Attacks Per Melee House Rule...

[Dr_Prof_Bosk]

Hi everybody! I've been working on a HU campaign and this idea came to me about linking your attacks into combos; wanted to get some feed back as to whether or not it seems any good.

Basically the higher your PP bonus the more attacks you can take in that action. Say you've got the standard 4 APMs at level 1 and a +3 s/p/d from your PP; when it's your turn to attack you'd be able to toss a jab, another jab, and finish with an upper cut (or flying punch, energy blast, hammer throw opponent into the atmosphere if you're of the meta-human persuasion). You couldn't attack more times than you have APMs and you don't necessarily need to make all of your attacks in one action but this would make combat more cinematic. Or it seems that way to me.

You'd still roll for each attack in the combo and if you missed any of the attacks it would leave you open for a combo breaker. Here's where things start to get squiffy in my mind, I was thinking that the base % chance for breaking a combo would be the breaker's PP; and it'd go up +1 per level so long as they have a Hand to Hand skill. If they successfully break the combo they'd get to immediately take an action even if they wouldn't normally get to attack. This could allow the breaker to perform their own combo so long as they still have attack actions left. Out of attacks, out of luck.

I'm worried that the chance to break the combo is to low but I'm not sure how I should scale it. Any suggestions or feed back would be most welcome.

[Chronicle]

We did that and it worked pretty well. I would take the number of attacks and divide them accordingly which would allow multiple strikes per turn. Luckily my players who had all those attacks would dodge more often.

[Tor]

I'm not sure what you mean... you allow the attacks that should occur later to occur earlier if you have a bonus equal to that many?

So if I have 10 attacks per melee and +8 from my PP, I can throw 8 kicks in my first attack and 2 kicks in my second?

Seems like it could easily get out of hand... and kind of farts on the point of Thai Kickboxing's lightning kata.

[Chronicle]

I would divide the melee into 5 phases and put those actions into those 5 sections. With 8 people in our group it speeds things up for combat by a lot.

Example: a person with 10 attacks would have 2 per phase

[Iczer]

I've reduced attacks per melee and slaved them to initiative.

It does work faster, with the higher initiative people getting more tactical.

Batts

[Dr_Prof_Bosk]

I'm not sure what you mean... you allow the attacks that should occur later to occur earlier if you have a bonus equal to that many?

So if I have 10 attacks per melee and +8 from my PP, I can throw 8 kicks in my first attack and 2 kicks in my second?

Seems like it could easily get out of hand... and kind of farts on the point of Thai Kickboxing's lightning kata.

Basically. The more I think about it the more it reminds me of Mortal Combat. It may well be a bit over powered. I haven't had the opportunity to play test it yet and my game isn't slated to start till the campaign we're currently playing in ends in about a month. I'll have to try and give it a run through to see. As for this interfering with a N&SS hand to hand katas and such, I'm still on the fence about if I was going to allow 'em. I liked Bill Coffin's house rule in Gramercy Island about letting the Physical Training category take 'em but I hadn't really planned on letting any of the others have access to them.

I would divide the melee into 5 phases and put those actions into those 5 sections. With 8 people in our group it speeds things up for combat by a lot.

Example: a person with 10 attacks would have 2 per phase

So each melee round is further divided in to five mini melee rounds?

[Damian Magecraft]

I would divide the melee into 5 phases and put those actions into those 5 sections. With 8 people in our group it speeds things up for combat by a lot.

Example: a person with 10 attacks would have 2 per phase

While the 5 Phase system is effective I found that at lower levels it was indistinguishable from the canon design.

3 Phases of 5 seconds still allows for the "redistribution" of the "extra" attacks of certain characters more equitably while also giving the lower APM characters/players a sense of progression parity.

[Damian Magecraft]

I would divide the melee into 5 phases and put those actions into those 5 sections. With 8 people in our group it speeds things up for combat by a lot.

Example: a person with 10 attacks would have 2 per phase

So each melee round is further divided in to five mini melee rounds?

More or less...

A fortuitous side effect of the Phased Combat system is how it lends itself to resolving other issues of the combat system with little no additional tweaking. (Movement in combat and Simultaneous Attack for example).

[Dr_Prof_Bosk]

I would divide the melee into 5 phases and put those actions into those 5 sections. With 8 people in our group it speeds things up for combat by a lot.

Example: a person with 10 attacks would have 2 per phase

So each melee round is further divided in to five mini melee rounds?

More or less...

A fortuitous side effect of the Phased Combat system is how it lends itself to resolving other issues of the combat system with little no additional tweaking. (Movement in combat and Simultaneous Attack for example).

Hmm... I'll have to give that a try.

[Mediapig71]

Wow... this is great idea! Not only does it add a new dimension to combat, and speed things up, but it also solves the problem of tactical movement. I am definitely gonna play around with this, but I think this is gonna make my list of top ten house rules!

[Mediapig71]

Just out of curiosity though, how does this affect simultaneous attack? I've always found that rule problematic (even more so in PFRPG).

[Damian Magecraft]

Just out of curiosity though, how does this affect simultaneous attack? I've always found that rule problematic (even more so in PFRPG).

By spreading out the "excess" APM more equitably.

Example:
Player A has 4 APM
Player B has 8 APM

In a 3 Phase Melee their Action distribution would look like this:
Player A - APM 4 - 2/1/1
Player B - APM 8 - 3/3/2

Also Remember Simul-attack is only a good option in a one on one situation. Multi-attackers would cancel out the effectiveness of the option.

[Chronicle]

As it should. Also it makes dodging a bit less painful when you have many attacks

[Tor]

a person with 10 attacks would have 2 per phase

If they had nine, which phase would they only have 1? First or fifth?

[Chronicle]

I would come up with a table for that. Otherwise put it in the last phase

9apm = 2/2/2/2/1

[Mediapig71]

Using the 5 or 3 segment rule then, how would dodging work exactly? If I only have 1 attack that segment, and my opponent has 2, can I only dodge 1 attack?

[Mediapig71]

Anyone?

[Damian Magecraft]

Anyone?

I have folded Multiple Dodge (from N&S) into the regular dodge.
1 Dodge is effective against all attacks directed towards you during a single attack turn (everyone capable of doing so takes an action).
Auto-dodge on the other hand is only effective against a single attack.
And you may "borrow" future actions for dodging.
So if you only have 1 action that phase but everyone else has two you can still dodge if needed.

[Chronicle]

Either that or it will use an action from the next phase

[Damian Magecraft]

a person with 10 attacks would have 2 per phase

If they had nine, which phase would they only have 1? First or fifth?

well some folks "evenly" distribute the APMs (I prefer the 3 phase method due to a simpler distribution metric)
But the options available (Weather using 3 r 5 phases) are really only 3...
Either the APM are distributed in a front loaded capacity (all APM are distributed one at a time starting with the 1st phase and progressing to the last phase before starting over at the first phase); or Backloaded (Opposite of front loading); or a chart is developed wherein the APM are distributed "evenly" out from the center.

I recommend either Front or Back loading (Mostly because they are the easiest grasp and can be done on the fly quickly and without requiring referencing a chart.

[Mediapig71]

If one has fewer attacks than segments (Say, there are 5 segments, and an NPC has 3 attacks) would they act in the last three segments, or the first three?

[Damian Magecraft]

If one has fewer attacks than segments (Say, there are 5 segments, and an NPC has 3 attacks) would they act in the last three segments, or the first three?

That would all depend on which of the 3 methods I described above your group agreed upon.
The fact that there is the distinct possibility of a character ending up with "dead" segments in the 5 phase method is why I advocate the use of the 3 segments method.