to strike him. 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.

Examples (In round 1, A has initiative B reacts, all engaged):

Round 1
A1: Attack B1
A2: Flee
B1: Attack A1
B2: Rear attack A2
Round 2 (A has initiative)
A1: Attack
A2 (disengaged)

Round 1
A1: Attack B1
A2: Flee
B1: Attack A1
B2: Rear attack A2
Round 2 (B has initiative)
B1: Attack A1
B2: Attack A1
A2 disengaged

Round 1
A1: Attack B1
A2: Attack B2
B1: Attack A1
B2: Flee
Round 2 (A has initiative)
A1: Attack B1
A2: Rear attack B2
B2 disengaged

Round 1
A1: Attack B1
A2: Attack B2
B1: Attack A1
B2: Flee
Round 2 (B has initiative)
B2 disengaged

As you can see, this leaves something to be desired in the case of the fleer losing initiative in the round he flees, and gaining initiative in the subsequent round.

This becomes much easier if you adopt the rule from the Basic D&D rules that says one must declare defensive movement prior to the initiative roll. There is still no "free attack"; you just know whether you'll be attacking head-to-head or from the rear. In this case disengagement occurs at the start of the subsequent round.

Round 1
A2 declares flee
A1: Attack B1
A2: Flee
B1: Attack A1
B2: Rear attack A2
Round 2
A2 disengaged

Round 1
B2 declares flee
A1: Attack B1
A2: Rear attack B2
B1: Attack A1
B2: Flee
Round 2
B2 disengaged