Multiple attacks?

[Ferretz]

So, after a long break away from The One Ring, I'm preparing to continue Tales from Wilderland.

One piece of feedback from the group is that fights can be a bit slow, especially since even a mighty warrior can only attack once in a round. This makes sense when opponents are evenly matched, but lesser opponents like Attribute rating 2 goblins and such should not pose much more than a distraction.

So, the players have asked if it's possible to attack several times, and I've been looking at some solutions for this. The one I keep coming back to is inspired by the excellent A Game of Thrones rpg. In this you can split your die pool into several attacks.

So, this is what I suggest: anyone, friend or foe, can split die pools on regular attacks. This has to be decided on before the dice are rolled, of course. One Feat Die is rolled, but the dice for skills are split into more several attacks. Of couse, this makes landing attacks quite hard and quite risky, since each result on de skill dice are added to the number on the Feat Die (it's not rolled for each attack), but it might make sense for experienced warriors fighting weaker goblins in Forward Stance, or a huge Troll being surrounded by several player characters.

Also, several attacks can be directed at one foe. Again, risky, but effective if you roll high on the Feat Die.

This also applies to ranged weapons, of course.

When it comes to monsters, only primary attacks can be split into several attacks.

Any thoughts? Is there some game breaking issue I haven't thought of yet?

-Eirik

[Elmoth]

Sounds feasible. if your pool is lower than 5-6 dice it will make your attack quite fizzy, though.

An alternative would be to increase the Difficulty rating of hitting by one category (+3 to difficulty) for each additional target. So you would be hitting on a 12+Parry if you are on an open stance against 2 opponents, and 15+parry if you are going against 3 targets.

[Corvo]

I did something similar, splitting the die pool against multiple opponents (not many attacks against a single foe).
But my game is very houseruled, so that even the defense is rolled... And against multiple opponents you have to split your defense pool (nasty against swarming opponents). Given that context, I allow to split the skill die pool among opponents, and every pool (minimum 1 dice) got his own feat die.

[Ferretz]

I do not house rule my game much, but I like to add "options" that are modular, so to speak (crafting, horses etc).

I would like to use a system that is as similar as possible to the core rules, and involves as few rolls as possible. I like the idea of adding +3 for every extra opponent you attack. Could maybe just roll once, a regular attack, and compare the result to the different opponents, then? Doing it this way, attacking one opponent several times would be allowed.

E.

[Angelalex242]

The only RAW way to attack twice is elves with woodland bow, who can make two opening volleys once. Anything less is a house rule.

That said, as house rules go...

I've seen an idea you could use multiple attacks, so long as you have 2D to assign to each multiple attack. Hence, you can strike twice at weapon 4, and thrice at weapon 6.

This makes Forward Stance appealing at high levels...and the Dunedain and Elves both LOVE shadow bane under this idea, since it means they'll hit consistently with their multiple attacks, instead of Shadow Bane simply being weary insurance.

[Elmoth]

I've seen an idea you could use multiple attacks, so long as you have 2D to assign to each multiple attack. Hence, you can strike twice at weapon 4, and thrice at weapon 6.

This makes Forward Stance appealing at high levels...and the Dunedain and Elves both LOVE shadow bane under this idea, since it means they'll hit consistently with their multiple attacks, instead of Shadow Bane simply being weary insurance.

I like this one. 2D/3D+D12 for attacks sounds appropriate. And yes, it makes Forward position appealing to master fighters.

[James Harrison]

Mighty Blow / Shot

A hero can split his attack among multiple foes by allocating at least two success dice to each, with each roll using its own feat die. Abilities that enable a player to re-roll the feat die must be pre-allocated to a particular roll.

When faced with a large number of considerably weaker foes there just has to be some way of attacking more than one in a round. The minimum of two success dice per attack means there is an added incentive to get to a combat score of 4 (allowing 2 attacks) and 6 (allowing 3).


Although it's been pointed out the name is poor! This is the houserule mentioned. It's from elsewhere on these forums

[Ferretz]

I would prefer a way that doesn't multiply the number of dice you roll by the number of attacks, but I'm not sure exactly how.

Maybe a Mastery called (weapon) Master or something similar. When you choose it, you select a weapon group, and like some other Virtues, you upgrade it with XP. Each group have a small list of advantages that can be opened up by spending XP. Some are similar to other groups, other are unique.

Some ideas for what you can use XP on:
Spears can be uses for attack the same foe twice in one round
Swords can attack multiple foes, and be dual wielded
Axes can break through defenses easier
Bows can be fired several times
...and so on.

Well, it's one idea.

E.

[Elmoth]

just pointing out that NOBODY dual wielded outside the roman circus between imperial rome and the renaisance. At least not the ones that survived to tell the tale. The obsession in the RPG community with one of the poorest fighting styles in the world against armoured foes always amazes me...

I still prefer the "2 dice per attack" or "rise target number and apply results to all foes" options.

Xavi

[Ferretz]

Well, never say never. There are examples of two axes being wielded by both Francish soldiers and Viking raiders. If I remember correctly, there are examples in museums here in Norway of artwork where Vikings seem to wield two axes.
And of course, when your shield is bashed to pieces, I'm sure a weapon in the off-hand is better than nothing at all.

But the more important issue here, in my opinion, is choice. I don't like to tell a player that something is impossible. It might just be hard.

I'm fiddling with some rules for this now. I'll share it when I have something.

E.