Multiple Opponents, again

[Jake Norwood]

Bet here's the problem:

I have 12 dice, you have 12.
I attack you with 3. You defend with 4. You atack with 8, I defend with 7 and pull it off. Now I get a 2-die freebie attack. you're dead.

OR

I have 12 dice, you have 12.
I attack you with 3. You defend with 4. You atack with 8, I defend with 7 and fail, taking no damage due to armor. You have initiative but I have dice left. Who attacks?

The rules say that after 2 exchanges any leftover dice are lost (unused, rather). This keeps things tidy. On the other hand, what you're describing coult be fun as a mook rule for more "cinematic" TROS.

Jake

[Valamir]

Ahhh...I see.

See I wasn't thinking of making it seperate exchanges.  It would still be the same exchange.  Only instead of rolling a 6 die attack, I'd roll two 3 die attacks.  And instead of defending with 8 dice you'd split your dice to match my attacks.  Then both attacks would be resolved.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

I always thought of dividing the dice pool against multiple opponents as an exploitation of openings and weaknesses since TROS combat timing is an abstraction of reality and not every fighter waits to the count of three to attack all at once, theres fractional openings between strikes and hits that can be used by splitting the pool. Example at .3 seconds I hit bob, then at .6 I hit joe, and at last 1.0 seconds I nail tom. Not that I somehow hit all of them at 1.0 seconds into the fight. If that makes sense.
In the end I side with jake 100% on this one.

[Valamir]

I don't follow:

. Example at .3 seconds I hit bob, then at .6 I hit joe, and at last 1.0 seconds I nail tom. Not that I somehow hit all of them at 1.0 seconds into the fight. If that makes sense.
In the end I side with jake 100% on this one.

How is that different from .3 seconds I hit bob, then at .6 I hit bob again, then at last 1.0 seconds I nail bob again.

Not seeing the distinction.

[Mike Holmes]

Example (12 CP each):

I divide into a 3 die attack and a 4 die attack. You defend with 2 dice and 3 dice respectively. We roll each, and you pull it off.

Then you attack with 5 dice and 2 dice. I defend with 4 dice and 1 die.

At no point does either player not know how many dice his opponent will have, and so does not have to fear "undefended" attacks. Isn't this the parallel of how it works with multiple opponents?

Mike

[Brian Leybourne]

Mike,

In the first exchange, lets say you made one successful attack and one unsuccessful (that I defended).

Who gets initiative in the second exchange? :-)

Brian.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

in my example if you hit bob at .3 seconds and succeed then bob is dead, why hit him again? if not then bob defended and gets to hit me at .6 seconds... see where I am coming from now? I hope that clarifies.... say if bob ties however, well then .6 seconds is exchange two followed by end of round. Too bad I cant draw out my thought in illustrated format, it would be clearer.

[Lance D. Allen]

I can see a lot of potential in this, honestly. The only problem I see, personally, is that which Brian brought up with initiative. I would say this:

I attack you twice in the first exchange, with 3 and 2 dice. You defend with 4 and 3. I succeed in the first by 1 die and fail in the second by 2 dice. My net success is at a -1, so you get initiative. If in the second case I'd only failed by 1 die, bringing my net success to an even 0. I'd say that the defender still gets the initiative. Such is the risk of multiple attacks. The only way I'd get initiative in multiple attacks is if my net success on the two is positive.

I'd also impose the rule of an activation cost of 1 for each additional attack. All attacks would happen within such a short span of each other that any shock/pain would not take effect until the next exchange.. So the first attack, if successful, does not negate dice from the second defense on that exchange. Likewise, multiple attacks on one exchange are declared upfront, and rolled simultaneously. If I manage to kill or wound you with the first, the dice from the second are still committed. Another risk you have to accept if you want to make the multiple attacks. It's like something I've been practicing, a 3 hit combo that I continue whether or not the first hit is lethal, or if I manage to open myself up after the second.

I'd call it a house rule, but a valid one.

[Brian Leybourne]

I really don't understand why you want to so overcomplicate something that already works perfectly well.

But hey, to each their own.

Brian.

[Mike Holmes]

Brian,

It overcomplicates one thing, but simplifies two others that I can think of. First, there has to be no special rule for multiple opponents. The rule becomes in general that you can attack as many targets as you like, as many times as you like.

Secondly, this might alienate the practicing swordsmen, but it also eliminates the rules for the Double Thust (is that the maneuver)? Basically, you can make up any "combo" maneuver by just splitting your pool.

There is also an aesthetic consideration, which is satisfied for me doing this, though I don't expect anyone else to share that with me.

BTW, I'd also like to see this combined in some way with the idea of blind apportioning that we discussed previously. With more rules about trying to interrperet the incoming attacks.

Also, I can see this being used with a simplfied maneuver set. Basically shifting the tactics from maneuver selection to dice apportionment.

Um, just fun thinking aobut it Brian. I'd agree that it's not a great improvement, but then I never came up with any improvement to anything by not thinking about something. :-)

Mike

[Ashren Va'Hale]

this discussion reminds me of a bumper sticker on my monitor, it says:

Government philosophy: if it aint broke fix it till it is.






Thats the best summary of my opinion on what you suggested.

[Lance D. Allen]

That was frankly unnecessary and insulting, Ashren.

I believe you've proposed your fair share of optional rules, even when the system wasn't broken. Options allow people to play as they wish to, and add a little more to the game, for those who want it.

For those who don't, it's simplicity itself to ignore the option.

[Mike Holmes]

I've never understood people who say, "If it ain't broke..."

Who's fixing? I'm tinkering, playing, enjoying. Possibly improving for certain small applications. Maybe innovating if it goes far enough, and eventually gets thought out well enough.

Not interested? Well nobody is forced to respond.

With an attitude like this, Jake would never have made TROS. After all most players think D&D doesn't need "fixin'" either.

Mike

[Mokkurkalfe]

How about allowing a certain amount of attacks per exchange, depending on your profiency? If you have a profiency of 4, you can attack two times/exchange (or whatever), no matter if you're facing one, two, three or twelve opponents.

And if the first attack is parried, you go into the next exhange.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

damn, my proclivity for insulting without intention has flared again. I was attempting to express an Idea in a somewhat humurous manner, I guess I failed... sorry to offend. I meant only to say that your mods may cause problems to exist in a system that works perfectly fine in my opinion. Franky if anyone should be offended by my statement its the government employees that the insult was aimed at. so anyways, much as I feel that you are trying to fix a problem where one doesnt really exist you may be deriving insult from where one was not intended. I meant no sleight.
Now you can return to your "tinkering" and stop crucifying me. Thanks.