Multiple opponent penalty

[SableWyvern]

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... :?

Yeah, I was ignoring the normal flank bonuses, just looking at the gains from ganging up vs the impoved flank bonus Trodax suggested.

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.

My group uses delay fairly frequently. In my opinion, the delay offers the best of both worlds to high initiative characters. They can choose to jump in early, or they can wait and see what happens, in which case they gain all the benefits of the inverted intiative system Sutek mentions.

I can see Trodax's point though, if players try to use delay to apply fine manipulation to the system. When I see it used, it tends to be individual characters waiting to see what develops before deciding on a response. Still, the kind of abuse Trodax mentions could be fairly easily stopped, by dissallowing complex discussions, especially of strictly mechanical effects, in the midst of combat.

If the group wants to arrange some system of delays and actions to maximise their bonuses, get them to work it out in advance, and then put it into place without further discussion when the battle happens. If they pull it off, put it down to skillful teamwork gained through familiarity, training and general combat experience. If it falls apart, well ... that's the nature of warfare and trying dainty tactics in the middle of a melee.

 

[Sutek]

The more I think about it the Delay does work, like SW just said, in place of the entire inverted INIT system I was talking about. They have the added benefit though of deciding it invert of not, which is actually better. Hadn't thought of that. Delay, in Conan, works the way I want it to in D&D, but by virtue of the way the rest of the comabt system holds together.

Man, this game just keeps getting better and better...nice work Mongoose Chaps. 8)

 

[Anonymous]

Legend of Five Rings RPG has a good way of using initiative, which I have pirated for other games, including Conan the RPG. Everyone rolls initiative, then the lowest result declares actions on to the highest. Then the highest starts the round performing his actions as necessary having made decisions based on the apparent actions of everyone else. Changing actions in mid-stream as a result of someone else's action is difficult or results in penalties.

For example, an archer targets a certain individual in his declaration of action. Unfortunately, someone puts his target down before his initiative count. He has some penalties (usually a Reflex save to retarget or just a penalty to attack).

 

[EvilCoy]

Last post mine. Forgot to sign in.