Ye Olde Gaming Companye

[Dartavian]

Jimmy,

I am considering integrating Tactical Advantage into the combat system. Due to the fact an opponent that is surrounded may be easier to hit and damage. This is a rule we have used in other systems that has worked quite well.

Tactical Advantage: +1 to hit and +1 to damage per additional opponent attacking a single defender melee combat. Tactical Advantage may only be obtained by the attackers if the defender is the same or less size factor. (Same size factor includes any opponent that is within 3’ in height of the individual) Multiple gnomes (height: 2’ 5”) attacking a human (height: 6’) would not get the bonus due to the size differential.

These bonuses only apply for the current initiative and will be calculated on the initiative count when the attack is attempted.

Bonus to hit and damage modifiers:

2 Attackers: +2 to hit and +2 to damage
3 Attackers: +3 to hit and +3 to damage
4 Attackers: +4 to hit and +4 to damage

And so on +1 to hit and +1 to damage for each additional attacker.

Let me know what you think?
_________________
Dartavian

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein

[TheLurkerBelow]

Dartavian,

Stay with me here a moment as I try and link with Jimmy so I can channel his most appropriate response....here he comes.

"Seems like it could add an exciting element of gameplay but I would advise caution. I'm certain you are not the kind of GM that would do this, but it could lead to a GM abusing his PCs using only a few dozen peasants and then laughing at them because they couldn't overcome some random chumps."

Yea, I completely agree with Jimmy, no way our fabulous, and let me reiterate that, totally awesome and fabulous GM, would ever consider such vile behavior.

TLB
_________________
gurgle gurgle

[JimLeCat]

I don't know what Jimmy will say, but my first reaction is that while the idea sounds interesting, I think you're perhaps being too generous.

First off, how many attackers could effectively engage one opponent at a time? I would tend to say about 4, assuming the sizes of both are roughly the same.

Secondly, unless they've trained together, aren't the attackers likely to get in each others' way?

Personally, I'd be inclined to say the first has to be a matter for the GM's judgement, but for the latter I'd say that the bonus the attackers get is no higher than the lowest Weapon Mastery skill they possess between them. That way, a bunch of peasants are no more dangerous than by virtue of their numbers (which is bad enough!), but two or three trained warriors are a lot more dangerous...

Cheers,
Jim

[JimmySwill]

Very interesting. I would like to sleep on this before I commit to anything, but here's my first impression: Seems like it could add an exciting element of gameplay but I would advise caution... -Just kidding Lurker.

I think it's a very interesting idea, and it does make sense. Personally, I draw the line at 6 opponents of similar size (Whirlwind Attack tops out at 6) able to engage in melee in a single round. Since combat is chaotic and moving, -to me it's a mixture of both limited space and timing. What I am not clear on, is: Are you considering Tactical Advantage to be a discipline, or simply a basic combat rule?

If it were a basic combat rule, I think I would have it kick in if there were more than 3 opponents. However, there are a few considerations. Such as: Do all opponents need to be present at the same time? What if another opponent rushes into the combat during the same round? Does this opponent share the advantage, or add to the advantage of attackers that follow in the same round? For these reasons, I'd really like to think this over.

Your method is pretty straight-forward Dartavian, which I like.

My gut feeling is to give the attackers a bonus for the 4th, 5th and 6th melee opponent attack in the same round. Maybe +2, +4 and +6 to-hit. Or, even more simply +3 to-hit for all. I can see the argument that it is easier to inflict damage and that this would help weak attackers like peasants, but I'd like to keep it as simple as possible. I would also want Tactical Advantage to only start after 3 attackers, so that it didn't happen all the time.

I do want to think on this some more, however. These are great ideas, guys. WGJ3 is going to be good.
_________________
Take a page out of the Unicorn Bible and dance all night by the Light of the Dragon's flame. -Champions of Breakfast

[Dartavian]

First off Lurker, you have to admit seeing Ivan confronted by a mob of peasants, clearly overwhelmed then fleeing down the street screaming like a scared little school girl would be freaking hilarious. I was going to use Legar as the example but he rarely ventures out alone and would simply hamstring anyone with him so he could make a valiant escape and bring about a violent retribution on said offenders at a latter time & date of his chosing.

Jimlecat if you use combat hexes (which we do) we are miniature junkies, you can get 6 opponents on one character. Grid maps would allow for up to 8.

The attackers must be in base to base contact and may be cancelled out by an ally if that ally is in base to base with the attacker.

We also allow for an "attack of opportunity" if an opponent willing moves out of base to base combat.

Jimmy I would add it as a basic combat rule, I do like your idea of it being applicable with more than three opponents and simply giving each opponent that has the tactical advantage a +3 to hit and +3 to damage. Tactical advantage would be conditionally applied during the phase of initiative in which an actual attack takes place. This would definitely simplify the “Tactical Advantage” rule.

Example: 4 opponents’ vs.1 defender

Attacker # 1 Initiative 9 +3 to hit +3 to damage
Attacker # 2 Initiative 7 +3 to hit +3 to damage
Defender Initiative 6, hits attacker #3 killing him.
Attacker # 3 Initiative 4 Dead
Attacker # 4 Initiative 3 Tactical Advantage lost no bonus to hit or damage

Thanks
_________________
Dartavian

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein

[Gregory Vrill]

Lurker, if you just made that up and aren't actually quoting Swill, that's fantastic and spot-on.

I agree- first off, it's pretty difficult for more than two or three attackers to team up on a single combatant... four max in an unarmed pile-on, and if people are swinging swords and such, no. I like the weapon mastery req, but that still might be another calculation that slows things down.

For these reasons, the 'bonus to hit' in reality is probably a U-shaped function, where after a certain number of extra attackers, you're likely to get a penalty to hit, rather than a bonus, unless you don't mind hitting one of your friends instead.

Simple solution is two rules: 1) no more than 4-on-1, and 2) if your target is distracted, for any reason- including having more than one enemy to attend to, all attackers get a +2 bonus to hit.
_________________
The GM is your friend.

[JimmySwill]

I'm going with the +3 to-hit for attackers 4, 5 and 6.
_________________
Take a page out of the Unicorn Bible and dance all night by the Light of the Dragon's flame. -Champions of Breakfast

[Gregory Vrill]

The main thing I'm worried about here is what this means for combat as it would really unfold.

There's already an implicit tactical advantage to be gained by pile-on- you remove opponents quicker. Every GM knows this, and I think the best GMs try to moderate things by distributing opponents across all PCs, so that each PC feels challenged, and no single PC feels isolated and in extreme danger.

I remember a group of PCs, 8 of them, charging into a room full of guards, like 20 guards. No problem. Except I had the guard captain suddenly point at one of the PCs right before combat began, having all his guys aim their crossbows at that certain lucky PC, announcing "If you come in here, I don't care what happens, but that guy is dead."

I never saw such a look on all my players' faces before. They looked at their friend and were like 'screw this', and backed down.

...

Basically what I'm saying is that building in mechanics like tactical advantage enable this sort of behavior, meaning that combat becomes more PC lethal, as GMs feel inclined- or responsible- for piling on NPCs onto single PCs.
_________________
The GM is your friend.

[Dartavian]

I view it as adding an element of danger in certain circumstances. An experienced character is less likley to take chances when they are clearly out numbered even by the lowly town guard, local militia, patrol of maurading gnoles etc.

Basically taking undo risk against overwhelming odds would not be advised. I think tactical advantage would promote a strategical and tactical element that could enhance melee combat.

Could it be abused by a GM? Certainly, however on the flip side players would equally bennefit from the ruling as well. "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!"
_________________
Dartavian

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein

[JimmySwill]