High initiative vs. Multiple opponents, a house rule... Options

[John Campbell]

In ten years of SCA fighting, I've been in a lot of large-scale melees, involving all sorts of local and general mismatches in numbers, at all sorts of skill levels. I've been an adept, and I've been a girl scout.

My experience is that one good fighter can cut his way through a rabble in any numbers. If they engage him as individuals, they're toast.

But two newbie fighters who are barely competent to throw a good blow, but who stick together and move as a team are an even match for anyone. Three newbie fighters who stick together and move as a team will slaughter any single combatant they come across.

My only problem with the Friends in Melee rule is that it doesn't make any attempt to account for the ability to work together being a learned skill, which it most assuredly is. I'm thinking that it might make sense to have the maximum benefit capped by the group's best melee skill or Small Unit Tactics skill.

[mfb]

those probabilities change rapidly once the adept takes an L wound--which given the number of times in a round those odds will be tested, he's more than likely going to. next round, his TN to hit and counter will be 9, and he might have taken out one of the girls. that makes it even more likely he'll take an L wound or two, and less likely that he'll take out another girl scout. even if he does, on the third round he's still at TN 8, meaning he'll probably take another L, putting him at TN 9 again. the odds continue to go down from there.

[Dawnshadow]

[BitBasher]

Remember if a girl scout rolls a single one with a skill of one they botch.

[Dawnshadow]

[mfb]

okay. it was also run in the original test, and the girl scouts won. that's 1:1. the second test fits right in with the argument i've been maintaining all along: it shouldn't take an adept to whup some girl scouts.

edit: only if the girls aren't using combat pool, bitbasher. if they are--and given the low skill, they ough to be--they'd need to roll two 1s. easily possible, but not probable--it'll probably happen what, once or twice in one five-round combat?

[BitBasher]

[Dawnshadow]

[theartthief]

Just a quick note on the reality of the EP and the Girl Scout Troop.

In Lima, Peru there are street gangs of the under twelve crowds called piranas (yes, named after the flesh eating fish) that can easily take down a grown man and hand him any body part they choose. They often simply take his wallet, coat and shoes. Since this happens in RL, why not SR?

Oh, and yes, I have spent time in Peru, but no, I was never attacked by gradeschoolers.

- theartthief

[Kanada Ten]

All the adept needs to do is inflict a Light wound to drop each girl from combat. Unless these are highly motivated girls, in which case a moderate. Using a multi strike the adept will likely remove two girls from combat before Friends in Melee even takes effect.

[Dawnshadow]

[GrinderTheTroll]

We said, BUY MORE COOKIES DAMNIT!!

[Rev]

[mfb]

[Kanada Ten]

[In actual use, a highly trained mundane] can simply use Intimidation before combat starts. *POOF* No more Girl Scouts.

[Dawnshadow]

[Tziluthi]

Maybe only one modifier should apply. Instead of creating six point disparities, only one (ie. + or -) modifier should apply. Against equally skilled opponents, a +4 modifier is still able to kill you, but you still have a chance to get in a lucky shot if there is a high skill discrepancy. Although I tend to agree with the sentiment behind the original rule, this should definitely put an end to the mass of physad beatings by girl scouts.

[shadow_scholar]

[Lafcadio]

I think the problem with the example of the girl scouts ultimately comes down to the reach difference. If there is only a difference of 2-3 inches between combatants, it still makes a huge difference in the fight. With the girl scouts duking it out with the physically elite adept I would think this would become even more pronounced, perhaps an average of a 4-6 inch reach difference, but the rules only cover reach for weapons, or metas that tower over the normal human by a meter or more. If instead you insert an average height cubical accountant that gets tired walking two blocks to the bus stop and gets uncomfortable carrying his 15 pound breif-case to work fighting along with his tofu sampling club against the adept, it still sounds like an ass-whooping for the tofu aficianados, but not as silly/unlikely as with the girl-scouts. Getting too complicated with the rules will slow things down too much, but try adding a -1 TN for the shorties, which is quite realistic, and it may take things out of the "ridiculous" range and into the "tolerable" range.

[GentlemanLoser]

Just incase people have been skipping the first page. ;)

"Another thought. Maybe the multiple opponent penalty shouldn't been applied unless your multiple opponents are trained at attacking a target as a team and/or delay thier attacks until they all attack on the same initiatve score.

A group of kids attacking one after another isn't that scary.

But a group of kids working as a team to take you down is..."

[Apathy]

When I originally created the prior post, I was asking for feedback on a possible home-made rule I was considering:

Proposed rule: A combatant can ignore friends in melee modifiers by choosing to attack just one opponent out of the group. However, if he does this he cannot defend against any attacks from the other opponents. In this case he can't use his melee skill or his combat pool when being attacked, but he can try to soak the damage with a body roll.

If I remember correctly, the first scenario I talked about was more 'realistic', with a troll pitted against a group of humanis thugs with clubs. Then the troll gets to make a choice: "Fighting 1 vs 4, I'll never hit any of them, but if I just try to throttle one, maybe I can take him down before the others can beat me unconscious..."

The most common scenario I see this cropping up in game is the watcher attack pack.

The girl scout scenario came up later when I tried to take the scenario down the slippery slope to an absurd degree.

The proposed home rule didn't get very good reviews, so I decided not to use it in my games, but I'd like to hear anyone's suggestions on a better variation.

[Dawnshadow]

I suggested that rule as an option actually.. I like it myself?

The girl scout example is fun.. you'd need another half dozen girl scouts I'd think to actually slaughter the adept, maybe another dozen though.

[Rev]

The only change I would suggest is that the charachter be able to ignore any number of opponants, and defend against any number, not just one. So if they are fighting two security guards and two girl scouts they can ignore the girl scouts and fight the security guards with a single friend in combat modifier.

I think it would work great.

Ahh, you also have to prevent them from switching who they are ignoring whenever they want. For example you don't want them to be able to fight everyone for thier first phase, then ignore some people who have no more actions for the rest of the round. Make them choose who to ignore at the start of the round, or something like that.

[James McMurray]

I don't think there's a need for any house rules at all. All you need is a GM that knows not to bother running a fight with girl scouts versus adepts (or anyone with high unarmed). Then you're left with only having to use the rules when they make sense: against enemies that are actually a threat.

[DrJest]

I think John hit it on the head with his comments on training making the difference in massed attacks. I don't have his level of qualification (for the record, I'd say in Silat terms I've got around Pentjak Silat 3-4 with the whirling manoeuvre - they teach you that kind of movement pretty much as soon as you start training in the silat form I studied) but I've been a student for about three years and done my share of bar brawling as well.

The average group of antagonists don't attack as one. I know it's popular to pooh-pooh the Hollywoodism of "everybody attack one after the other", and it's a massive exaggeration, but with untrained opponents they really do tend to attack in a sort of ragged, staggered way. This is, if I understand it correctly, because they have to build themselves up to the attack. Fighting a group of five or six (which is never advised, btw, so don't think I'm backing the "invulnerable martial arts master" path) you'll get probably two at most moving at the same time. Granted the hang time between "waves" is tiny, but it can be enough to make a difference, especially if the defender comes up with a display of massive and ruthless ultraviolence on the first attacker in. The best advice I ever got for facing more than one person (assuming retreat isn't an option) was "pick the biggest one, hit him as hard as you can with the biggest thing you can." If you're lucky, you might make them rethink the situation. And if you're unlucky, well, at least you got your licks in.

It all falls apart on the defender when his attackers have training, especially if they've trained together. Now they don't have that psychological need to build up for the attack and they have a good idea how to exploit each others' movements.

I like John's idea of having the Friends in Melee modifier limited by the skill (combat or tactical) of the enemy. I also like not applying FiM for anyone who hasn't had their action yet, since it reflects the ragged attack pattern - it's a short-duration thing anyway, they'll all be engaged after one turn.

Incidentally, whirling really does work very well. I expect anyone who hasn't seen something like it in operation will find it hard to believe, but watching the sparring matches between our teacher and three or four of the more advanced students was an exercise in humility :eek: