Multiple Opponents, again

[PAD the MAD]

How about multiple attacks against a single foe actually being a Maneuver - seems fairly obvious to me...

But with one weapon, I can strike two opponents at the same time? Come now...

I can, however, strike one guy 2-3 times (solidly, even) within 1 second. The strikes won't be as focused or quite so powerful as a single shot, but it's possible.

Basically, the only difference in striking once, and striking twice is that you're rolling two smaller groups at the same time, rather than 1 larger group, whether you're striking one opponent, or two. If I've decided to commit 8 dice to the attack, I can either do it 8 dice in one single attack, or two smaller ones of 4 each (or 4 and 3, if you use the -1 die rule for additional attacks).

You are right; the system works fine as is. But it would also, I'm sure, work fine as described by the proponents of multiple attacks.

This makes sense, but having had some degree of practice with a variety of weapons, and being reasonably skilled, I found that using 'combinations' on opponents usually did the trick e.g. an easy to learn 3 hit combo with a mace - each blow is not massively strong but will hurt if not parried. 1st blow aims at a shoulder. if parried, you have impetus for a quick whirl to the other shoulder. if this is also parried whirl back round agian, adding a twist to out the blow into the opponents guts. Usually works as their weapon(s) are usually raised to parry the first 2 attacs leaving the third blow an easy hit.

2 ways of looking at it in terms of RoS...

1) this is simply a blow aimed at the abdomen with quite a few dice behind it - doesn't matter that there are actually 3 blows being attempted
2) it is a maneuver designed to confuse your opponent. you make the attack and declare x dice. defender declares dice. you then reveal you are doing a funky maneuver that lets you attack location x and y (and maybe z if you are good) by splitting your declared dice amongst the attacks (as evenly as possible). defender then gets to split his declared defence dice against each attack (possibly with each successive parry/dodge having fewer dice than the previous one?)

I'd suggest that a person only be allowed to learn one maneuver per increase in proficiency / period of time spent learning one and that the locations attacked must be specific e.g. Upper left swing, Upper right swing, Abdominal swing.

Also, I like the idea of new maneuvers - especially when I can base them on something I can personally achieve.

BFN

Paul

[Sneaky Git]

But with one weapon, I can strike two opponents at the same time? Come now...

I can, however, strike one guy 2-3 times (solidly, even) within 1 second. The strikes won't be as focused or quite so powerful as a single shot, but it's possible.

Basically, the only difference in striking once, and striking twice is that you're rolling two smaller groups at the same time, rather than 1 larger group, whether you're striking one opponent, or two. If I've decided to commit 8 dice to the attack, I can either do it 8 dice in one single attack, or two smaller ones of 4 each (or 4 and 3, if you use the -1 die rule for additional attacks).

You are right; the system works fine as is. But it would also, I'm sure, work fine as described by the proponents of multiple attacks.

This makes sense, but having had some degree of practice with a variety of weapons, and being reasonably skilled, I found that using 'combinations' on opponents usually did the trick e.g. an easy to learn 3 hit combo with a mace - each blow is not massively strong but will hurt if not parried. 1st blow aims at a shoulder. if parried, you have impetus for a quick whirl to the other shoulder. if this is also parried whirl back round agian, adding a twist to out the blow into the opponents guts. Usually works as their weapon(s) are usually raised to parry the first 2 attacs leaving the third blow an easy hit.

2 ways of looking at it in terms of RoS...

1) this is simply a blow aimed at the abdomen with quite a few dice behind it - doesn't matter that there are actually 3 blows being attempted
2) it is a maneuver designed to confuse your opponent. you make the attack and declare x dice. defender declares dice. you then reveal you are doing a funky maneuver that lets you attack location x and y (and maybe z if you are good) by splitting your declared dice amongst the attacks (as evenly as possible). defender then gets to split his declared defence dice against each attack (possibly with each successive parry/dodge having fewer dice than the previous one?)

I'd suggest that a person only be allowed to learn one maneuver per increase in proficiency / period of time spent learning one and that the locations attacked must be specific e.g. Upper left swing, Upper right swing, Abdominal swing.

Also, I like the idea of new maneuvers - especially when I can base them on something I can personally achieve.

BFN

Paul

An interesting thought, Paul, and a good way of describing how it could work.  My concern, however, remains this:

Multiple attacks against a single opponent drops your opponent out of the equation.  You attack me three times (with any # of dice), forcing me to either defend three times, or take some of them on the chin.  Fine.  So I defend, and I am successful.  Woohoo! As the system stands, that means this portion of the engagement is over...and now I get to go.  By allowing multiple attacks at once, this goes away.  Now I must defend...and defend...and defend.  And then, finally, I get to do something.  Now, if all of those defenses were only good enough to keep me from bleeding...fine.  But what if I am completely successful?  Am I really supposed to wait and let you continue with your dazzling series of tricky blows?

Others may disagree, and that's cool.  It just doesn't sit right with me.

Chris

[Anthony I]

Well, without being rude, I would have to say that the folks are underestimating how fast a second is and overestimating how fast a person can move in a second.

I think TROS' combat system really does a great job simulating multiple attacks as is- if you succeed in your attack, but don't wound, you keep the initiative, which allows to you to keep attacking.  Of course, if you wound you still keep initiative, but a wounded opponent is at such a disadvantage that the combat is probably almost over anyways.

[Lance D. Allen]

Of course, if you wound you still keep initiative, but a wounded opponent is at such a disadvantage that the combat is probably almost over anyways.

Unless you're playing the Cut & Thrust Kid against Max Steele on the combat simulator. A series of wounds isn't enough to take him down, oh no. And the simulator has no concept for taking the helmet off of your incapacitated opponent, and then hitting him in the head.

A bit of whimsy, but I honestly think this topic is done. Does anyone really disagree?

[Brian Leybourne]

And the simulator has no concept for taking the helmet off of your incapacitated opponent, and then hitting him in the head.

Didn't you find that hidden feature?

Jeez, and I made it so easy too - simply triple-click your mouse on the eighth - on the second line of -'s on the description of the wound where the opponent actually falls over.

It's so easy, I can't believe you never found it ;-)

Actually, there are some hidden things in the combat sim, but I suspect nobody has ever found them. At least, nobody has ever said anything... :-)

Brian.

[Mike Holmes]

Ah, an Easter Egg hunt just in time for Easter.

:-)

Mike

[arxhon]

The way i see it working is like this:

You have a CP of 12, with which you want to declare 3 attacks against me. I also have a CP of 12, with which i will defend, for purposes of this example.

You declare a Cut with 4 dice. I decide to defend with 4 dice. Or perhaps 5 dice, doesn't matter. Actually, it could.

How is this different from a regular exchange?

So, let's assume you succeeded in hitting me with the attack. You attack again, and i must defend.

Again, how is this different from a regular exchange?

If i successfully defend your first attack, and take the initiative away from you, what happens next?

Do you lose all your dice that you had dedicated to attacking?  

Or is it equivalent to both of us striking at the same time now?

Or do you get to defend?

Again, how is this different from a standard exchange?

Or do you not lose initiative, thus negating the defender's taking of initiative to begin with? (In which case, just keep throwing multiple attacks at your oponent. He'll never get the chance to take initiative, unless, maybe, he manages to successfully defend the last attack).

The point i'm trying to make is that there is no difference between splitting your combat pool between 2 exchanges for the round, or splitting it three or four times that round.

Each is treated exactly like a regular exchange would be.

[Lance D. Allen]

The point is, you're missing the point. But I've already tried to explain it a few times, so I'm going to let it go. You play the game the way you want to, and I'll play it the way I want to.

[Mokkurkalfe]

Arxhon

For all practical purposes, do you simply want to split up the round into more than two exchanges?

[arxhon]

Hey Mokkurkalfe,

Actually, that isn't quite what i'm suggesting, but it is a logical extension of my analysis of the situation.

This is where i'm coming from:

An exchange is simply this: the attacker takes his action, the defender reacts. Whether this happens once in a given round, or 10 times in a given round is not important in terms of how an exchange is defined ("During each Exchange each party gets one 'action'" p76).

All i'm saying is that making "multiple strikes on a single opponent" is exactly the same as an exchange is currently presented in the book, for each strike. There could be two exchanges before pools refresh, there could be 6, depending on how you split your dice.

Unless you are trying to create some kind of situation where you expend your remaining dice in additional attacks at the end of the round after the defender has exhausted his pool, there is no real functional difference.

I prefer the 2 exchange/round system to keep things simple and tight, but others may prefer a more free form system that involves splitting pools however many ways they wish until pools are exhausted, and then ending the round.

Wolfen, i'm pretty sure i'm not missing your point.

I can, however, strike one guy 2-3 times (solidly, even) within 1 second. The strikes won't be as focused or quite so powerful as a single shot, but it's possible. /snip/But the point given is that the attacks are essentially simultaneous. It's all one fluid (or perhaps not so fluid, depending on the attacker) combination of strikes.

I'm not arguing that you can strike someone several times in one second. I do believe that you can, in fact. Furthermore, if you take the view that a combat round is one second long (book says 1 or 2 seconds, so it's open to interpretation), then you are already making two strikes in that second, which both supports your position as well as rendering it nonviable pertaining to the discussion at hand.

If i am, in fact, truly missing your point, plase feel free to correct me.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

Arxon, you said it better than I ever could have
and I back up your interpretation,  I see things like you do....

[Malchiah]

Forgive me for jumping in at the last moment.  I am new to this game (in fact I have yet to receive the book in the mail and have never played or read the rules).  :-)  With that said, I'm wondering how you would describe a situation such as in any samurai movie, where a skilled swordsman is able to make 2 or 3 quick and decisive cuts on a single person (all in less than 1-2 seconds).

If I swing a light sword upward across your chest, then swing it around my head coming down on your shoulder, that would all take place in less than a second.  I can see why some would like to add more attacks into the round.  It certainly seems valid.

But perhaps you could simply break that down into 2 rounds.  First round, I slice at the chest, and you fail to parry.  Having wounded you, I keep initiative and swing at your shoulder.  (Are those the rules?  If not, then it seems reasonable to say that you can ONLY get more than one attack in the round if you roll red and the first attack is not successfully blocked.)

I must say, though, if you do allow more than one attack on a single opponent, the -1 penalty would make sense.  And thank you, it has been fun reading the opinions here, although it seems many have given up.

[Lance D. Allen]

But perhaps you could simply break that down into 2 rounds. First round, I slice at the chest, and you fail to parry. Having wounded you, I keep initiative and swing at your shoulder.

As per standard rules, this is correct. Of course, as per the brutality of TRoS combat, you may not actually need to take that second cut, as your opponent may be gushing blood anime-style and falling in a tattered heap at your feet, as you calmly flick the blood from your blade and stand over him in a dramatic pose, wind ruffling your spiky hair.

Err, sorry. Got too into the description.

Oh...

 Welcome to the Forge, and to the Riddle of Steel forum. I'm sure you'll enjoy the game. In the interim, have you checked out the excellent combat simulator available for download on www.theriddleofsteel.net/support?

[arxhon]

Welcome to the Forge, Malchiah.

It's not too late to hop into this discussion. I think the limit is a month after a post has been made before the thread is considered "closed". You'd have to check the forum rules though.

Anyway, Wolfen is correct. Cool description, by the way, Wolfen, i like it.

You'll find that the 'round' is broken into two 'exchanges' which will create the very situation you desire quite nicely.

I second Wolfen's suggestion to check out the combat simulator. It's a great piece of software, and extremely helpful in gaining a better understanding of how combat works.

[Calder]

10 1-die attacks against 10 peasents actually couldn't happen under the rules.  Only 3 of them would be in melee range.