Multiple Attacker Bonus

[bigdamnhero]

I'm curious to see how people use the Multiple Attacker Bonus. In most of the heroic games I've run, I have allowed it pretty much as written (-1 OCV per additional attacker, down to 1/2 DCV) except I don't normally require a coordinated attack roll. (I make a subjective situational judgement as to how well the attacks are coordinated, generally giving the PCs the benefit of the doubt.) If I want PCs or NPCs to be able to wade through hordes of chumps without getting hit, there's always Def Maneuver II.

But it seems like for superheroic games, that could give the "normals" too much of an advantage?


bigdamnhero
"Will someone get this walking carpet out of my way?"

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

buy the teamwork skill, that will make them roll.

supers can always buy defense manuver, or have enough defenses to shrug it off

[Derek Hiemforth]

What do you think of this as an idea...?

Divorce Coodination from Multiple Attackers. The benefit of Multiple Attackers is based solely on the fact that it's more difficult to evade multiple foes than it is to evade one, whether they're "Coordinating Attacks" or not.

But rather than lowering the target's DCV, what if the attackers got OCV bonuses? After all, being surrounded doesn't mean you can't evade any of your attackers... it just means you can't evade all of them. By lowering the target's DCV, you're making it easier for each and every one of the attackers to hit.

Instead of that, what if the attackers as a group get a +1 OCV for each attacker after the first, and this bonus can be distributed at the GM's discretion? For example, let's say a street-level vigilante (who doesn't have Defense Maneuver II) is surrounded by four gangbangers. The gangbangers have a collective +3 OCV. The GM might split this up, giving +1 to three of the thugs (simulating that it's just generally harder for the hero to evade them all), or he might give all +3 to one of the thugs (simulating that one of them takes a cheap shot while the others are pressing the attack), etc.

Alternately, you might leave this decision in the hands of the target. For example, if Batman was surrounded in H-t-H combat by Bane, Ra's al Ghul, Lady Shiva, and The Riddler, he might choose to allocate the +3 OCV to The Riddler. He's essentially saying, "I'd rather leave myself wide-open to Riddler's attack, and keep my guard up against the more dangerous foes."

[JohnTaber]

Very nice Derek!

Some comments...

I agree with BigDamnHero and Derek in that I do not require the Teamwork skill to have the DCV penalties apply. If there are many things attacking it should be harder to dodge them all. (Note that this is the same reasoning why I give autofire an OCV bonus...but that is already overly discussed.)

I think the distribution idea is neat because smart agents who are coordinated could use it to suit their weapons OR the target. For example, 5 pointy eared hair dressers...I mean elves...are going up against an ogre. The ogre has a low DCV so three of the elves decide to split the +1 OCV giving them more chance to roll higher damage. Later the elves fight a band of thieves. When they surround the leader they decide to give one elf +3 OCV so they can hit fast bandit leader.

Interesting...

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

interesting idea derek! would you stack teamwork on top of that?

[Hugh Neilson]

interesting idea derek! would you stack teamwork on top of that?

What if we made a Teamwork opposed check against some skill of the defender (maybe tactics? or an INT roll if he lacks the skill)

If the attackers win, they decide how to allocate the OCV bonus between them.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

i dunno, why buy tactics for 3 if it's your INT by default? make it something like 8- or the way i've seen it handled in the low fantasy game i play, is that the multiple attackers bonus is determined by teamwork, and someone with enough defense manuver is protected from the DCV drop but not the stun adding. Thus people who want to be immune from both buy resistance to teamwork (to lower teamwork rolls)

[Hugh Neilson]

i dunno, why buy tactics for 3 if it's your INT by default? make it something like 8-

To me, it's just an ancillary benefit of Tactics, so you'd buy it because your character is a tactician. But an 8- roll, or some modified INT roll, would work as well.

My intent is to apply this to Derek's suggestion of a multiple attacker OCV bonus divided amongst the attackers. Making the default "defender chooses where bonus applies" has some appeal, and this provides an approach for the attackers to change the default to "we apply the bonus" by using good teamwork skills.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

i can see the 8- that would work pretty well i think, especially to speed up the game

[prestidigitator]

Derek's ideas are very interesting. I'm not sure I will use them, but cool nonetheless. I tend to require Teamwork for the Multiple Attacker Bonus, but remember also that there are such things as attacking from the flank (-1 DCV) and rear (-2 DCV). When there are large numbers of attackers, some of them are bound to be able to take advantage of this (unless, of course, the defender has the appropriate Defense Maneuver).

[pinecone]

I base such things on special effect...bucha viper agents they get the bonus...they are used to fighting together. Rioting mob? No way. Bucha gang members, they make rolls, they are used to fighting as a group, but lack disapline and sometimes get in each others way....I really like letting an oposed tactics roll deceide Who gives the bonus, it helps make Tactics be more than "I bought this because I oughta" and actually be usefull without going gonzo...

[Fox1]

I run it as in the book.

Very few groups are well trained enough (i.e. have teamwork) to take advantage of the rule however.

[Narratio]

We used to play it as the book, but Derek has a heck of an idea there.
(Note to self; increase in non-wussiness dependent upon strenght of exclamatory words used!)

Our GM is doing some simulations with it now. Simple, effective and easy to implement. But no more bonus than +5 'cos of the hex map.

[pinecone]

Dude! I'm sure that two agents can fit in a hex if they really sqeeze in there...."I really hate it when the agents are arms over shoulder the whole fight...giving them a kicks only martial art just rubs it in..."

[Hugh Neilson]

Dude! I'm sure that two agents can fit in a hex if they really sqeeze in there...."I really hate it when the agents are arms over shoulder the whole fight...giving them a kicks only martial art just rubs it in..."

Try drawing out a life-size hex sometime. 2 meters across by 2 meters wide is pretty big. Two people could fit in there pretty easily. Four would be a bit more crowded (though I think 2 meters by 2 meters would be a pretty decent car interior that seats four).