LWM combat question

[Keystonegamingsociety]

I'm hoping this is a simple question and I'm just being dense.

In Lone Wolf Multiplayer, how does combat in a battle work? Specifically, when there are multiple people ganging up on one character... does each character select a number and both parties are damaged? For example -

Storm Strider (Kai Lord) is being attacked by three giaks simultaneously. Is this what combat would look like?:
Storm Strider CS - 18
Giaks CS - 10 (all receiving +6 to CS for ganging up)

Storm Strider rolls a 7, dealing 10 damage to giak 3 and taking 1 himself
Giak 1 rolls a 8, dealing 9 damage to Storm Strider and taking 1 himself
Giak 2 rolls a 3, dealing 4 damage to Storm Strider and taking 4 himself
Giak 3 (already damaged) rolls a 1, dealing 1 damage to Storm Strider and takes 5 himself, thus dying.

At the end of "Round one" Storm Strider will have taken 14 damage, Giak 1 will have taken 1, Giak 2 will have taken 4, and Giak 3 is dead.

Is this how combat is suppose to occur with one person taking on multiple combatants? Thanks for the help, LW experts!

 

[beowuuf]

Enemy do not roll for combat. Only players roll combat rolls against every applicable enemy. The player rolls once against each opponent. The fact the enemy get a bonus per enemy represent the divided nature of the player's attack, and the ability of each enemy to use the distraction for more damage.

This is why players' ganging up is different - each player acts in turn, so the later players get to roll with a higher and higher CS bonus for each enemy they engage, as they are taking advantage of the distraction.

 

[Twiler]

I was confused about this as well.

I can see two ways to do this:

1. The method above. The problem with this is that just letting the heroes make the rolls seems a little nonsensical, as you'd have to break that rule when enemies are using ranged attacks.

2. Letting heroes and enemies strike one opponent per combat round, making a roll as normal when two are striking each other, and ignoring the appropriate damage when one hero is striking an enemy who isn't striking them and vice versa.

I'm not sure this fits either.

This really becomes significant when you consider abilities that give you an extra attack like the buccaneer's Blood Tempest discipline. Using the first system you're just speeding up the rate of combat, while in the second you're doubling the effectiveness of your attack.

 

[beowuuf]

Ranged attacks are a separate thing though, so it is not confusing really. And it makes the same sense as LW's single player system where only the player makes a roll.

No enemy is supposed to be left free each round of combat, so technically once combat is properly engaged no enemy will be firing ranged weapons anyway.



Are you the same Twiler that was a member of the TotS forum many years ago?

 

[Twiler]

Yeah, that's right. I haven't been doing so much roleplaying in the last few years, so I drifted away from the community.

 

[beowuuf]

I think you were after my time, but I was recovering the West Watch posts from the old site, so saw the posts you made there!

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Thanks for the replies.

I agree that according to the rules, in a one-on-one combat, only the hero should be rolling. But you say that only player characters should be rolling then I have several problems with that.

1) An enemy that is attacking with a ranged weapon breaks this rule (in one adventure published in S&P there are creatures with melee weapons that engage you while the evil druid stands back and blasts you with ranged attacks).
2) If three player characters gang up on one enemy does this mean that enemy now deals damage to all three player characters in one round?
EX: Players A, B, and C all attack the evil barbarian.
Player A, with a +2 Combat Ratio, rolls a 3, dealing 6 points and taking 3.
Player B, with a +6 Combat Ratio, rolls a 7, dealing 12 points and taking 0.
Player C, with a +3 Combat Ratio, rolls a 1, dealing 5 points and taking 4.
It doesn't make sense that your enemy's number of attacks per round is equal to the number of times he is attacked.
3) If enemies gang up on you, they only do one attack to you? That doesn't sound right to me. It would be better strategically if they lined up single file and attacked you one at a time. They'd end up doing MUCH more damage than merely moving to the right one column for each additional combatant but only getting one chance to damage you.
4) What if you're in a combat with creatures of different combat skills? EX: You're combat skill is 15. You're being ganged up on by creatures with combat skills of 10, 13 and 18 (14, 17, and 22 adjusted for multiple combatants). You attack the one with the 10 combat skill but which column on the table do you use? If you use the +1 column are you saying the two stronger opponents are totally ineffective that round? There's a big difference between +1 and -7 combat ratio!!
5) It's totally unbalanced that player character's ganging up each get separate attacks but NPC enemies ganging up don't.

Here a a few solutions I've dreamed up. Let me know what you think.

One solution (as a house rule) will be that in all combats, all creatures will roll and both damages will be assessed.

After all, the combat ratio will be inverted for the enemies.
EXAMPLE:
The player character's combat skill is 19. The enemy's combat skill is 13. The combat ratio is +6 BUT ONLY FOR THE PLAYER CHARACTER. The combat ratio for the enemy would be -6!
So here's a round of combat:
The player character goes first, rolling a 7. The enemy loses 12, the player character loses 0.
The enemy then goes, rolling a 7 as well. The enemy loses 3, the player character loses 7. To get this result, you have to invert the E and LW (or PC) symbols on the combat results table. In fact, it might be helpful if instead of ENEMY and LONE WOLF or PLAYER CHARACTER the chart was labeled ATTACKER and DEFENDER.

Another option is to keep the "only player characters roll" rule and in a "gang up" combat that a character that is "ganged up" on would choose who he is attacking and damage would be dealt normally for that exchange. For the other combatants, the character being ganged up on would roll on the combat results table, only taking damage and ignoring all damage they would have dealt.
EX: Player A, CS 17, is being attacked by three creatures, CS 12, 15, and 18 (16, 19, and 22 adjusted).
Creature (CS 22) attacks first, but Player A decides not to attack back. Player A rolls a 6 at -5 combat ratio, taking 5 damage but dealing none.
Creature (CS 19) attacks next, and Player A decides not to attack back. Player A rolls a 3 at -2 combat ratio, taking 4 damage but dealing none.
Player A then attacks and he attacks Creatures (CS 16 - the only one left to attack). Player A rolls a 5 at +1 combat ratio, dealing 7 to Creature (CS 16) and taking 3 from that creature.

I don't know that any of these are great fixes but I think the rules are vague and it doesn't seem right to have only player characters rolling in battles and multiple combats where creatures are ganging up on player characters.

Let me know if I made any sense at all and sorry for the long post. I've been thinking about this for days now.

 

[beowuuf]

Why can't an enemy attack you the number of times he is attacked if it explicitly says a player can attack x number of times when engaging enemies?

Edit: Sorry, I'm trying to answer this before leaving for work, and by the end realised you only have the player make one attack a round. You roll a round of combat with each enemy you engage. The CS bonuses move the damage around to show how distracted you are. Think of any epic film. Do the enemy/heroes swarm around an opponent, and does that opponent deal one at a time, or chop wildly left and right? One attack oper round is D&D and kung-fu films.



The CS bonuses stack to ensure that the enemy is able to react less and less well to each new attack, while taking more and more damage. You miht not think moving the CR table makes much differece, but it is a difference.


Ranged weapon attacks are separate. They happen in the battle order, they use the combat results table, but they aren't combat attacks!


Enemies do NOT gang up. Think of it as the player characters become GMs for a moment. They get to choose if enemies rush them, or not. If the higher CS characters don't choose to let enemies rush them (or choose to have their character go after a foe), then the lowest CS character gets mobbed - he has no choice but to engage multiple enemy

(See the rule - no enemy can be left unengaged)

Remember, enemies cannot gang up. You engage multiple enemies. They ALL get the same high bonus. You cannot do them anything like as much damage each, and they each do significantly more damage.

You seem to think you roll one combat roll, you roll one combat roll each enemy. So enemies are all taking a swing anyway.


Anyway, I think the point is answered by realiing a) you roll separately for each opponent, b) enemies don't get to act unless they are firing ranged weapons, apart from that GM intervention the players are GMing the battle and deciding which enemy engage their character (through engaging multiple opponents if needed)


Example:
Buff Wolf (19), Middle Wolf (15) and Weak Wolf (13) attack some drakkarim. Three of them to start off with.

Buff Wolf engages all three, telling his friends to run and complete the mission. He fights three combats, one each Drakkar, and each Drakkar gets +4CS

Middle Wolf and Weak Wolf are having none of it. In one parallel reality, they both charge the same Drakkar. Middle Wolf gains +2CS, wehile the Drakkar is back to +0CS, Weak Wolf gains +4CS and the Drakkar is +0CS. In another reality, Middle Wolf and Weak Wolf take separate Drakkarim. They each only get +2CS.

They each fight a separate round with the Drakkarm as the Drakkar able to react less and less well to the new attacks and swing less and less effectively if being ganged up on.

If there was a fourth Drakkar, then if Middling Wolf rushed off to gang up on a Drakkar, Weak Wolf would be forced to engage the new Drakkar, at no bonus to either side (narratively, the Drakkar rushes at him or Weak Wolf rushes at the Drakkar, but mechanically one of the two MUST happen hence the player has no choice)

If the fourth Drakkar had a ranged weapon, and his CS was higher than anyone's, then he could launch a ranged attack before someone engaged him in comabat.


That seems to be how it goes.

 

[Random Code]

I do think threads like this evidence that the LW community could do with a set of official examples of combat involving multiple opponents (groups and individuals), movement, ranged and melee attacks, etc.

I think its plain to see that although the rules are perfectly okay for the gamebooks they need further explanation and support for multiple PCs as is found in the average RPG session.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Beowolf, I think you're actually wrong on several accounts. You say that enemies don't take actions outside of ranged attacks. You also say that enemies can't gang up on heroes and that heroes decide the engagements in combat.

Here's what it says in the core book about combat:

Pg 19 - "It is quite possible for multiple enemies to gang up on a single character, or visa versa."

The only example combat in the core book has the enemy engaging the player character:
Pg 16 - "You, as a Kai Lord, are ambushed by a Winged Devil."
Pg 19 also strongly implies that enemies can engage in combat, "If a character or enemy is not currently engaged, when it his his turn to act in the Order of Battle, he is free to attack anyone he wishes, even if they are already engaged." In the "order of battle" section it just says CHARACTER, not PLAYER CHARACTER. This indicates strongly to me that all characters have actions in the combat sequence, just not player characters.

Where are we getting this, "all enemies must be engaged" rule? I can't find it anywhere.

I agree that we need some concrete examples of what "official" combat is suppose to look like when characters and/or enemies are being ganged up on. Can somebody from Mongoose officially help out with this?

 

[beowuuf]

I agree we need examples. The wording is not clear in some cases, or is used in more than one context. For example 'character' seems to be players, not just any character, because in the Ganging Up section it says 'character or enemies' not 'character'.


I've asked the question too, I've argued your side, then come to the side I am on now, and then had it confirmed by people who are GMing right now (with some small modification).

The 'you must attack' comes from the bottom of the order of battle on p19. Characters chose who to fight until all are engaged.



If the rules end up being where I originally argued from, which seems to be in line with yours, then combats are still triggered from the point of view of the heroes. Unless that was a misunderstanding of what I said.

I do not believe you can only damage one opponent per round, you try to damage the opponents that try to attack you. I don't believe you invert attack and defender like ragadorn tavern, because the heroes would die very quickly, and the new rules are pretty unforgiving to new characters (start at rank 5 again). I think ranged weapons aside (which are known to be deadly) the heroes get the nice buffer in damage compared to damage given.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

I still don't see "You've got to attack" anywhere in the rules. Maybe I really am dense. Could you give me the exact quote? And I have also seen on these message boards that no enemy can be unengaged... no seeing that either.

 

[beowuuf]

The 'until everyone is engaged in comat' line. Engaged in combat has a very specific meaning, because you can only disengage if you are allowed to evade, cannot do certain things like ranged attack and drink potions, etc.

So again, it's a case of a word choice being unclear.

From a narrative standpoint, enemies who are charging at you don't then just stand around twiddling their thumbs, so it makes sense that at the end of the inital charge, everyone should be hitting someone.

 

[Zager Krahl]

These conversations make me feel old, like I've heard them all time and time and time again...

The 'max 4 opponents' rule also makes sense (if you thinking about it) from a spatial point of view: how exactly are 10 Giaks all going to get close enough to a single character to plant blows on him/her at the same time?

 

[Random Code]

These conversations make me feel old, like I've heard them all time and time and time again...

Its because they've never really been resolved officially by Mongoose. I like the LW rules but it is a failing of the combat system in that it doesn't really describe (with relevant examples) how it works with multiple foes vs. multiple characters. Nor does it establish any kind of movement rules.

Personally, I'm going to put together my own set of rules for combat and stick them up here for usage. Eventually!

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

The 'until everyone is engaged in comat' line. Engaged in combat has a very specific meaning, because you can only disengage if you are allowed to evade, cannot do certain things like ranged attack and drink potions, etc.

So again, it's a case of a word choice being unclear.

From a narrative standpoint, enemies who are charging at you don't then just stand around twiddling their thumbs, so it makes sense that at the end of the inital charge, everyone should be hitting someone.

If that's the wording that everyone is hanging their hats on in the "you've got to attack and so do all of your opponents" then that's pretty thin. I agree - very vague. You mean that my evil Druid MUST engage? He can't stand back and blast the party with evil spells while his cronies engage? Or in the case of a Giak attack, three Giaks CAN'T stand back with bow and arrow and attack while the others swarm in? Or even a HERO can't do ANYTHING ELSE once combat has broken out but engage (In Terror of the Darklords published adventure a evil horde attacks a village the heroes are defending... Can a hero decide to rescue someone from a burning building or put out a fire in the middle of combat?) What if my guy is really beat up and I want to stand back with a bow? I can't do that because I've GOT to engage? Once I've engaged, and I then successfully evade, if combat is still going on is it my duty, according to the rules, to reengage?

I could go on!

Also, as combat skills shift in battle due to tactical bonuses (pluses for ganging up), does the combat order change?

 

[Zager Krahl]

You seem to mistake 'Have to engage' with 'Have to fight in melee combat'.

The two are not the same.

A ranged attack counts as 'engaged'.
Casting a spell counts as 'engaged'.

'Engaged' means the character is doing some ACTION, not necessarily swinging a sword and shouting 'For Sommerlund!'.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Actually, I believe you're wrong. When you attack with a ranged attack, you "target" you don't engage. Ranged attacks don't count toward Ganging Up... for example, four Giaks could be on one Kai Lord but that same Kai Lord could still be targeted with a ranged attack, only at the appropriate negative. The ranged attack would not receive any bonuses from ganging up.

Are you saying that once I've been attacked by a ranged combat I've got to evade combat to "disengage" before I'm able to attack any other character? I don't think that's the case.

 

[Srehtorc]

would reading the combat order rules as "until all who are engaging are engaged" simplify this at all?

and while it isn't an enforced rule that you must attack, in many situations it's a sound expectation:
the bad guys aren't just going to sit on the sidelines having a cigarette, they're going to leap into the thick of things, and they're tactically minded enough to avoid leaving any of those Sommlending scum unengaged if they can help it.
likewise, in playing noble heroes of the lastlands it's unlikely that you're going to let your ally get torn apart by four giaks so you can avoid combat.
Odds are, everyone is going to get involved in the combat- and while I can't remember the rules for ranged combat offhand and I'm away from my rulebook, I'm not sure how strategically sound firing into combat is.

 

[Zager Krahl]

Actually, I believe you're wrong. When you attack with a ranged attack, you "target" you don't engage. Ranged attacks don't count toward Ganging Up... for example, four Giaks could be on one Kai Lord but that same Kai Lord could still be targeted with a ranged attack, only at the appropriate negative. The ranged attack would not receive any bonuses from ganging up.

Are you saying that once I've been attacked by a ranged combat I've got to evade combat to "disengage" before I'm able to attack any other character? I don't think that's the case.

Read my post above yours. Then read it again.

I'll make it simple: when the rules say all combatants have to be 'engaged', it means all combatants have to be doing SOMETHING.

A ranged attack is SOMETHING.
Casting a spell is SOMETHING.
Running for a better vantage point to shoot from is SOMETHING.
Jumping into a river to evade is SOMETHING.