Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6886103" data-attributes="member: 42582">The parting shots are free - that's in the passage I quoted. I think it gets the free routine against both (no "free action" limit).The troll can engage both fighters, because the MM expressly says that trolls can split their attacks. Does that imply that monsters/characters without that sort of text (which is most of them) can't engage multiple foes? Dunno. My gut feel is that the troll text implies no multi-targeting from C/C/B-type routines. But fighter multiple attacks are clearly meant to allow multi-targeting. Which presumably implies multi-engaging? But then there is also the text in the obscure passage about singling out opponents (plural) and remaining locked in melee until one side is dead. That suggests that all adjacent figures are engaged, even if you can't attack them all.I don't see how missile fire can help "cover a retreat" - unless the opponent chooses not to pursue because they take cover instead.If you disengage and aren't faster and the enemy pursues then confrontation ensues (per the evasion rules) - you will once again become "locked in melee" if the pursuer wins initiative, but if you get first initiative you can avoid again. I actually think that's not a terrible system for doing chases - better than 3E/4e (putting skill challenges to one side), because there isn't the problem that if you double move you can auto-outrun someone trying to attack you, but equally there's no auto-catch if movement rates are equal because you have to maintain pace and win initiative.I don't think it's going to win any design awards, but as I said I think it's not terrible.I agree with all this.I don't have the con experience, but again I agree this is unclear because if they are just moving around rather than through than they don't get "locked in melee". The rules have a "close to striking range option" but no "move past opponent without entering melee option", which is what your bridge example involves.In practice, I would expect most GMs to allow the bridge defenders to declare as their action "We hold the bridge and attack anyone who tries to pass" and as long as the people trying to pass come within 10' then they count as having close to striking range and we're now "locked in melee". Per the rules, no attack rolls would be possible at that point and we need to roll initiative to see who gets to attack first. But I suspect that most GMs (probably including me back when I used to run this system!) would allow the defenders to make their declared attacks, which would trigger complaints from the players of the character trying to move around, and thus would another AD&D-rules-dispute-at-the-table be born . . .</blockquote>

Verification