Multiple Attacks (Matt?)

[gamesmeister]

In CoG2, specifically the Basmoli Berserkers, they have the ability to transform their hands into claws which they can then fight with. Interestingly, it states that the Basmoli gets to attack with both claws during each Combat Round.

A while back there was a question as to whether creatures with multiple attacks get them each combat round.

So does this mean the answer to the above is yes? Does a Lion get to attack with a Claw and a Bite each combat round? Or two claws and a bite? Or just one attack per round?

This was never officially answered before that I recall - Matt, can we have an official response please. What was your interpretation when playtesting the creatures?

Thanks in advance

 

[GoingDown]

So does this mean the answer to the above is yes? Does a Lion get to attack with a Claw and a Bite each combat round? Or two claws and a bite? Or just one attack per round?

In this case - if man is using weapons in both hands, shouldn't he got two attacks in one combat round? Or with unarmed, attack twice? Or four times?

I will judge no multiple attacks, to keep things simple. And only if creature description specifically states that it can do multiple attacks on one round, then yes.

 

[weasel_fierce]

well, two weapon fighting does give you the option of taking an extra swing

As written, unless there's a specific exception, you only attack based on your number of actions.

 

[GoingDown]

well, two weapon fighting does give you the option of taking an extra swing

As written, unless there's a specific exception, you only attack based on your number of actions.

Yes, that is exactly the thing I am trying to say - you can only attack based on your combat actions, once per each action. And with two weapons, you just get one extra combat action. This might happen for some special cases, of course.

 

[Halfbat]

[...]you can only attack based on your combat actions, once per each action. And with two weapons, you just get one extra combat action.

It's not actually an additional generic Combat Action. You either get an additional Parry Reaction OR an additional (slightly limited (see p57) @ -20%) Close Combat Action.

 

[Utgardloki]

So does this mean the answer to the above is yes? Does a Lion get to attack with a Claw and a Bite each combat round? Or two claws and a bite? Or just one attack per round?

Creatures or characters with multiple attacks can take their attacks every round, as far as I know. In the case of a human with two weapons (or swinging with both fists, I would rule) there is a penalty involved.

I think, based on my observation of cats, that I would also apply this penalty to creatures such as lions that try to attack with more than one attack at once, unless the description noted that no penalty applied. Housecats, at least, appear to only be using one claw at one time, or a bite, unless they are trying to make a "grapple" and grab onto something.

But then, I'm just a GM whose made extensive plans to modify the rules.

 

[simonh]

The 'extra action if you have a 2nd weapon' rule is a bit of a blot on the rules -after all why not allow such an action to characters wanting to get in an extra kick, punch or headbut? What's 'special' about weapons, as against unarmed attacks? It also creates potential confusion in the case of other natural weapons such as claws, and what about knuckle dusters and such?

Specificaly categorising some attacks as weapon attacks and others as non-weapons and handling them differently seems a bit awkward to me. My prefered solution is on record at my site- have generic ruels for handling all forms of attack, with rules for handling multiple attacks using different 'weapons' that doesn't create artificial weapon categories.

 

[Utgardloki]

I really like your solution, Simonh. I don't know if it will exactly fit with all my house rules, or if I need to tweak it a little bit, but the idea of a penalty for repeated attacks can explain why a cat would sometimes bite and sometimes swipe with a claw and sometimes try to grab with both claws.

(Of course, most PCs won't be fighting cats, but I have never seen a lion attack, so I have to extrapolate upward.)

Of course, a distinction should be made as to whether a combatant is attempting two attacks at once (such as a boxer with a one-two punch) or is making one attack using two appendages (such as a cat trying to grab an opponent with his claws). Looking at it that way, it makes sense to treat animals as they are in D&D, where the GM rolls for both claws for each attack and then (in the case of great cats) if both claws hit rolls for extra attack modes.

I think Simonh's rule will help deal with questions regarding use of both hands, or all four hands in the case of PCs with more than two arms (which happens, sometimes).

 

[Halfbat]

I really like your solution, Simonh. [...] I think Simonh's rule will help deal with questions regarding use of both hands, or all four hands in the case of PCs with more than two arms (which happens, sometimes).

Ditto. And (as I think I've said before) I think it's a pity it wasn't in the core rules as it would really help solidify combat.

 

[Deleriad]

It is a bit of knotty issue this. Simon's rules - which pick up from Stormbringer and so on - are one solution. The MRQ rules really don't make any logical sense though they play well in a quick and dirty way - the Paris Hilton of gaming I guess.

I've taken a variant approach by giving a fixed number of combat actions & reactions to each species and then varying by species and skill level. Basically, I use 100% as mastery (this is a learned 100% not 100% once modifiers are added) and allow a master of combat skill to use it for an additional action or reaction. It ends up being similar to Simon's approach but avoids the constant subtractions at the expense of a big obvious breakpoint.

I did remove the extra action for using two weapon and shield because I really couldn't see how that made sense.

 

[gamesmeister]

I have to admit, I'm baffled why Mongoose didn't simply continue the previous tradition of stating for each creature how it uses it's multiple attacks. There is plenty of space in the book for a one or two sentences, just as in previous editions e.g.

"A bear may attack twice in a round, using either two claw attacks or a claw and a bite"

That's the kind of thing we used to see, and bears were pretty scary as a result. It's infuriating that they and many other creatures seem to have been weakened to such a degree in MRQ, hence why I was hoping for an official response.

The Brown Bear is a good example, because it's Bite has a higher chance to hit that the Claw, and does more damage, so why would it ever use the claw? What's the intention here? Was there a plan to list the attacks as above that just didn't make it into the book?

 

[Rurik]

Creatures are a double disadvantage compared to previous editions. In older versions they typically had 2-3 times a normal players attacks in a round, now they are on roughly even footing.

Also, Strike rank is based on Dex+Int/2. Since most creatures have a fixed int in the 4-5 range they also will typically be slower than a human (average Lion SR 10, average Bear SR 7, average Human SR 11-12).

I personally base SR for fixed INT creatures on DEX only and give one bonus attack per extra attack listed.

 

[gamesmeister]

Matt, any chance of an official clarification?

Thanks

 

[thyrwyn]

The change from SIZ to INT for strike rank determination did handicap animals to some degree.

 

[weasel_fierce]

The issue with SIZ I s'pose is that strike rank now is one factor for any actions attempted, including ones where SIZ isnt a benefit, whereas in RQ2/3, SIZ was only a factor for melee.

I'd use straight DEX for animals really.
Or simply assign a fixed 12 INT for strike rank purposes. Instint rating

 

[litrevan]

The Brown Bear is a good example, because it's Bite has a higher chance to hit that the Claw, and does more damage, so why would it ever use the claw? What's the intention here? Was there a plan to list the attacks as above that just didn't make it into the book?

My bear and lion attack experience is from watching TV. Having said that I'll go on like I know what I'm talking about.

1. Bears aren't rules lawyers.
2. If a bear was a rules lawyer, it'd want to do a claw first, to reduce the chance of exposure to its head when it extends it for the bite.

Lion attacks, the main difference I've seen is that the legs are jointed slightly differently than a house cat's legs are, the claw attack looks just a little different. The head is usually also lower to the shoulders making for not much difference I can see. Lions also use their weight on the pounce followed by the bite. I haven't seen house cats do that, just using pounces to trap and only bite if it's prey, otherwise it's usually and inspection.

As a side note I was standing about four foot away from a caged mountain lion once when it purred. Obviously a purr, but it was so baso profundo that I jumped anyway :lol: It was also rather louder.

 

[Deleriad]

My bear and lion attack experience is from watching TV. Having said that I'll go on like I know what I'm talking about.

1. Bears aren't rules lawyers.
2. If a bear was a rules lawyer, it'd want to do a claw first, to reduce the chance of exposure to its head when it extends it for the bite.

The problem is that this does not make any sense in game terms. For example a Brown Bear has 2 attacks on average, does more damage with a bite and has a better chance with a bite. Finally, a bear has "natural weapons" so having a bite attack successfully parried does NOT cause the location to be damaged.

So a rules lawyer bear bites for every attack until such time as its head is reduced to 0 HP.

This is why when you watch bears hunting for salmon in wildlife documentaries that they always do it by biting...

As an interesting snippet, if you successfully dodge a brown bear's bite it does 1d10+1 damage to you.

Another thought: in MRQ, bears can't bear hug you.

Another thought: an average 10 year old human child (DEX 10, INT 10 for argument's sake) can punch a bear in the head before it can land a blow. Admittedly that's not going to hurt the bear too much.

Now as far as I can tell bears are an example of ambush predators: they attack by pouncing and grappling. Once grappled the prey is born down, pinned, bitten etc.

What I think MRQ needs is the following:
"Pounce" attack. An attack which if not successfully dodged does damage equal to damage modifier and puts them in grapple combat. Note that it is possible to get close to this using RAW by having the animal charge and grapple but then the bear is badly hampered by its lack of Unarmed Combat skill...

Additionally, grappling needs tidying up. One basic addition is that creatures with natural weapons or fearsome natural weapons can use them in grapple combat as one of the grapple options. Another is that you don't really want halflings being able to throw bears in a grapple. (The grapple rules are a casualty of MRQ's honourable but not very successful attempt to avoid pitting stats against each other).

In general, MRQ creatures can be made to work but they generally need to grapple in order to prevent player characters from being able to use their weapons and they need to be able to take advantage of their natural weapons while grappling.

On the wildlife documentary front: recently watched a Polar Bear failing to kill a walrus on Planet Earth. The bear pounced on the walrus and clawed and bit it several times. The walrus's response was to drag the bear into the water and try to tusk it. The walrus escaped seemingly stressed because the bear couldn't get its claws and teeth through the blubber. It also ended up with two bad tusk wounds in its rear legs which ended up causing it to bleed to death. Going by RQ Monsters stats, that walrus must have had about 20 APs of blubber. The bear was emaciated so probably wasn't doing the full d8+2d10 damage.

My problem with MRQ is not that it isn't an accurate recreation of bear vs walrus fights - that's not what roleplaying is about - but that it doesn't feel right.