Free Attacks

[atgxtg]

I think the whole problem is that the attacks are indeed 'free'. If we charge money for taking these attacks players will be less likely to abuse the system.

Say attacking someone moving past you costs 100 silver - unless you are engaged with someone else, in which case it costs 250 silver, and the person you are facing may take an attack on you for 150 silver. Wouldn't that simplify things?

Alternatively, you could have the Players pay you the GM in real world money for these used-to-be-free attacks. Though if going with this method I think the costs should be based on the US dollar, or else the exchange rate would kill me.

So if two people are engaged they can attack each other for free, but must pay if they attack anyone else?


Maybe we can pay a fixed monthy fee to put certain ppeople into our "attacking circle". Y'know, a "Friends & Family" plan, 'cuz you always hurt the ones you love.

 

[Rurik]

So if two people are engaged they can attack each other for free, but must pay if they attack anyone else?

I think usually the attacks start when they are married, after the engagement is over.

Maybe we can pay a fixed monthy fee to put certain ppeople into our "attacking circle". Y'know, a "Friends & Family" plan, 'cuz you always hurt the ones you love.

Y'know, I think this mechanic may encourage good roleplaying and alternative conflict resolution more than any of those contrived "indie" game mechanics.

Hmmm....

On second thought I'm all in favor of free attacks - let the limbs fly!

 

[weasel_fierce]

On second thought I'm all in favor of free attacks - let the limbs fly!

You know its been a good session of Runequest or Rolemaster if the number of intact limbs is equal or less than the number of characters, at the end of the night

 

[Verisimilitude]

Person A is Fighting person B, face to face in melee.
Then person C comes by, weapon in hand,
we'll say from the left of and from behind person A.

Person A is understandably wary, as he has someone in front of him and someone flanking him now. He'd have to turn and back up slightly to keep both people in front of him and avoid any kind of bonus to be hit by person C.

From a strictly technical point of view, he'd be "facing" two opponents. And that usually means trying to Actually face them. It's more than just human nature, usually it is part of combat training.

Now, just because person C continues to move past them, does not mean person A is going to swipe at him, because to do so would leave him open to his "other opponent" person B. He might decide it is worth it, but most people who think that are either Very quick, or dead.

What it boils down to for me is, "How do you handle combat with one opponent vs. two opponents?" ... It is regular combat and all actions should be treated that way. That's why I don't use "free actions" like that.

.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Now, just because person C continues to move past them, does not mean person A is going to swipe at him, because to do so would leave him open to his "other opponent" person B. He might decide it is worth it, but most people who think that are either Very quick, or dead.

Incidentally thats why free attacks use up your reactions. Take that swipe, and you better hope noone gets an impale against you

 

[Verisimilitude]

Now, just because person C continues to move past them, does not mean person A is going to swipe at him, because to do so would leave him open to his "other opponent" person B. He might decide it is worth it, but most people who think that are either Very quick, or dead.

Incidentally thats why free attacks use up your reactions. Take that swipe, and you better hope noone gets an impale against you

Ok, my lack of reading skills has struck. The name "free attack" is not really free I see.
I had skimmed that part, mostly because I hate that other RPG's system from all my real experience in combat. I made a bad assumption based upon the name. It really should be renamed to ... Opportunistic Attacks. Or some such.

.

 

[blitz]

Yup, that’s what I mean. Lashing out to the side of you when you have someone in front would open you up, I feel.

Having been in said situations, I don't feel like my gaurd was opened up by throwing a quick slap shot at the back of a guys helm as he was running by. In a mass melee you don't focus on any single target, to do that means that bad guy two or three people down on your left or right is going to gack you. This is why you are able to parry/dodge attacks from multiple sources, not just that guy in front of you. In RQ if you use up a reaction for a free attempt, you have one less parry/dodge. I think this is the opening up you should be referring to.

 

[Ahokko]

I think the whole problem is that the attacks are indeed 'free'. If we charge money for taking these attacks…

Hah hah, very good Rurik. Good laughs.

But, by the way, how did you handle combat between 1 hero and 2 villains in the good ol' RQ III version?

Hero attacks, 1. villain dodges and strikes back, hero defends... so perhaps second villain attacks twice without any defence from the hero (or is he allowed to dodge?), fkk, how was it?

 

[Trifletraxor]

I think the whole problem is that the attacks are indeed 'free'. If we charge money for taking these attacks…

Hah hah, very good Rurik. Good laughs.

But, by the way, how did you handle combat between 1 hero and 2 villains in the good ol' RQ III version?

Hero attacks, 1. villain dodges and strikes back, hero defends... so perhaps second villain attacks twice without any defence from the hero (or is he allowed to dodge?), fkk, how was it?

He is not allowed to dodge, but the villain does not know who the hero will attack, so he would often only attack once, to have a parry/dodge in reserve.

SGL.

 

[Rurik]

Old RQ was brutal when outnumbered.

There were no combat actions. You got 1 attack and 1 defense that had to be declared before the attack was rolled. (With skills over 100 you could split your attacks/defense into 2 at 1/2 chance).

So the Hero would have to say "I attack Villain A and Parry Villain B" at the beginning of the round.

If Villain A hit and Villain B missed the Parry was wasted on a failed attack(well, actually a successful parry against a failed attack could potentially damage the attacking weapon). If both hit Villain A's blow would be unopposed. It was bad to be outnumbered.

MRQ is a bit easier on the outnumbered in that you only have to use reactions on attacks you already know are successful. Say our Hero has 3 combat actions and a sheild or offhand weapon for a bonus reaction. He faces 4 "average" foes with 2 CA's and attacks of 50%. Normally, they are going to score 4 hits among all of them, and our Hero would get a parry attempt against all of them.

Our older RQ Hero would have to pick which one of the four to parry before they attacked. So on average 2 of them would hit him, and there would a 50% chance our hero chose to parry one of the villians who missed.

 

[Trifletraxor]

There were no combat actions. You got 1 attack and 1 defense that had to be declared before the attack was rolled. (With skills over 100 you could split your attacks/defense into 2 at 1/2 chance).

Or you attack twice or parry/dodge twice. But yes, definitely bad to be outnumbered, even when fighting newtlings!

SGL.

 

[Rurik]

There were no combat actions. You got 1 attack and 1 defense that had to be declared before the attack was rolled. (With skills over 100 you could split your attacks/defense into 2 at 1/2 chance).

Or you attack twice or parry/dodge twice. But yes, definitely bad to be outnumbered, even when fighting newtlings!

SGL.

Or trollkin.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I always liked Stormbringer, where you can make multiple defense, but at a cumulative penalty