Cut To The Chase

[Berandor]

I just noticed that in the example after the manuevers, the hobgoblin gets a +10 on his "Join" roll for the Head'em Off maneuver, while the maneuver itself says +5.

 

[Berandor]

Keep in mind you're talking about people travelling AT LEAST eleven miles an hour (more than 20 squares, or 100 feet every six seconds). I mean, they're not jogging here. They're flat-out. I think that if you're going full steam and you collide with something, you're going to take a fair bit of hurt.

Yeah, but other humans will probably just stumble/fall out of the way, lessening the impact.

Anyway, I'll finish reading the book on my commute (I guess), and am looking forward to it. I hope you enjoyed Ong Bak.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think I'll change a few things for my foot chase. You recommend using simple Str checks. I fear that some DCs will quickly become too hight for that.

You could be right about that. I'd certainly allow the use of things like Jump or Climb in foot chases. There's a lot of room to provide more detail and zest to foot chases. I kept it to a minimum because I thought that the vast majority of chases would be vehicle-based. I'm not so sure that's true anymore.

That would be Head'em off and Join, right. But even at walk speed, the DC to join at short range would be 25, or 20 with a Str check (and Speed Factor, and Dex) - quite hard.

Yeah, fair enough. Though it should be pretty hard to catch up with folks.

But I would certainly let a character make a great Jump check for Join. Or a Tumble check for Close/Lengthen, even.

Having just watched Ong Bak I'm pretty keyed up for pedestrian chases. I might just do a supplement for that.

Also, I'll probably make the character lose a range increment if he fails a crash check, since you can't lose control of yourself.

That's a great idea.

I'll also treat a fruit cart (gotta have one) as a moat since you can't really plow through with your frail human body, but jumping it could be done. Hitting it might give up to 8d8 points of damage! (Large, cruising speed in open alley)

Somebody's got to be moving pretty fast if they're hitting Cruising speed. That's a speed of 250ft! Sure, some high-level monks can hit speeds in excess of that, but they're not likely to fail a Crash check, either.

I'll likely substitute skill checks for simply attribute checks.For example, Jump for Jumping the fruit cart.

Using Jump for, er, jumping. Good thinking. I should have thought of that.

The "Lose 'em" Manoever doesn't list a range. If it can be done at any range, it strikes me as a better choice than Escape almost always. Am I missing something?

Sorry, that's my mistake. The Range is indeed "Any", as is listed in table 5-1. It is almost NEVER a better choice than Escape IF you happen to be at Extreme range, because a successful Escape maneuver ENDS the chase. A successful Lose 'Em manuever puts opponents out of the chase, but they can attempt a Join maneuver next round if at least one of their fellows is still in pursuit, or if they have an ally directing them. Of course, if you're up against unobservant doofuses, then yes, Lose 'Em is the way to go. Although not so much if you're in Open terrain, a -10 is a pretty painful penalty.

The Breakaway maneuver lists the DC as 20, while the example gives us a DC of 15 (earlier in the book). Which is correct? (Again, I think 20 will be quite hard to make in a footrace, so careening into a narrow alley would be *tough*)

The example is incorrect. Nice catch, thanks. The correct DC is 20. It SHOULD be tough, I think. I'd let a player use Tumble for this manuever on foot, I think.

What is the reaction roll of "Damn the torpedoes"?

That's a mistake. There should be no Reaction Roll for "Damn the Torpedoes". Also, the section "Special" in that manuever should be disregarded. The manuever mechanic was changed partway through development and the change didn't get fully put in place. My bad.

Anyway, I guess what this shows is that D&D is not too suited for foot chases.

I disagree, actually. I think these rules aren't fully developed for foot chases, but I think the basic principles apply just fine. There's some work to do, for sure, but I think it would work out great.

Last question: How would you handle speeding alongside a train, trying to overtake it, and crossing the rails just in time? Would you treat the train as an obstacle? Or as another participant (since it wouldn't make any checks, speeding past it should be automatic)? What maneuver would get you past the train?

I think I would treat the train as an obstacle, and create a sliding scale for the heroes. If they go in front of it right away, it's easier for the bad guys to do the same. If they leave it to the last minute, not so much.

I would set something up where the first round, the Drive DC to cut in front of the train is 15 or so, and say that it increases for pursuers by 5 at each range increment they are from the pursued. Each round the starting DC increases by 5, so if the heroes can succeed at a couple of Close/Lengthens, keep the bad guys at Medium range, they can scoot across with a DC of 25 while the baddies face a DC of 35. I see squished bad guys.

I realize these may be hard questions, but I hope you don't mind, anyway.

I'm very grateful for the questions. I hope you find the rules worthwhile and have fun running chases in your games.

in the example after the manuevers, the hobgoblin gets a +10 on his "Join" roll for the Head'em Off maneuver, while the maneuver itself says +5.

(Edit) Actually, on review I don't think that IS an error -- I think that what's happening there is that the DM says the hobgoblin gets a +10 on that check -- that is, his TOTAL bonus is +10, not just the portion gained from the successful Head'em Off manuever. It's a bit unclear, I'll grant you. Sorry about that.

Thanks for pointing that stuff out -- Next time I'm running it past you BEFORE it goes to press!

 

[Berandor]

So, I'm through.

I realize now that I applied to "obstacle" too generous, i.e. a crowded street is crowded, but not necessarily full of obstacles every round.

I'll still likely change the speeds of the categories (as you suggest for air chases) because otherwise everybody would be at walk speed all the time

I'll probably change the "Head'Em Off" maneuver so that if you take it while in a chase, your "Join" maneuver starts at the previous range. if you start at medium range, for example, and just make the check, you're at medium again and lost two rounds of maneuvers. If you make the check at +5. you're now at short range, at +10 you're point blank, and at +15 you're even ahead and may try to form a barrier for the pursued next round. If you fail by -5, you're now at long range, by -10 you're at Extreme range, and at -15 you fail altogether.

I'd also allow mounts to jump barriers of up to their size (or one size smaller than them, not sure) because plowing though is a bad idea especially when you take double damage as rider

One more error I noticed:
The vehicle/mount tables give horses with maneuver bonus of 0, and carriages with -3 (or -4, not sure), while the example chase table has the carriage with 0 and the horses with +1.

 

[beverson]

how suitable would this be for a starship chase in a Future campaign?

 

[Desdichado]

Just picked up my copy too; congrats, Corey, on a well-done product!

 

[Berandor]

Re: Starships. I guess the rules'd work fine, there. You'll just have to interpret the maneuvers thematically appropriately. For example, Breakaway might mean diving into an asteroid field. But to quote the book:

In Outer Space
Honestly, you're kind of on your own here. Space is big. There's a lot of possibilities. No reason why these rules won't work just fine in space, but you're going to have to do a bit of the heavy lifting here. So much depends on your game's technology style, “scientific-ness” and other details that it's impossible to come up with all the alternatives here.

I think that's a little pessimistic, but I figure it's good to hear the author's opinion, anyway.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Just wanted to say, I picked it up and I've read about 10 pages and it looks great.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think that's a little pessimistic, but I figure it's good to hear the author's opinion, anyway.

I think you're interpreting LAZINESS as PESSIMISM.

It's not that I think it can't be done, it's just that I think it'll be more work than I'm willing to do just on the off-chance that my ideas will conform with yours.

I'm more than happy to act as a "Does this sound crazy" sort of bouncing board for ideas, though. I think if you imagine chases like the asteroid chase in Empire, you can pretty easily map Hot Pursuit rules to that.

 

[barsoomcore]

Oh, and in other news: I have word from Gareth at Adamant that they'll be releasing a corrected version very soon -- with updates to everyone who's already purchased a copy!

I think that most of the errors are pretty minor but they're exactly the sort of issues that drive me crazy so I'm very pleased we can offer such an improvement. Stay tuned and keep the "bug reports" coming in!

And like I say, I've got ideas for expansion products bubbling away in my head, so expect future releases on this topic.