forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Multiple attacks was covered somewhat in another thread, but I thought I'd start a new one here, since the other thread became more focused on magical items and such.

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.

Whatever makes sense storywise is my maxim - if it makes more sense in a dramatic way for Dwalin to 'spread' the damage over three orcs instead of just one then go for it - otherwise how can Dwalin do what he did with the pole in the movie??? (actually I think he took out seven orcs in that scene!)

Robin S.

Well, that thing with the pole (I love that movie, by the way!:D) isn't something I would count as an attack. Maybe it was more like some insane Atheltics roll with all the Battle dice thrown in, and with help from the other dwarves (who also held the pole).

E.

... I'd also limit it to Forward Stance as well.

As an optional rule, I kind of like the idea of greater successes doing some peripheral damage to bystanders. However I also agree that it has to be relevant to the current game situation, particularly positioning (not stances!).

Ferretz wrote:[...] 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.

That smacks to me of someone getting a really good roll and being a bit disappointed when it just gets applied to one target (who might well have been killed just as dead by an ordinary success)... and/or possibly 'trying it on' with the LM.

I would generally be against beneficial outcomes that the players haven't made a roleplaying/tactical decision for their Player-hero to aim for. In a more tactical game system, a superb archer who was so confident in his abilities should be able to opt for a special move something along the lines of a Called Shot to 'attack more than one enemy'. And if the Player-hero hasn't deliberately tried to attack more than one enemy, I generally wouldn't want to 'reward' them with letting them hit more than one enemy just because they rolled good dice.
But, this being a more narrative game system, and especially when you don't have such a house rule in place(!), there's no reason you can't interpret the dice that way.


The main thing would be to emphasise the awesome of the shot by letting them narrate it however they like, or if the group doesn't tend to narrate their own successes, then narrate it for them. If you don't normally elaborate on the deaths of mooks, do so for this one.
I don't know about Legolas, but I remember the strong impression made by the Grey Mouser's thrown knives striking the target right in the eye. Reserve this for Extraordinary Successes, so that it does make them feel special about themselves. Maybe a such a memorable feat would earn the character a new or additional epithet to their name. Toki the Toymaker felt good about himself when his Encounter-lead minstrel Companion started introducing him as "also known as Toki the Trollslayer".

You would also definitely be justified to say that killing a target in especially impressive style should have an impact on the morale of his comrades.

But if they're trying it on with the LM -- which seems to give several of my group more pleasure than playing the game for its own virtues -- then be strong, brother Ferretz!

Cheers,
--Os.

Ferretz wrote: Any thoughts? I'm not usually one for house rules, liking things to be "official", but the players keep asking me about this.

-E.

Um.....is this the same Ferretz who posted a thesis on optional rules for crafting in TOR???


That being said, I don't see why you couldn't apply this logic. It would be fun to narrate too. Have the player describe his arrow and how/why three foes were damaged by it. Perhaps he didn't hit the orcs at all, but that he brought something down on their heads with the shot, or the other two stumbled over the targets now flailing in pain body, or perhaps the arrow hit the one and he convulsed and clobbered the two guys he was next to, etc.

I'm a sucker for a good description of a battle.

Of course they may change their tune the first time you wound three heroes with a troll's club........


Robert

SirKicley wrote:

Ferretz wrote: Any thoughts? I'm not usually one for house rules, liking things to be "official", but the players keep asking me about this.

-E.

Um.....is this the same Ferretz who posted a thesis on optional rules for crafting in TOR???


That being said, I don't see why you couldn't apply this logic. It would be fun to narrate too. Have the player describe his arrow and how/why three foes were damaged by it. Perhaps he didn't hit the orcs at all, but that he brought something down on their heads with the shot, or the other two stumbled over the targets now flailing in pain body, or perhaps the arrow hit the one and he convulsed and clobbered the two guys he was next to, etc.

I'm a sucker for a good description of a battle.

Of course they may change their tune the first time you wound three heroes with a troll's club........


Robert

Yes, the very same. I don't like to change the way the official rules work, but I don't see any problems adding detail, as long as they don't conflict with the way the game already works. See?

-E.

Not sure you succeeded in your Persuade / Riddle test there Ferretz!

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.