Re: multiple attacks

From: Alexandre Lanciani <alexanl_at_...>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:55:39 +0200


Thom:

> > So why should one opt to attack (or, rather, act
> against) multiple
> >adversaries rather than taking them one at a time?
[...]
> It seems reasonable realistic to me. It should be ludicrously difficult.

        IMO it's unrealistically difficult (caveat: with respect to what reality?) and ludicrously dangerous. After all, you have to bid about two times the AP you would bid if you tried to take out just one adversary. And keep in mind that you take a penalty (-3 for each target beyond the first, right?) and only their best roll counts. I have a feeling that not many of these heroic actions will be crowned by success.

        Wouldn't it be better to resolve the two attacks as two separate actions, with a penalty but without the need to divide the APs? If on one hand this is more symmetrical with the other case (defending against multiple attacks) is requires one more roll and perhaps two different declarations as you are doing in effect two different actions. Mmh... Note anyway that this is how I've done it before paying greater attention to reading the rules.

Viktor:

> From a glance, it looks like these mechanics would actually work quite
> well if you were, say, a 15w2 Swordsman fending off a horde of eight
> 10-skill trollkin...

        I'd say that the "Hero wading through a mass of puny foes" effect can best be achieved if you just consider the trollkin horde as a single character with 80 AP, maybe augmenting their TN and/or giving them an edge. After all if you attack simultaneously 6 targets if you have a -18 penalty and you must beat 6 rolls. Of course the 15w2 swordsman would still critical 17 times out 20, but your example is a little extreme, you'll admit...

	Cheers,
	A multiple Alex.

Powered by hypermail