Preliminary to adopting much of RoS into a fantasy campaign, I used a slimed-down version of the melee system i my Fading Suns campaign to test player reaction.

It was well-met; the general reaction was that it was an imporoved version of Shadowrun. having never played SR, I don't know about any connection.

However, the simple scenario involved two sessions in which the PCs lost the use of their firearms on an old, Dark-possessed derlict ship (yeah, origional, I know). It was a great opportunity to get the melee system on line, both for FS, and as an eval for my fantasy campaign.

The system was, as I said, well-received. However, my players came up with a method early on which has proven to be very effective.

They fight in two-man teams, jumping a single foe. One drops white, the other red; the defender does a max-CP parry or block, while the other does a solid attack.

They were slice&dicing with abandon using this technique. Now, facing other than Undead this may not work as well, and they can't always hope to outnumber the foe, but it definately brings up some interesting points.

I'm working on team efforts for NPCs, and looking at designing maneuvers to cope with such tactics. The problem is, getting an attack through a full-CP defense is unlikely.

Just thought I'd share.

What about a terrain roll by the NPC to maneuver away from one of the PCs? It will cost some CP, but probably not nearly as much as trying to fight two people at once.

Aside from that....um....don't get stuck fighting two people at once? ;-)

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

I'm not sure I'm clear on all the details. What good is the second character doing a full defense parry if the enemy attacks the guy doing the full attack?

Valamir: Not much, really. As far as i can tell, he's just standing there looking tough.

And yes, if the NPC dropped a few CP to maneuver the PC's around so he only had to fight one of them, this tag-team deal would fall apart pretty quick. Another tactic would be for the NPC to ignore the defending guy entirely, and steal initiative from the attacking guy. Or he could defend. Or simo-block strike. Or full evade and run away to a spot where he can only be attacked by one guy.

That's the great thing about this game. Suddenly, we have tactics and counter tactics in melee.

The idea was that the defender aggresively parries the lone combatant-he moves to tie up the single's weapon, leaving his buddy free to attack.

As a police officer, I've done this myself many times.

Hello,

I'll back up Darth Tang on this one - it's the essence of a lot of training I've received regarding fighting against or fighting in tandem with multiple opponents.

Best,
Ron

Darth Tang wrote: The idea was that the defender aggresively parries the lone combatant-he moves to tie up the single's weapon, leaving his buddy free to attack.

As a police officer, I've done this myself many times.

Negative. I'll support Darth Tang on this too. One person can defend another without attacking. I WOULD apply a 2 (or so) die CP penalty though.

But it is working as advertised, Darth. 2-on-1 will have a meat-grinder effect, unless the one person is smart enough to maneuver around to only face one opponent. My very first in-game combat involved that. One Angharadi greatsworder pissing off three Stahlnish soldiers. He maneuvered around, struck with the flat of his blade, and broke the officer's collarbone. That damped their bloodlust fairly quickly.

Turnabout is fair-play, though. Outnumber your players, make them do the maneuvering.

Also, there are some really interesting ideas about terrain rolls on the boards here. I believe it was either Valamir or Bankuei that suggested using a terrain roll to deal with half a deer carcass being thrown at you. Good stuff.

Yeah, that was me Lance. I used that to justify the terrain roll to keep 1 guard busy while I disemboweled his partner. The third guard would have got me the next round though if Ron's character hadn't intervened
:-)

But I'm not sure I like the idea of allowing someone to defensive parry an attack meant for someone else. Even with a 2 die CP penalty. If one was going to allow such a thing I'd handle it more like a terrain roll, with success required to pull it off (because I imagine positioning is everything).

However, I'd be more inclined to rule with Brian that what is being described is not a defensive move but a preemptive move. A good defense being a good offense. The enemy is not attacking you he is attacking me. I can defend because it is my space the attack is invading. I don't see how you can "defend" for me.

I CAN see how you could aggressively go after the enemy BEFORE his blow lands on me and impair his ability to attack me as an effective form of team work, but given the tight quarters and rapid movements I find it hard to visualize actually intercepting a blade meant for me with your own after its been launched. At least not with enough regularity for this to be a standard fighting technique.

I suspect that Brian's beat example or some form of aggressive grapple attack more accurately depicts what's going on.

Again, not saying that you can't help protect me from the enemy in a cooperative fashion. Just that what you are doing to protect me I don't think qualifies as a white die / defensive stance / parry according to the rules.

Wolfen wrote: Negative. I'll support Darth Tang on this too. One person can defend another without attacking. I WOULD apply a 2 (or so) die CP penalty though.

Okay, then.. straight by the rules.. Both guys attack the lone guy, but whomever he decides to attack (assuming he doesn't just defend or evade and flee) can either evasive attack, or simultaneously block and strike, with more given to block than strike.

Or.. Both can choose to defend, with the one not being attacked opting to attack instead (buying initiative or not, as deemed necessary) also assuming the lone person doesn't decide just to cut his losses and run.

Also, though it's not necessarily in the rules, options have been presented to allow multiple opponents to attempt to outmaneuver someone attempting to maneuver around them, and I think it's a good option. I'd rather blow a few CP attempting to maneuver to keep an opponent where I can get to them than not attack at all that exchange.

So there are still ways around it, even if you disagree with the ability to defend another.

Wolfen wrote: Okay, then.. straight by the rules.. Both guys attack the lone guy, but whomever he decides to attack (assuming he doesn't just defend or evade and flee) can either evasive attack, or simultaneously block and strike, with more given to block than strike.

Or.. Both can choose to defend, with the one not being attacked opting to attack instead (buying initiative or not, as deemed necessary) also assuming the lone person doesn't decide just to cut his losses and run.

Also, though it's not necessarily in the rules, options have been presented to allow multiple opponents to attempt to outmaneuver someone attempting to maneuver around them, and I think it's a good option. I'd rather blow a few CP attempting to maneuver to keep an opponent where I can get to them than not attack at all that exchange.

So there are still ways around it, even if you disagree with the ability to defend another.

I believe you can choose to buy initiative at any time that your character does not have the initiative, including when you throw white, making it the exception to the rule about having to attack when you throw white. However, you must win the attempt to steal initiative or else you still get to stand there and do nothing. My comment about choosing whether or not to buy was assuming that the battle went beyond the initial exchange.

Again, I could be wrong. I do not currently have my book available, so if you've something to quote in my general direction, I'll certainly stand corrected.

I don't really see how one person can defend for the other unless it is though the Beat maneuver mentioned earlier (or just stepping in the way). You would have to be quite close to each other.

I would more likely play it as follows. A = the lone combatant. B1 & B2 are the pair. B1 conducts a series of weak attacks A's attention and simulate a threat while retaining most of his CP for defense. These attacks aren't really meant to damage only to distract. Once A retaliates vs B1, B2 can launch an attack.

NT

I'm confused.

First, the character "defending" his partner is definitely doing something like a Beat. I'd describe it as more of a Bind which is exactally how the description sounds, but I'd use the Beat rules as, since there's no follow up strike, it can be even more effective. By definition, a Bind is tying up the opponents weapon. Sounds exactly like the description.

OTOH, this will work quite well in practice in play.

Which is where I'm confused.

Why wouldn't this work well? Darth, TROS is realistic. You've verified that it's producing realistic results similar to police work. Why is this a problem?

If you want to make a bigger challenge, then you need to ensure that the number of opponents is bigger, or that the characters are relatively less effective. Simple as that. If the numbers are even then watch PCs die as quickly as the enemies as they employ the same tactics. This is why in pitched battles things dissolve into single fights until one side has the advantage.

The way to accomplish the latter effect of relative effectiveness, is to put them up against really nasty enemies of a lesser number, and only have some of the group have their SAs pertain to the fight. Then watch as some attack, while others decide that it's not important enough to risk. :-)

"Um, sure I know that you've got a drive to kill Hef, but, well, that one's never done anything to me. I'll be over here when you're done."

Ah, but then you're not using SAs, are you? Well, then, if the group is motivated by the rules to all act constantly as one coherent group then you get what you wanted.

Mike

I can't see part of a group standing by while the other half engages in battle-there'd be another fight once the first was done! 'Why didn't you help me! Ten months of adventuring together, and you just stand there!

Can't see it. Aside from the fact that my groups write Charters to cover interaction and loyalties (amongst other things), it just doesn't seem believable. at least, the group remaining together afterwards doesn't.

And there's not a problem with this-I was just looking for input on the situation. Obviously, I'm going to have to add still more manuvers, and plan some rulings to account for teamwork.

The RoS system is realistic, but it seems to focus intently upon one-on-one duels. The rules for mutliple foes are rather thinly covered. I don't doubt this will be covered in Flower of Battle, but that's months off.

Darth Tang wrote: I can't see part of a group standing by while the other half engages in battle-there'd be another fight once the first was done! 'Why didn't you help me! Ten months of adventuring together, and you just stand there!

Can't see it. Aside from the fact that my groups write Charters to cover interaction and loyalties (amongst other things), it just doesn't seem believable. at least, the group remaining together afterwards doesn't.

re's not a problem with this-I was just looking for input on the situation. Obviously, I'm going to have to add still more manuvers, and plan some rulings to account for teamwork.

The RoS system is realistic, but it seems to focus intently upon one-on-one duels. The rules for mutliple foes are rather thinly covered. I don't doubt this will be covered in Flower of Battle, but that's months off.