Multiple opponent penalty

[Trodax]

I have a question to all you folks who are experienced with running combat in Conan. Thing is, I don't like the multiple opponent penalty (-1 to defense for each additional attacker), and am thinking about removing it. First of all, it seems like to much extra work to keep track of in large combats. Secondly, I think it messes with the cyclical nature of the round. Thats one of the things I like most about d20 combat, that there isn´t really any beginning or end of the rounds (except at the start of combat). What I mean is that there is no "your combat pool refreshes at the beginning of the round" stuff that you often have in other games. With the multiple opponent penalty there is though, and so you get situations were attackers with low initiative counts are likelier to hit.

So my question is, would it unbalance things terribly to just remove the penalty? And if so, do any of you have any smart ideas as to how to change it? One idea I had was to just raise the flanking bonus.

 

[SableWyvern]

Interesting observation.

How about providing a bonus to all attackers, at all times, based on how many opponents are adjacent to the target? Off hand, I'd suggest a bonus equal to half the total number of adversaries surrounding the target (rounded down).

If you sum the total of all the bonuses gained in a round for ganging up, you get the following comparison:

Adversaries: Total bonuses from default rule, Total bonuses from Sable rule.

2: +1, +2
3: +3, +4
4: +6, +8
5: +10, +10
6: +16, +18
7: +22, +21
8: +29, +32

I'm not sure how mathematically valid that kind of comparison actually is, but it seems to show a fair degree of balance between the two options.

With the variant, the maximum bonuse received by any individual is lower (which will hurt lower level characters ganging up against a much superior foe), but everyone involved gets an equal improvement, so the minimum increases are higher.

Bonuses can still fluctuate, but can be easily assessed at the moment of the attack, and aren't directly tied to a specific point or ebb/flow in the round.

The biggest drawback that springs to mind is that characters not attacking a particular foe would still count towards the modifier if they are adjacent. Further, being adjacent to two foes allows someone to apply bonuses to two foes. Reach also adds a little more complexity, although it would be simple enough to just continue the progression beyond 8 if required.

The ability to contribute modifiers towards two foes (especially when flanked) is probably the only thing stopping me from giving this serious consideration myself.

Perhaps a character would have to nominate a foe on his action, to count against. Although then the book-keeping begins to grow again, especially in large melees.

 

[Arkobla Conn]

I'm playing with the multiple opponent bonus and like it. It FEELS like Conan / Hyboria. Your statement about giving low initiative folks a better chance of hitting may just be correct. THERE IS something to be said about holding back, evaluating the situation and then acting. Fundamentally, there is little difference between someone who rolled a 4 for initiative and someone who chooses to go one a 4. Both get the advantage of seeing how faster moving folks have acted and will react accordingly.

This also means that there may be some lopsided situations going on. Did that Barbarian rush into the Frey and is he now surrounded by 6 enemies? Doesn't it make sense that each of them will find it easier to attack this foolish lout? (remember that flanking also applies). After all, how can he defend from all directions at once.

The same holds true for enemies who rush forward. They deserve to be surrounded and hacked down.

Perhaps more strategy is required rather than rushing forward and providing opportunities for opponents. Perhaps formations and watching each others flank will become more important than ever before....

 

[SableWyvern]

Arkobla, you make some fine points. However, the way I read it, Trodax doesn't really like the concept of fixed rounds with a start and a finish, and this is the crux of his problem.

Essentially, D&D combat starts and ends, and everything inbetween flows continuously (especially now that refocus (which I never used anyway) has been removed). Adding in a rule that makes the start and end of each round actually matter alters that aspect of the game.

That aside, I pretty much agree with you.

 

[Wicked Tinker]

Well said, Arkobla. In my game, I found that the multiple opponent bonus, while difficult to track, really made a difference in combat. The group was able to gang-up on a very difficult opponent and wear it down. The same happened to the Cimmerian who rushed headlong into a group of oncoming enemies. He retreated quickly!

 

[Trodax]

Yup, what I don't like about the rule is that the continuos flow disappears and book-keeping is added. I like a situation were I can just take a look at the battlefield, and count out the bonuses from there. In that respect your idea, Sable, should function well. But, as you pointed out, it becomes a bit weird when a character could provide more than one bonus. In a large, dense battle everyone will get a lot of bonuses (maybe this is realistic, I dunno).

Arkobla and Wicked Tinker, I agree with both of you in that one should be penalised when fighting multiple opponents. It's just how the rule works that I don´t like. Do you think doubling the flanking bonus to +4 could work as a substitute? Granted, this would make positioning more important and also lower the maximum potential bonus/penalty quite a bit.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think doubling the flank bonus could greatly dilute the effect of the rule.when there is a large disparity in combatant skill. A sixth attacker goes from a +5 bonus to a +2 bonus (he almost certainly had flank +2 already). It depends, though, on what was needed to hit to begin with.

If a natural 20 is required as a default, anything that reduces the maximum bonus hurts a lot. In other cases, it's total summed bonuses that will matter. Also, smart groups (of PCs and NPCs) will probably find more ways to minimise negative flanking, unless greatly outnumberd.

Anyway, I'm busy trying to come up with other possible options for you. I think your goal is a good one, although perhaps not achievable.

 

[MightyCthulhu]

If the penalty were based on the number of opponents threatening the character instead of number of opponents who have attacked the character, the cyclic nature of the round is not effected.

If you feel +1 per additional opponent threatening the target is too harsh, change it to +1 per 2 additional opponents. The second option should average out to be similar in "total bonuses granted" to the original rule.

-MC

 

[SableWyvern]

If the penalty were based on the number of opponents threatening the character instead of number of opponents who have attacked the character, the cyclic nature of the round is not effected.

If you feel +1 per additional opponent threatening the target is too harsh, change it to +1 per 2 additional opponents. The second option should average out to be similar in "total bonuses granted" to the original rule.

-MC

Someone didn't read my post. Or, just didn't think the convoluted mess I wrote could possibly be exactly the same as such a simply and clearly expressed idea.

 

[MightyCthulhu]

Someone didn't read my post. Or, just didn't think the convoluted mess I wrote could possibly be exactly the same as such a simply and clearly expressed idea.

caught me.

Actually if you look at the timestamp, it appears we were in a race.

 

[SableWyvern]

Sorry, excuse not accepted. It was my first post which you were paraphrasing. Although, the fact still remains that you said it much better than I did. 8)

 

[Sutek]

It's more bookeeping, but one way Stargate d20 does it is to give INIT bonuses and penalties based on actions in previous rounds. There's also a factoring in of damage taken (type) altering INIT in thier system - if you're hit with a CRIT, you take so much off your INIT in the subsequent round. This is called Fluid Initiative and it would slightly off-set the dilema you're having with INIT as it stands in Conan and other d20 games.

Persoanlly, I like inverted INIT, but it would take a lot of reworking of the combat rules to implement. Basically, high INIT characters would go last, being so quick they can react to whatever the slow pokes do.

 

[Trodax]

I think doubling the flank bonus could greatly dilute the effect of the rule.when there is a large disparity in combatant skill. A sixth attacker goes from a +5 bonus to a +2 bonus (he almost certainly had flank +2 already). It depends, though, on what was needed to hit to begin with.

If a natural 20 is required as a default, anything that reduces the maximum bonus hurts a lot. In other cases, it's total summed bonuses that will matter. Also, smart groups (of PCs and NPCs) will probably find more ways to minimise negative flanking, unless greatly outnumberd.

Yeah, you're probably right. For weak attackers trying to gang up on a greater opponent, it's definitely the maximum bonus thats important.

Anyway, I'm busy trying to come up with other possible options for you. I think your goal is a good one, although perhaps not achievable.

Well thank you! Don't know if it´s achievable either

 

[Sutek]

I think doubling the flank bonus could greatly dilute the effect of the rule.when there is a large disparity in combatant skill. A sixth attacker goes from a +5 bonus to a +2 bonus (he almost certainly had flank +2 already). It depends, though, on what was needed to hit to begin with.

I think you have this backwards. Either that or I'm misunderstanding you.

Say there's attackers in all adjacent square s to Conan. Here's a round by round breakdown of the bonuses starting a the 12 o'clock square:

1) +2: +2 Flank bonus only
2) +3: +2 Flank +1 for multiple attackers
3) +4: +2 Flank +2 for multiple attackers
4) +5: +2 Flank +3 for multiple attackers
5) +6: +2 Flank +4 for multiple attackers
6) +7: +2 Flank +5 for multiple attackers

Flank bonus stacks with the cumulative multiple attacker bonus. This seems to be the crux of the problem as that #6 guy coul dattack last by INIT but be more likely to hit. However, this seems perfectly reasonable as there are so many opponents surrounding Conan, and if he can't eliminate them all, he's in a bad way.

What might solve this issue is to point out that high INIT PCs might want to attack low INT NPCs first to prevent thier upcoming strikes. That's the way around it really.

What's screwey is that the character with the highest DEX is also likely to (A) have the higest INIT and (B) be better at Finesse weapons such that (C) he needs the better bonus to hit due to circumstance more than anyone else. It looks like those type character will have to win INIT, Delay, and then take the high circumstance bonus, which defeates the purpose of them having a higgh INIT.

Inverting the INIT order will work, but you have to do a lot to action order to make it work.

 

[Trodax]

It's more bookeeping, but one way Stargate d20 does it is to give INIT bonuses and penalties based on actions in previous rounds. There's also a factoring in of damage taken (type) altering INIT in thier system - if you're hit with a CRIT, you take so much off your INIT in the subsequent round. This is called Fluid Initiative and it would slightly off-set the dilema you're having with INIT as it stands in Conan and other d20 games.

Sounds a bit to complex for my tastes (to much bookeeping). Interesting though; do you in Stargate keep your initiative count (albeit modified), or do you reroll each turn and modify?

 

[Sutek]

Here's an example using mods straight from thier table:

I roll INIT 19 at the start of a Combat.

Turn 1) On INIT 19, I aim (+2) and brace (+1) my rifle for a shot (that's 2 MvEq actions, or in SG-1 the call them "half actions")

Turn 2) On INIT 22, I shoot my big belt-fed 30 Cal Machine Gun (a tactical weapon by the SG-12 rules) (-2) in a burst at the enemy. The enemy, now no longer surprised lob Goa'uld explosive devices at me. They explode and I fail my Save to resist Blast Damage (another SG-1 rule) and I takes some damage (-1 for taking 1 or more pt of dmg, -5 for failing the save)

Turn 3) On INIT 14 I move to higher ground (+1) and a Goa'uld fires his staff weapon at me for a bunch of damage (-1) which results in a Critical Hit (-5). Because it's a Crit, it doesn't stack with the damage INIT penalty, so just the -5.

Turn 4) I'm on INIT 10 now.

The count changes depending on what's going on.

 

[Trodax]

I think doubling the flank bonus could greatly dilute the effect of the rule.when there is a large disparity in combatant skill. A sixth attacker goes from a +5 bonus to a +2 bonus (he almost certainly had flank +2 already). It depends, though, on what was needed to hit to begin with.

I think you have this backwards. Either that or I'm misunderstanding you.

Sable was referring to my suggestion to replace the multiple opponent penalty with a doubled flanking bonus (+4). I think what he meant was that attacker #6 would go from having +7 (+5,+2) in the normal rules to only +4 with my rule. Essentially that he would lose out on a +3 bonus by using my rule. Don´t know if that was any clearer though... :?

What's screwey is that the character with the highest DEX is also likely to (A) have the higest INIT and (B) be better at Finesse weapons such that (C) he needs the better bonus to hit due to circumstance more than anyone else. It looks like those type character will have to win INIT, Delay, and then take the high circumstance bonus, which defeates the purpose of them having a higgh INIT.

Very true. I like the Delay rule a lot and think it works great in d20. I don't think it should be used to often though, in the D&D games I've played it's been used mainly on special occasions ("I delay and wait for the paladin to charge in first"). With the multiple opponent penalty I get a feeling that it could be used more like regular tactics, which could slow things down. I mean, when a group of characters gang up on a tough opponent, it will always be best for the group as a whole to delay their initiatives so as to reorder them so the weakest fighter goes first and the guy dishing out the most damage goes last. To me, this is tactics that are to much out-of-game and don't really mean anything outside of a turn-based game.

 

[Sutek]

Inverted INIT works well in that high goes last and low goes first, but if the low guys start running, it doesn't make sense the way the d20 system works. This way, the characters rolling hhigest are also the ones vying for Finesse spots and flanking bonuses or they are arachers waitng to get abead before letting loose the arrow. It all makes sense attack-wise. But move actions muck it up because the low INIT characters tend to attack and then step away or simply withdraw. Still, not too bad a glitch though...

 

[Trodax]

Inverted INIT works well in that high goes last and low goes first, but if the low guys start running, it doesn't make sense the way the d20 system works. This way, the characters rolling hhigest are also the ones vying for Finesse spots and flanking bonuses or they are arachers waitng to get abead before letting loose the arrow. It all makes sense attack-wise. But move actions muck it up because the low INIT characters tend to attack and then step away or simply withdraw. Still, not too bad a glitch though...

Inverted INIT won't really work with the whole flat-footed thing though. As it is now, it's only in the first round of combat that INIT is really important; to get to hit your opponent while he's still flat-footed, especially if you're a sneak-attacker. I would think it's even more so in Conan where the flat-footed defense is so low (10, if I've understood it correctly). From round two and on, INIT doesn't really matter; it's only the order in which things happen, and you don't get any benefits for going "first".

 

[Sutek]

Nah...Flat Footed is just a label. Look at it this way:

I roll a 21 and my opponent rolls a 17. He's considered Flat Footed.

Inverted INIT dictates he goes and he tries to swing. It's a hit on me and I takes some damage. Now on my turn, I swing at him but he's Flat Footed for the first round...

Doesn't matter when you apply it. It's conceptual.

What is a problem is when your opponent hits and moves. Sure you get the AOO possibly, but if he's clever, he can avoid that by doing a withdraw or 5' step behind cover or something wacky. Heck, he could be real smart and sunder your weapon or trip attack as his first shot and then that Inverted INIT can bite ya in the patootie...that's where it messes up.

What you can say if you use it is that if an opponent is denied thier DEX bonus then all damage or combat effect they distribute (like sundering and tripping) all occur at the end of the round regardless. Then that gives a tripped PC the ability to use his good, high INIT before he actually hits the dirt...like a simultaneous blow that he's able to make good on, but not make perfect on. Fate Dice could negate "preemptive actions" too.