I strongly disagree, because it makes 'disengaging' a pointless action. In a combat you always have the option of continuing to fight, hoping you can defeat your opponent so you can then walk away. The whole point of disengaging or fleeing is to increase your survival chances because continuing to fight is likely to lead to your defeat. If your opponent can continue to use their Close Combat as before, you have not increased your survival chances. In fact, if your Run Fast is smaller than your Close Combat, as is likely to be the case, you have decreased your survival chances. The Narrator must either require your opponent to select a different ability (my preference) or impose a hefty improvisational penalty (what Charles suggested), if disengaging is to be a practical option. I want it to be a practical option.
...
> but if you do not disengage first then your opponent
> should be able to use his close combat (he tries to cut you down as
> you flee) which I think was at the heart of Benedicts' point.
...
Err, no.
'The best defence against a nuclear weapon is not to be there when it goes off'. Your opponent might be deadly accurate with his sword, but if you have already run out of reach (but not yet fully escaped the combat), his skill is no good. If you have started to run, your opponent must 'Run Fast' after you too, if they are to be able to strike you.
I can see why a 'Strike Quickly' ability (and, by extension, a Close Combat ability with a hefty penalty) might be useful to try to hit someone trying to disengage or flee. But bear in mind that the attempt to flee or disengage could take several rounds (it's still an extended contest). I don't understand how the Narrator could allow it after the first round of disengaging.
Powered by hypermail