[2E] Onslaught

[wordman]

I'm a bit confused by onslaught. If I'm reading it right, the following are by the book:

1. One guy attacks me five times in a row, my DV goes down by 1 for each attack after the first. After he is done, my DV (starting at 0) is at -4, but only against this same guy.
   
2. If five guys attack me once each as part of a coordinated attack, the situation is the same.
   
3. If five guys attack me once each during the same tick, but not part of a coordinated attack, my DV doesn't change at all.

If that is right, the fact that #1 and #3 work so differently seems stupid to me, the difference existing only to add in the complication of #2 so that War skill has some purpose in combat.


What am I missing?

 

[Flagg]

I think the idea is that flurries and attacks coordinated specifically to get past your defenses are harder to defend against than regular single attacks from multiple opponents.


Wether this is valid is subjective, but that's the intent (and indeed the mechanical reality).

 

[memesis]

1. One guy attacks me five times in a row, my DV goes down by 1 for each attack after the first. After he is done, my DV (starting at 0) is at -4, but only against this same guy.
   
2. If five guys attack me once each as part of a coordinated attack, the situation is the same.
   
3. If five guys attack me once each during the same tick, but not part of a coordinated attack, my DV doesn't change at all.

This reflects cinematic reality very well.  A single skilled attacker, striking relentlessly against his opponent and battering through his defenses, has roughly the same mechanical effect as a group of soldiers all acting in concert to strike at an opponent.  On the other hand, a mob of random attackers without unity will be thrown back by the competent swordsman's skill.


On the mortal scale, 5 dice vs. a DV of 2 is a crapshoot, but five guys on you are virtually guaranteed to hit and do damage, whether or not they coordinate - particularly if the first attacks start inflicting wound penalties.

 

[wordman]

This reflects cinematic reality very well.  A single skilled attacker, striking relentlessly against his opponent and battering through his defenses, has roughly the same mechanical effect as a group of soldiers all acting in concert to strike at an opponent.

It also means that the "single skilled attacker, striking relentlessly against his opponent and battering through his defenses" is no more or less effective than six such (uncoordinated) attackers at once, as far as the ability to affect their opponent's defense.

 

[Flagg]

Except that skilled attacker will have a higher dice pool to reflect his skill.

 

[memesis]

This reflects cinematic reality very well.  A single skilled attacker, striking relentlessly against his opponent and battering through his defenses, has roughly the same mechanical effect as a group of soldiers all acting in concert to strike at an opponent.

It also means that the "single skilled attacker, striking relentlessly against his opponent and battering through his defenses" is no more or less effective than six such (uncoordinated) attackers at once, as far as the ability to affect their opponent's defense.

As Flagg pointed out, the single skilled attacker will be better off, having more dice to throw at the problem.  And as a recent session of the game I'm in proved, several skilled attackers + coordination = dead Abyssals.

 

[wordman]

Except that skilled attacker will have a higher dice pool to reflect his skill.

Let me rephrase: It also means that the "single skilled attacker, striking relentlessly against his opponent and battering through his defenses" is no more or less effective than six such (uncoordinated) "skilled attackers, striking relentlessly against their opponent and battering through his defenses" at once, as far as the ability to affect their opponent's defense.

 

[memesis]

Except that skilled attacker will have a higher dice pool to reflect his skill.

Let me rephrase: It also means that the "single skilled attacker, striking relentlessly against his opponent and battering through his defenses" is no more or less effective than six such (uncoordinated) "skilled attackers, striking relentlessly against their opponent and battering through his defenses" at once, as far as the ability to affect their opponent's defense.

But this also passes a cinematic reality check:  a good guy can defend himself equally well against another good guy, or several lousy guys who cooperate.  The first example that springs to mind is the Matrix Reloaded: Neo's fight with the six programs vs. his first fight with Smith.


This means that "the War skill and a bunch of guys" is at least a serviceable replacement for "superhuman skill with the sword", if that's all you have.  It means the Celestials aren't unbeatable for mortals, or even Terrestrials.

 

[Sherwood]

It is a fact that unless the multiple attackers have trained together and have practiced coordinating attacks, they are more likely to get in each others way, giving the single defender a advantage.  A mob attack will rush in, and the solo guy now has a list of options available.  Feint one way and strike another, throws, kicks, whatever.  ONce your mob has been trained to move and work together, then your happy hero is in much more trouble than the unruly mob, even if the mob is skilled in their individual weapons of choice.


That works in real life, and fits perfectly in the over-the-top play style of Exalted where the hero wades thru a score of extras on his way to face off the big bad guy waiting at the top of the stairs studying his combat style for weaknesses.

 

[wordman]

a good guy can defend himself equally well against another good guy, or several lousy guys who cooperate.

Not what I was saying. Let me rephrase again:


What memesis is saying is that one really talented guy, let's call him Nom, can penetrate defenses as well as several coordinated Schmendricks. Right. I get that.


What I have been trying to say is that, not only do the rules imply that "a good guy can defend himself equally well against [Nom], or several [schmendricks] who cooperate", they also imply that "a good guy can defend himself equally well against [Nom], or several [Noms] at once who don't cooperate". That is, if you have half a dozen hot-shit Noms on you (who happen not to have trained together), it is just as easy to defend against all of them at once as it is to defend against one of them alone. This seems dumb to me.


I get why coordinating should add an advantage, but it seems to me that fighting multiple attackers, even those not working in concert, is harder than defending against one.

 

[memesis]

What I have been trying to say is that, not only do the rules imply that "a good guy can defend himself equally well against [Nom], or several [schmendricks] who cooperate", they also imply that "a good guy can defend himself equally well against [Nom], or several [Noms] at once who don't cooperate". That is, if you have half a dozen hot-shit Noms on you (who happen not to have trained together), it is just as easy to defend against all of them at once as it is to defend against one of them alone. This seems dumb to me.
I get why coordinating should add an advantage, but it seems to me that fighting multiple attackers, even those not working in concert, is harder than defending against one.

Alright, I'm slow, sorry


I would argue that NOT using War to coordinate is a tactical deficiency, rather than saying that using it is a specific tactical advantage.


Against several highly-trained opponents, a highly-trained fighter is going to see his DV penalized against each one of them as they flurry.  The odds of him taking damage scale linearly with the number of attackers, and those odds started pretty high anyway.


But, those guys aren't doing each other any favors.  Assuming Nom isn't forced to read one opponent's moves and sweat out a series of just-in-time blocks against one of his foes, he'll knock away one guy and be ready for the next guy to come in.  His sword went left to parry the first one, now it goes right to parry the second one (who is trying for the same opening his buddy just missed).  These fighters are opening attacks for themselves through flurries and feinting, but they're all focused on their own attacks, and if Nom is smart he'll be moving around on his own, using one attacker as a shield against another and so forth.


But of course if Nom attacks any one of them, he's at a defensive disadvantage against all of them - the most he can hope to do is throw an attack or so and pray he can stunt his way past the DV penalty.


If these five skilled swordsmen (for example, members of the Hunt now) have a CO, suddenly this changes, and Nom will probably be slaughtered because suddenly they're working to help each other's attacks and defenses out.  One hammers on Nom's sword-blocks to push them out and expose an opening, while the others circle around and try to get at the exposed flank.


"But wait, couldn't they do other tactics that help each other, aside from just coordinating?"  Examples would be disarm attempts or team grappling - a tactic even uncoordinated fighters can attempt.  But it seems we're specifically talking about regular attacks in groups here.


I'm not going to advance any sort of BS experience with "real world" swordfighting here.  But I am going to advance experience with wuxia movies.  Judge this accordingly.

 

[wordman]

The odds of him taking damage scale linearly with the number of attackers...

Sort of, but not really. Each additional attacker has absolutely no effect on the odds of any individual attacker doing damage. This makes each attacker a completely independent event and, as such, none has any effect on those that go before (or after) it. It's like rolling a die over and over.


What you are saying is that "the odds of him taking damage" behave roughly like, say, "the odds of a six coming up on a number of d6 rolls". It's true that the more d6's you roll, the more likely you are to see a 6 at some point. (And, in the combat case, it is also true that once damage is actually done, this can change the odds of the attacks that follow by virtue of wounds reducing DV.)


Even so, there is really no difference between rolling six d6 at once vs. rolling one each turn, other than the time it takes. Attacking with six uncoordinated guys at once, mathematically, is the same as attacking with one guy over six rounds, it just happens faster.


This blocks my suspension of disbelief (and that of my players), even given wuxia sensibilities.


I started this thread hoping I was reading something wrong. It appears I wasn't. So, the question now is, how would you house rule this so that added (uncoordinated) attacks still make it harder to defend, but coordinated attacks are still more effective? I can't think of a way of doing this without making coordinated attacks nastier.

 

[Flagg]

I think there comes a point where you need to sacrifice realism for simplicity and flow. I think the DV system has already passed that point as it is, and is best left alone.

 

[memesis]

how would you house rule this so that added (uncoordinated) attacks still make it harder to defend, but coordinated attacks are still more effective? I can't think of a way of doing this without making coordinated attacks nastier.

Your DV stops at the last value it was when you were attacked, and regenerates by (1, your Essence, some fixed value) each tick until you are attacked again.  Finally, you don't regenerate DV on any tick where you are being attacked.  Your DV refreshes on your action, like normal.


Nom acts on Tick 2.  Joe, Bob, and Briggs attack on 3, 5, and 7.  Nom's Speed is 5, and his DV is 8.  Assume a (Essence)-DV-per-tick refresh rate.  Nom is an Essence 2 starting Solar.


On Tick 2, Nom flurries 3 actions, which we won't resolve.  His DV is now 5.


On Tick 3, Joe flurries, and the attacks get resolved.  Nom's DV is 5, 4, 3 against three attacks, so at the end of tick 3 he's at 3.


On Tick 4, he regenerates, to DV 5.


On Tick 5, Bob attacks twice.  Nom parries, bringing his DV to 3.  He does not regenerate, since he was attacked.


On Tick 6, he regenerates, to DV 5.


On Tick 7, his DV refreshes to 8, and Briggs attacks.


Treat this as a Coordination penalty, which Flow Like Blood will mitigate.

 

[Jeppe]

IIf that is right, the fact that #1 and #3 work so differently seems stupid to me, the difference existing only to add in the complication of #2 so that War skill has some purpose in combat.

The group I play in went through this exact same discussion and houseruled our way out of it. Now any attack lowers DV by one, and DV doesn't refresh until the character's next action. War is thus reserved for mass combat in our game.

 

[Zaramis]

I went with another solution. Mostly anyone know how to coordinate, therefor, after six or any other number you feel is good, ticks after the fight has started or a new individual joined the fight, start treating them as coordinated-


Maybe have them roll War to coordinate in the first rounds, or maybe have it be 20 minus War x 4 ticks of uncoordinated attacks unless someone succeeds with a War roll.


For me, I usually let something from 6 to 12 ticks pass by, sometimes more if the attackers are rabble, then start treating them as auto-coordinated because they watch the fight and learn from it. If they are total goons, they might never learn and let the fight end without them ever being more coordinated than a bunch of wild chickens who are more in the way of eachother than efficiently attacking the opponent.