Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

[GAZZA]

Back in the bad old days of the BBB, any group of idiots could attack at the same time and impose a DCV penalty on their target (aka Multiple Attackers Bonus). But they had to have been trained together and worked together for a while before they got to add their STUN together for the purposes of Stunning.

 

So far enough, that was a bit woolly, and tying the latter part of that to a Teamwork skill makes sense. But I'm not sure it is needed for a multiple attacker bonus, and I think there are some poorly defined outcomes as of 6e:

• The target of multiple attackers is almost always "able to take it". We're talking master villain versus superheroes, or superhero versus agents. Yes, there are border cases such as teaming up to tag a speedster, but that's the sort of thing defence manoeuvre is for. I'm not sure it should be that hard to reap the DCV penalty.
  
• Mostly because, what happens if some succeed and some fail at the roll? Do you get -1 DCV per successful Teamwork roll? Do you count only the successful Teamworkers in working out if the target is Stunned? Probably yes to both, but then again...
  
• ... it's two separate bonuses, and an all-or-nothing effect. Teamwork isn't "multiple attackers elite", it's "multiple attackers at all".
  
• If you're the only dude in the group with Teamwork, can you get a bonus to hit from coordinating with your useless buddies? Or is it just a useless skill if you're the only one that has it?
  

 

To put it another way - it is looking to me that Teamwork is both too good and not good enough simultaneously. It is arguably too good if it grants you two abilities (bonus to hit and increased chance of Stunning) at once, and arguably too weak if you need other people to have it in order to benefit.

 

I'm thinking it might be OK to give out the multiple attacker bonus without the need for a successful Teamwork roll. To counter that, though, some manoeuvres such as Fastball Special and so forth look like they could need a Teamwork roll to pull off.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

Well, I'm glad there's a very active, simple, and clear requirement for getting the multiple attacker bonus with options for the defender as opposed to, say, D&D 3E's "flanking bonus" where they, as always, have to visit all kinds of exceptions and corner cases ("Can I still flank him if I'm hanging upside down from my camel, using its reins as a weapon? I'm being very threatening with those reins!" ).

 

Still, I do think it would be nice to introduce some more middle ground. For example, the defender has the option of focusing on only ONE opponent to gain his full DCV, but (if there are more than two coordinating attackers) there's no option for ignoring one of them (like the guy with the camel reins) and focusing on the others. I think what I'd do is allow the defender to pick any number of the coordinating attackers to ignore. The defender is 1/2 DCV against those attackers. The DCV penalty against the other coordinating attackers is as if only they were coordinating. For example, if five attackers were coordinating to attack me, I could choose to ignore (be at 1/2 DCV against) attackers #1 and #4. Against the others, I'd be at -2 DCV as if only the three of them were coordinating. It might also be good to introduce some kind of roll with the punches type option where you take double Stun from some of the attacks in order to keep them from adding to the Stun of the other attacks for purposes of Stunning.

 

As to whether one roll should give you both the Multiple Attacker CV modifier and the Stun pooling, I'm somewhat ambivalent. It does seem difficult enough already to coordinate, and imposing another roll or something might make it ridiculously difficult. Note that the rules do suggest alternative rolls for the whole thing, such as Dex or Tactics rolls at a penalty. Maybe you could allow that, but only add together Stun damage from those who used the actual Teamwork skill to enter the attacker pool.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

I've discarded the Teamwork skill and just let PCs coordinate with whomever they want. It's rare that PCs do it in my experience; more frequent is the AE Flash, Grab, Throw, or AE Entangle the target and everybody attacks them while their DCV is lowered. It also seems to be quite a bit more effective.

[Nevenall]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

I use a system like Weapon Familiarities for such things. Basically for 1 point you are familiar enough with a group of combatants (like the PC group) that you can freely coordinate or get MABs with them.

 

Probably you could extend that to say that a 2 point group would be some kind of tactical unit of undefined membership but with similar training.

Like for 2 points you could coordinate with anyone who also has had navy seal training, but that's a random of the cuff thought.

[JohnTaber]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

I've discarded the Teamwork skill and just let PCs coordinate with whomever they want. It's rare that PCs do it in my experience; more frequent is the AE Flash' date=' Grab, Throw, or AE Entangle the target and everybody attacks them while their DCV is lowered. It also seems to be quite a bit more effective.[/quote']

 

I allow the multiple attacker DCV penalties without Teamwork skill. It just makes sense to me. If the group also has Teamwork then they combine their stun for being stunned.

[dmjalund]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

I use a system like Weapon Familiarities for such things. Basically for 1 point you are familiar enough with a group of combatants (like the PC group) that you can freely coordinate or get MABs with them.

 

Probably you could extend that to say that a 2 point group would be some kind of tactical unit of undefined membership but with similar training.

Like for 2 points you could coordinate with anyone who also has had navy seal training, but that's a random of the cuff thought.

you mean like this?

Combat Familiarity

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

I allow the multiple attacker DCV penalties without Teamwork skill. It just makes sense to me. If the group also has Teamwork then they combine their stun for being stunned.

 

Yeah, I don't even mess with that. I just let 'em coordinate.

[Utech]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

I've discarded the Teamwork skill and just let PCs coordinate with whomever they want.

Absolutely. The fewer obstacles there are to player cooperation the better.

 

In general (there are many exceptions) this is one of those points that separates the heroes from the villains IMO. Heroes should be working together and receiving some sort of benefit from it. Villains fail to work together and lose out on that benefit.*

 

*Of course there are other benefits to being a villain.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

Hmm. I guess I like to work in worlds where "hero" and "villain" are somewhat less clearly defined (yes, the PCs are supposed to be heroes, or at least to try their darned best to be, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they always succeed, and it doesn't necessarily mean that all of their NPC opponents are villains either). This is one of those cases where I feel that, "If the PCs can do it, the NPCs can too." So, I build appropriate NPCs (teams and creatures/races that naturally work in packs) with Teamwork, and simply encourage PCs to purchase it as one common and pretty darn cheap tool for their belts.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

Absolutely. The fewer obstacles there are to player cooperation the better.

 

In general (there are many exceptions) this is one of those points that separates the heroes from the villains IMO. Heroes should be working together and receiving some sort of benefit from it. Villains fail to work together and lose out on that benefit.*

 

*Of course there are other benefits to being a villain.

 

Not always. There are some extremely well-oiled villain teams out there; Eurostar and the War Machine spring to mind.

[Utech]

Re: Teamwork, Multiple Attackers, and Coordinating

 

Not always. There are some extremely well-oiled villain teams out there; Eurostar and the War Machine spring to mind.

(Which is why I wrote "there are many exceptions".)