Multiple Attack Actions

[David Bofinger]

People have talked about this sort of thing but I didn't see any threads about it in the house rules subforum. I'm talking about characters who can attack multiple times at least under good conditions, so that a strong fighter can mow down minions fast in a cinematic way. Maybe not all TFT campaigns would want that effect, but I think a lot would, probably most.

These rules delete the I.b defend action, and provide additional options within the attack actions I.a and II.a. (See AM3.)

• The figure attacking may make an additional attack with a secondary weapon. Examples of secondary weapons include a left-handed weapon, shield, punch, kick, trip, pommel strike, etc. (Some of these will need rules.) All attacks made by the character roll one extra die to hit: so e.g. 4/DX instead of 3/DX. (A secondary attack isn't all that useful so I would like this to be an extra 1-1 but that's not very TFT.) This modification can only be taken once.
• The figure attacking may make one extra attack with a primary weapon and one with a secondary weapon. All attacks roll two extra dice. This modification can be taken multiple times.
• A figure may defend while attacking: attacks against the figure are made more difficult by one die, while all attacks by the figure are made more difficult by two dice.

All second attacks occur after all first attacks, all third attacks occur after all second attacks, etc. Each figure must alternate primary and secondary attacks.

Example: A character attacks with his sword, bashes with his shield, then attacks again with his sword, all while defending. Each attack is 3 + 2 + 2 = 7/DX.

I've included secondary attacks because I like the idea of getting extra attacks in from a secondary weapon. If you've got a big shield, it seems a shame if you don't get to bash someone with it occasionally.

I'm not clear how this should interact with weapons like main-gauche and talents like Two Weapons.

What I really want is for powerful figures to be mowing machines against weak opponents but go back to normal rates of swing against each other. To do that I would need to add other talents that provide defensive advantages, thus making multiple swings against the target inconvenient.

There's still some thought needed, but I think something along these lines would work well.

[Chris Rice]

I know it won't be in the RAW, but its easy to achieve if you use my "comparative DX" method. In short, if two DX14 fighters face each other they each have a 10 or less to hit (50/50 chance since they are equal.)

Using this method it's simple to allow for multiple attacks. You could say:

A figure can make two normal attacks, each at -4DX
Or three normal attacks, each at -6DX

These are just example of the top of my head and the penalties may be too harsh.

In any event, this achieves your stated goal. A fighter wil not risk multiple blows against a comparable opponent as this will reduce his DX too much. But against "rabble" where he has a large skill advantage, he may take multiple blows.

[larsdangly]

When the new edition comes out I'll try to decide whether I drop or keep my longstanding house rules regarding this topic (which I'll figure out depending on how satisfied I am that the new weapon expertise and fencing rules fully round out the combat system). In the past, Ive always done the following:

If you execute an 'Option' that permits a melee attack (but not a charge attack) as your action for that turn, you may execute any number and combination of the sub-actions: Attack, Parry (applies extra armor points vs. one attack) and Duck (effectively a dodge that negates one attack if you make a roll), subject to the following constraints:
- 1 extra die rolled for ALL sub actions for every sub action after the first
- No more than 1 sub-action per weapon, unless it is 'balanced' (like a 1H sword or buckler; in this case you can do two sub actions)
- 'Duck' requires a talent to do at normal odds; otherwise it is subject to an additional 1 die penalty.

Sounds complicated and like something that could blow up, but the reality is few people use these options at all because they don't want to roll 4 or more dice to hit, and basically no one does more than 2 (usually) or 3 (ever) sub actions per turn. These rules work well in practice, and are particularly good at letting highly skilled combatants fight over matched mooks without getting hit. But, I suspect they will be an unnecessary elaboration with the new weapon expertise talents in place, so I'll probably just 86 the whole idea. Anyway, my plan is to play RAW for a couple of months before starting to work in anything like this. I think it's best to really understand how a game plays before any 'white room' ideas get folded in.

[David Bofinger]

Some consequences of Lars' approach, relative to mine:

• Balanced weapons become attractive. A character with a one-handed sword and a buckler is a reasonably efficient design anyway. But under Lars' rules he can look at taking four sub-actions a turn. So powerful characters are going to want balanced weapons. Weaker characters may not care.
• A character can go very defensive: execute lots of parry options. The attack roll will go to many dice vs. DX but if he isn't attacking he doesn't care. Attack can be a dump stat.
• It's considerably more generous than mine, at least when attacking. Making two attacks at 4/DX is about as effective as one attack at 3/DX for DX as low as 13 so starting characters might do it. Not clear how generous it is on the defence front because I don't know how effective the parry is.

Ambiguities:

• What does parry do?
• Are balanced weapons otherwise less effective?
• Can you take two sub-options of the same kind with a balanced weapon, or only two different sub-options?

[larsdangly]

Ambiguities:
[*]What does parry do?
Stops 3 pts for small things like daggers or bucklers, 6 pts for medium things like swords, 9 pts for big things like battle axes and great swords
[*]Are balanced weapons otherwise less effective?
Sort of; axes get a +1 damage vs. shields and maces +1 damage vs. armor, so its more like everything is just little bit more deadly (compensating for the fact that everyone also has a little bit more in the way of defensive options available)
[*]Can you take two sub-options of the same kind with a balanced weapon, or only two different sub-options?
Any two (meaning 2 attacks, or 2 parries, or 1 of each)

More generally, the important thing to keep in mind is that whatever possibilities might suggest themselves, unless you have an obscene DX score you are never going to choose to do 4 actions per turn. Thats 4 rolls on 6d each, with an expected value of 21 for each roll. There are old TFT characters with adj. DX scores of 21+, but not many, and even they have an expected outcome of only 2 successes per turn with that strategy. In practice, the real choice is, do I go for 2, stick with 1, or, rarely, gamble on 3?

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Stops 3 pts for small things like daggers or bucklers, 6 pts for medium things like swords, 9 pts for big things like battle axes and great swords

I don't know why you have that rule. Battle axes shouldn't be three times more effective at parrying than bucklers.

unless you have an obscene DX score you are never going to choose to do 4 actions per turn.

Because the parry requires a roll. I missed that first time through.

Obscene in this case seems to be about 23, if you're trying to maximise total successes. Guess it depends how many wish spells you find.

I'm not sure it's terribly realistic: as I understand it attacks are carried out with all available implements simultaneously, the shield might knock an enemy shield aside as the sword stabs. But I can see it might work as a fun system.

Realistically some weapons should be rubbish for parrying.

[Mike P.]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Ambiguities:

More generally, the important thing to keep in mind is that whatever possibilities might suggest themselves, unless you have an obscene DX score you are never going to choose to do 4 actions per turn. Thats 4 rolls on 6d each, with an expected value of 21 for each roll. There are old TFT characters with adj. DX scores of 21+, but not many, and even they have an expected outcome of only 2 successes per turn with that strategy. In practice, the real choice is, do I go for 2, stick with 1, or, rarely, gamble on 3?

If you were fighting only one opponent and your adj DX is 21, taking a head shot at - 6 Dx is a very serious option.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I know it won't be in the RAW, but its easy to achieve if you use my "comparative DX" method.

That comes with a cost in resolving attacks, though. Instead of "I hit," or "I miss," the rolling player does some mental arithmetic (double my DX, subtract the roll I made) and says, "I hit DX 14 or less," and the GM checks the target DX and says, "Hit," or "Miss." I'm not sure if everyone is willing to pay that price. I suppose they might.

Also I kind of like the idea of defensive talents, because I think it ought to be difficult to hit a skilled fighter.

Another way to stop people piling multiple attacks in on one target is to hard wire a limit.