So you're being your friends in a fight, and you want to move up. However, they're filling all of the open hexes between you and where you want to go.
As written, the GURPS movement rules allow you to move freely through a friendly-occupied hex.
Let's look at an ASCII-art example, since I'm way too lazy to set up minis and try to take good pictures.
That means you (u) can go from behind your friends a, b, c, d, e, and f here:
|00u|
|abc|
|def|
|000|
to in front of them here:
|000|
|abc|
|def|
|u00|
. . . as if the hallway was empty. You don't disrupt any of the actions or concentration of your friends. You don't disrupt the defense or offense of any of them, either. In fact, (c) can retreat from an attack immediately if that occurs - say, if you roll a critical failure and hit (c) by mistake.
I've always found that unlikely at best.
Evading Allies
I prefer to treat it as Evading (per Basic Set: Campaigns, p. 368).
Your ally doesn't have to oppose your attempt. However, if you come from behind your friend, you do have to evade normally - you can't automatically allow someone to pass you.
You roll DX; apply the modifiers normally.
For example - A is behind B. B wants to get in front. B must roll DX, -5 for foe standing up, +5 because you're standing. Failure means A is in the way, and you cannot pass. Critical failure means you bumped into your friend, putting one or both of you off-balance (1-3 you, 4-6 them). You're considered to be in the same hex as your friend, and behind him or her - your ally can't Retreat, or Step back.
Attempting "squeeze between" your friends is possible - that's what this represents. Your allies can move to let you aside - we treat that as a step, although you don't leave your hex. You just flatten against a wall, turn sideways, etc. This is not conducive to good defense - you defend at -2, and attack at -4.
Let me through! - Clever players will quickly say they're using voice coordination - "I say, 'Passing on the right'" "I'll let him by when I hear that." You can allow this - I generally do, but I require a Hearing roll and I require a turn of prep. With overlapping 1-second turns, you've got a fraction of a second to adjust to this request while executing everything else on your turn. Much like handing an item from one person to another, it takes time and coordination and isn't something you can execute in a fraction of a second.
This applies to NPCs, as well. Unintelligent ones will often fail to take advantage by attempting to rotating in fresh fighters to the front ranks, or pull out the wounded. Berserkers won't even try. Tactically sound folks will use it as best they can.
But often, the PCs have been able to keep a group of foes on their heels because wounded, stunned, or otherwise weakened front-rank foes aren't able to have friends rotate in for them. It's possible to trap someone against their own friends.
Without it, technically, you can fight in a one-hex wide corridor and have both sides constantly rotate in fresh fighters if they're not very closely pressed. I'm not saying anyone would allow a guy with Move 6 to run through 5 hexes of friends in a one-yard wide corridor, but it's at least possible (and automatic!) by the letter of the rules.
How is it in Actual Play?
This has worked well. I've had zero pushback on the rule. Occasionally questions about ability to move or not move in some fashion, yes. Actual disagreement with the play of the rule? None. Getting a 50/50 chance of passing your friend from behind without they even having to adjust to your movement seems reasonably and generous. So is the prohibition against getting through close combat. You could get through in a non-struggling situation given time, of course but when it's a struggle it's harder. You can push through a packed concert, but getting through an armed mosh pit without slowing down feels better with a lot of DX rolls, versus friend and foe alike.
Overall, I recommend this approach.
This rule is pretty simple and works great. It's also satisfying and doesn't require much willing suspension of disbelief as the default rule does.
ReplyDeleteThanks. It's really how we've run it, with occasional rulings that you just can't fit through - and we've never let anyone just "evade" past a front-line fighter who acted on their own turn.
DeleteIt does really seem like the rule, base or otherwise, needs a cumulative penalty or cost extra movement to pass through an occupied hex, or some combination of both. Having a swashbuckler with Move 7 and DX 15 running through 6 occupied hexes and coming out the other side, with a 95% chance of success on each and a cumulative ~73% chance of making all of those DX rolls does seem a bit much. Charging 2 per hex as you make lots of subtle adjustments and hesitations to dart through holes, or a cumulative -2 to Evade multiple times per second, would probably address that nicely. The 2 move cost probably is the easier way to go.
I thought moving through your friends cost an extra movement point
ReplyDeleteIf it does, I don't know where it says so in the rules.
DeleteDFE 35 under obstructions "Minor obstruction in hex (e.g., an ally, or a body on the
Deleteground): +1 movement point per hex."
I found that in Basic Set, eventually - p. B387.
DeleteEven so, I think it's inconsistently applied - Exploits p. 34 says it's an extra movement point to move through an ally, but it says it's not an extra movement point to move into a foe's hex - or to step out of it.
Evade should cost +1 movement point per hex in all cases as an ally shouldn't be more of an hindrance to movement speed than a foe is. If the intent is that it should cost +1 movement point to Evade, the wording in Exploits doesn't seem to go with that, and the wording in Basic Set doesn't even reference the "minor obstruction" cost at all when talking Evade.
I've been doing similar for a bit. I allow a 'no-roll required Evade with the Team Work Perk.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been causing Unbalancing, I just disallow the passing. On that, I'm not sure it's really "realistic" for Eugene Wizardly, the super-lightweight ST 8 Wizard with no armor to put Chad McKnight, the Knight with ST 20 and EpPic Hvy Plate off-balance.
I might instead allow the Evasion failure to be treated as a Slam, no damage, but the loser is unbalanced. Or they can chose to not pass.
In situations where unbalancing doesn't make sense for one combatant, apply it to the other. Where it doesn't apply to either, apply something else. It's just a critical failure effect, and like any others, can be adjusted to the situation. It should just be bad to try to move past your friend and fail very badly.
DeleteThis is nice. It fits into my old thought that movement could use some success rolls. Reasons were:
ReplyDelete1. I don't like how easy it is to just turn away from your foe and force them to either AoA or Move and Attack at 9 to hit you. It feels beyondd cinematic to me.
2. I was taught how to turn around quickly in combat. So I feel it's a skill.
Alas, my players weren't into adding complexity to movement.
I'm not sure I'd want to make success rolls for bunches of NPCs, either.
DeleteI rarely see a lot of the "back off and force a Move and Attack" action, though, because so many PCs have Move 3, so they're limited to 1 step backward no matter what they do.
I do agree that, in general, GURPS is very generous with movement.
I played move 3 once and hated it so much. So so so much. I can't believe most of your guys have it.
DeleteMove 3 is 'add bad footing or anything else that adds 1 to move cost and now you move a single hex'
Lifting ST is #1 on the most-requested off-template purchases, so people can lower their encumbrance and get out of Medium (0.6) which turns Basic Move 5-6 into Move 3. I don't allow it as an off-template purchase, so Move 3 it is.
DeleteYou can probably understand why some players who take the opposite approach - shirtless savage barbarians with Move 9, Swashbucklers buying up Basic Move, a Scout with Basic Move 11-12 and Move 8 or 9 - but they're ultimately held back by the guys with Medium or Heavy encumbrance moving at Move 3.
I think I've only seen Medium Encumbrance twice, it's something avoided like the plague. Light encumbrance is a sometimes accepted necessary evil.
Delete"I think I've only seen Medium Encumbrance twice, it's something avoided like the plague. Light encumbrance is a sometimes accepted necessary evil."
DeleteOn //my// characters I agree. But I'v seen Move 3 on so many sheets over the years... and since I'm mostly playing in message board games? The number of Move 3-4 I see is inflated, because it's 'harder' to run tactical map combats in msgboard games, most GMs skip it, and then they also tend to ignore things like Move until it's time to run away... and how often do PCs really ever run away? So it isn't the hindrance for those PCs it would be in a tactical map based game.
But for me? I still stick to a mostly hard line of "no lower than Move 5"*. In fact two characters were designed around Move 8+ (Jednesa the Ogress Wrestler is 8, Dilandua the Spear Fencer is 11). Only the heavy armored Holy Warrior drops to a 3 (but Plate and hvy sheild will do that to a warrior).
8 Because that's a Dodge of 8 with no benes, 10 with Retreating, so you at least have that 'back up' defense, 50/50 shot of not being hit in combat. And if you have Combat Reflexes and a shield? You're hitting 12-13 without any real weight drawbacks and that's not too shabby.
I don't think that explains the encumbrance love of Felltower since it seems pretty tactical map happy
DeleteI guess they figure an extra 40+ lbs of DR is better than 20% move and +1 dodge?
It's hard to be fast, lightly equipped, and able to deal with a lot of damage all at the same time. So generally people accept reduced move to be able to fight better when they arrive. Tactically, fighters have largely moved from "rush the enemy" to "wait for the enemy in hallways."
DeletePlus the wizards use Levitate a lot to move around, which is Move 3, so it's not like the group moves any faster. It's a self-reinforcing approach.