Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 2032119" data-attributes="member: 812">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.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.That's a great idea.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.Using Jump for, er, jumping. Good thinking. I should have thought of that.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 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.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.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.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I'm very grateful for the questions. I hope you find the rules worthwhile and have fun running chases in your games.(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!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification