Re: Attacking more than one enemy
Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:06 pm
I know what you meant. Was just teasing, that's all.
... You've definitely failed your Riddle test here!Ferretz wrote:I know you know, you know.
-E.
Rich H wrote:... You've definitely failed your Riddle test here!Ferretz wrote:I know you know, you know.
-E.
My only question to the player in this instance would be: if there's an additional benefit to the roll for a success, what's the additional consequence of a failed attempt? With that in mind, I'd probably treat it like a called shot (AB p.161); it must be declared beforehand, the attempt only hits if the roll beats the target number and gets a 6, failing to meet the target number and rolling an eye results in a fumble. Or perhaps create a new Virtue that would allow the character to distribute their extra damage as they see fit.Ferretz wrote: After last nights session, where we played the last bit of Kinstrife & Dark Tidings and the first half of Those Who Tarry No Longer, one player suggested that attacking multiple enemies could easily be covered by Great and Extraordinary Successes. When such successes are rolled, instead of adding the Damage bonus to the same enemy, he suggested that it could be spread out among other enemies within reach.
For instance, a bowman rolling an Extraordinary Success, could hit one goblin for the bow's base damage, and up to two others with his Damage bonus.
Any thoughts? I'm not usually one for house rules, liking things to be "official", but the players keep asking me about this.
-E.
An addition is a change. Subset, not alternate set.Ferretz wrote:Weeell, I've written stuff for rpgs before (some actually got published) and I've playtested a whole lot of other rpgs. I like to add, not change. See? There's a difference.
E.