Topic: Multiple Attacks in Combat init Order

[markc]

    The RMC Combat Companion introduced the concept of multiple attacks in RM. I was wondering if you liked the idea of all of the attacks occurring at once or do you have some init mod to the second/third/etc attack?
    Note this idea in in relation to the following combat sequence:
 1) Set OB/DB
 2) Roll Init
 3) Move Lowest Init to Highest Init
 4) Attack's Highest Init to Lowest Init (Note damage takes place at that init point so high init bonus is very good)
 5) Repeat for next round.
   A) Psionics as per SM:P are instant and can occur at any point in round
   B) Spell casters normal spells go off at there Init points unless they are instant then they can be cast at any point in the round.
   C) Multiple spell instant's ca be cast in a round with the 2nd and subsequent instant spells using the following formula; PP cost is higher of Spell Rank or 10PP x (# of instant spells cast this round); Spell Fumble is as follows 10 x (# or instants cast this round) - # of Ranks in Spell Mastery in list.   



 I was thinking about having the next attack occur at 1/2 init and the other attacks occur at various intervals. The third attack at the end the round and others are at the init divided equally. So for an init of 10 the first at 10 the second at 5 the third at 1, for four attacks the first at (10/4=2.5) 10 second attack at 7, third at 3 and forth at  1.


 Note this is a work in progress and it has not been tested yet. But will be soon.
Thanks MDC   

[Zat]

Sounds almost like the Rifts system. It 'worked' but not well.

The way we do it is simplistic: All attacks attack on the same initiative with the exception of haste/speed effects, in which case the player rolls 2 dice for initiative, acts first ont he total and then on the lowest dice roll.

[markc]

Sounds almost like the Rifts system. It 'worked' but not well.

The way we do it is simplistic: All attacks attack on the same initiative with the exception of haste/speed effects, in which case the player rolls 2 dice for initiative, acts first ont he total and then on the lowest dice roll.

 A friend of mine has Rifts (I think) so I will take a look at that.
MDC

[Cory Magel]

In most gaming systems you have to develop/have a skill or talent to make multiple attacks.  (Keep in mind I'm talking about melee attacks - thrown and even sometimes missile attacks can potentially be different in RM).  Like in the D&D I played (not going to get into versions) you needed to be a higher level Fighter type class with weapon specialization.

RM naturally limits melee attacks by making them take 60% action or more - you can't make two unless you have 120% action.  So then you have Two Weapon Combo skill and some similar Martial Arts stuff in expansions.  There is also, of course, "Speed" type spells and adrenal type skills that give you enough round percentage anywhere from 120% to 200% or more) to make two attack actions.  So you need some kind of allowing skill, talent, or spell to make multiple attacks.

Allow too many ways to make multiple attacks and you run into problems... so in my opinion there should not be a way to make multiple attacks without some kind of special allowing "ability" (read: skill, talent, or spell).  If you start to allow anyone to make multiple attacks, then someone develops Two Weapon Combo or is Sped/Hasted somehow it starts to get out of hand.  You can arbitrarily make a max number of attacks rule, but I don't want to have to start telling just any character who can make two attacks normally that if they are sped or hasted that they cannot make four attacks "just because".  I'd rather limit it via the rules to avoid argument/grey areas and save the possibility for full on melee characters.

I think having an allowing factor (skill, talent, or spell) stops it from getting out of hand and is a way to give certain characters a unique ability to set them apart from others.  In my opinion Martial Arts users and specialized Pure Arms characters should really be the only ones able to do it effectively without a spell effect (such as Speed, Haste, etc).

[Marc R]

I think "no" is contrary to the rolemaster core logic. .

I think that may be the only proviso I'd have to modify Cory's post, I agree with it all but I would take:

In my opinion Martial Arts users and specialized Pure Arms characters should really be the only ones able to do it effectively without a spell effect (such as Speed, Haste, etc).

into

In my opinion Martial Arts users and specialized Pure Arms characters should really be the only ones able to do it cost effectively without a spell effect (such as Speed, Haste, etc).

Pure arms can spend 10+ per rank for spells, I see no reason why casters should be faced with a "no" rather than a "Are you willing to pay through the nose for it?" answer.

[Cory Magel]

Pure arms can spend 10+ per rank for spells, I see no reason why casters should be faced with a "no" rather than a "Are you willing to pay through the nose for it?" answer.

Paying through the nose for it and doing it cost effectively implies there is a cost for having the ability such as TWC. I don't know how RMC did it, I just think you have to be careful about having to make some kind of sacrifice in order to be granted the ability.  On the RMSS side you can develop Two Weapon Combo, you can use Adrenal Speed, you can get a spell that increases your attack percentage, etc.

The main thing you have to be very careful about is it getting out of hand.  It sounds absurd, but if you implement a multiple attack option with a single weapon, then you have a character that develops Two Weapon Combo, then that same character Adrenal Speeds or has a similar spell effect, you potentially have a monty haul melee blender via allowable rules.  THEN consider what you could accomplish by dropping your percentage on your attacks into that mix.  You can see how it becomes a serious balance issue.

[Marc R]

Rogue's can pay through the nose to become half arsed spell casters (they can't purchase efficiently enough to compete with any actual caster).

A cleric can pay through the nose to become a half arsed melee combatant (they can't purchase efficiently enough to compete with any actual pure melee profession)

Things like TWC or the like tend to be layered expenses on top of needing to purchase a weapon itself, much like spell mastery or artistry is piled atop the base SLA cost.

The cost structures themselves tend to keep the "I'm going to excel at my primary focus, then excel at a specialization of that focus" only really affordable for a pure focused on that end. . .

The closest I've ever seen used in actual play is a mentalist specialized in martial arts with adrenal speed and even that required a bunch of background options and the monks multiple attacks rule to pull off.

A good demonstration of that, even without changing anything, is how hard it is to build a semi that's a great caster with lots of spell mastery, or to build a semi that's a great warrior, and has lots of weapon mastery skills (like TWC). . .it's just too expensive.

And I totally agree on the "I'll get a bigger engine, then add a nitrous tank, then add a spoiler and racing slicks.". . . .you get TWC, Adrenal Speed, melee scuffle, a natural tail and bite attack for your lizard man and a ring of haste and suddenly someone's making a dozen valid attacks. Layered on modifications crop up as problems in many instances, this being one of them.

[rdanhenry]

And then you have a whirling killing machine of deadly slaughter... and either your PCs are all like that, and the GM ups the martial capacities of the opposition, or that character stands out and becomes the focus of the vast majority of incoming fire. I wouldn't worry too much.

[Zat]

I created a Multiple Attack Proficiency (MAP) skill for my games. Without going into too much detail, the skill works by off-setting the penalty of all fo the OB bonuses that a character may have (without the skill, no bonuses other than rank are applied to the OB when making mulitple attacks).

A character can make one attack with 10 ranks (uses those ranks as the OB bonus) and the other (multiple attacks) with each increment above the 10 ranks.

Example: a character with 12 ranks and a total OB bonus (excluding rank bonuses, but including stats, magoical items, profession bonus etc of +50) of +54 (10 ranks at +5 and 2 ranks of +2)

This example character (Bob) can attack as follows:

a. Once int he round at +104 OB
b. Twice in the round at +50 OB and +4 OB

...or with 4 ranks in MAP (+20 total MAP bonus - as there are no Prof or stat bonuses for the skill)

c. Twice in the round at + 60 OB (+50 from ranks and +10 taken from 20% (the MAP skill) of his OB bonuses) and +14 OB (+4 from ranks and +10 taken from 20% (the MAP skill) of his OB bonuses).

The skill is developed as the same cost as the chosen weapon and must be specialized in that particular weapon. The skill can only be developed in a weapon in which a character is able to use MAP, i.e., the charater has more than 10 ranks in said weapon skill.

Works fine for us. 

As far as attack order, for that particular skill, all attacks are made on the same initiative. So far, I have had no reason not to allow that.

[markc]

 I think I am going to use some form of the multiple attack skill listed in the RMC CC in that the first attack OB XX will set the bases for the next attacks ie XX-YY=ZZ for #2 and for #3 ZZ-YY=AA.
 That way PC attacks do not get crazy but animals that deserve multiple attacks get them without penalty.
MDC

[Cory Magel]

And then you have a whirling killing machine of deadly slaughter... and either your PCs are all like that, and the GM ups the martial capacities of the opposition, or that character stands out and becomes the focus of the vast majority of incoming fire. I wouldn't worry too much.

I won't go into the background, but I once had a character that was very specialized in melee combat (mainly one on one fights due to the background).  Because I had built the character on a light fighting style (no armor) I eventually was able to effectively fight two or three foes and not get beat down too often doing it simply because my DB had become so good (I'd rarely got hit hard, but when I did it REALLY hurt).  It was a pretty extreme melee build.

As a result the GM starting placing nasty melee foes in combats specifically for that character to fight a lot of the time, since standard enemies would be taken down quickly by the character.  The problem was I HAD to fight that foe, because no one else could stand up to them in melee... and if I went down for some reason they had to make sure they incapacitated that foe quickly somehow as the groups other melee types couldn't handle it very long.

Now, while the GM could have been a little more creative at times - throw something at me with animal attacks for example that could really tear into a lightly armored foe - and did get better at working around the issue well, it still posed a problem due to the nature of the campaign (largely 'civilization' based).  He could have also tried to incapacitate me more often, but that just makes for a very un-fun situation.

We kinda learned our lesson on that one.  It's hard to know how much you should limit the system in order to stop things like that, but I think it's something you need to keep in mind when implementing house rules on multiple attacks... it can result in the above, or other, issues.  While there were ways to work around it it could pose a serious problem to less experienced groups.

[Marc R]

I find "build inflation" is usually a sign of a hole in need of a patch. . .but I've played with GM's that encourage it. . .neither is wrong, and blatantly some folks enjoy either way.

When I find one build being overdone, I usually do something to fix that, rather than step up everything to match. . .and a lot of the craziest builds I hear of usually end up being either explicitly book illegal, or made possible via some unintentional side effect of a house rule.

Like, the choice of a martial artist getting full DB from parry vs weapons or half DB parry vs weapons. . .

If martial artists can attack two people a round, but parry at half vs weapons, the effect is somewhat balanced out, but two attacks and full effectiveness parry and suddenly it starts to become "And why is anyone using melee weapons?"

[Cory Magel]

I find "build inflation" is usually a sign of a hole in need of a patch. . .but I've played with GM's that encourage it. . .neither is wrong, and blatantly some folks enjoy either way.

When I find one build being overdone, I usually do something to fix that, rather than step up everything to match. . .and a lot of the craziest builds I hear of usually end up being either explicitly book illegal, or made possible via some unintentional side effect of a house rule.

This was pretty much caused by using the RMSS Talent Law as-is... which most of us learn pretty quickly needs some oversight (as I mention elsewhere, my theory on Talent Law is to forget individual costs and just get a list of Talents and Flaws a player wants to select and 'eyeball' it for balance).  I don't think there's much in it that is too over the top in a general sense, but the costs definitely need some modifying.  Nothing against the author, cause we really like the book, but when you can buy a certain talent for, let's say, 20 points... then you find the exact same result from another talent that costs 10 points... you know some more time needed to be spent on cost comparison when creating the book.