next »

[Lizbeth]

As for now, Anima have inclination towards the "gang bang" tactics of swarming one opponent to disable him as fast as possible. Of course, unlike most other systems, Anima have a defensive, which makes a little difference. But in general it's more beneficial to attack the opponent who already spent his action on defence — reduced defence and no counter-attack are better than chance to put opponent to defensive due to risk of counter-attack.

So I thought about the rule that gives any character a flat bonus against each other opponent who engages in battle.
So against first opponent he will be at +0, against second at +30, +50 against third, +70 fourth and +90 against 5+.
Using this rule character will receive multiple defence penalty only against attacks made by the same opponent, for example character is attacked by two attacks from first opponent and three attacks from second opponent. His first defence is at -0, second defence is at -30 (second defence against this opponent). Then the defences counter drops and he defends against second opponent at +30 against first attack (+30 second opponent bonus), +0 against his second attack (+30 second opponent -30 second defence), and -20 against third attack.
Yes, flat bonus of 50+ sounds great but the character have some big chances to end on defensive against the first opponent.

One note, why I said engaged character — so that tech/mystic won't just stand nearby "simply accumulating" to release a finisher attack.
Another note: sure thing this rule is not for DR creatures.


This idea is not based on common sense or any bit of realism. It is based on idea of stylish duels instead of usual swarming and piling up.
So how does it sound?

[Rii Nagaja]

I would highly dislike a mechanic as such, because I don't like rules that are purely made for balancings sake and abandon realism. Roleplay is not that abstract - common sense is still the main lead for the gamemaster and anything that was created. Though you don't have to take it to the extreme.

In this case I would suggest to look at realism again.
There are reasons why this can't happen so easily in real life, and one could try to blend these reasons in.

So when somebody is completly alone, well that is a problem, he would be overwhelmed by a group of greater numbers (a problem that strangly doesn't occur anymore with in your advice - they are all easy go multiple enemy fighters). I think there is nothing wrong with the rules here, punishing against greater force and flurry.
Now, when two larger groups of 5 vs. 5 maybe meet, it would indeed be more effective to target single enemys, just as it would be in real life, ..if they could.

I see three problems at least that would prohibit such a "gang bang" behaviour in real life.
- One is the range of weapons. You cannot have an infinite number attack the same guy with just swords in any round. They could maybe pass the enemy to each other within time, but the possible simultaneous strikes would be limited (maybe 3 vs. 1 with normal longswords).
- Another one is the area. If you want to move into the attack range with another opponent, don't forget that in an even battle, there are still all the other enemys around. If you run just pass them, they probably won't let you. This calls for free attacks, on which our runner could get a penalty for his reckless assault.
A somewhat decent fighting formation would punish attempts of this kind of crowding.
- The last and strongest one is that every fighter has limited attention, even when being supernatural animeish. When you focus your attention to attack one guy, your attention with all the others gets flawed - not to mention that your fighting stance towards them isn't ideal and 'readied' at all.
In an even battle of 5 vs. 5, where one groups five people storm towards a single target - they may benefit from the enemys multiple defense penalty, yes, but there are still 4 other opponents around, completly unsupervised, and ready to strike in flanks and backs.
I guess in a real fight, these penaltys from a whole group being not under pressure at all, and getting chance to attack unfocused enemys, would weight alot more than just the benefit you get from attacking a single guy with all.
I mean, you never see this anywhere, because it would be just crazy to make this strange dance of striking one enemy here, than parrying on the other side, turning around again... this is not a healthy way to fight.

So I would say, aside from the first two problems, you could produce a "lack of focus" kind of penalty, where a fighter that just ignores a threat that approaches him to pursue other interests, would be punished, because of maybe suicidal ignorance. ( the penalty should come additionally even to the possible flank and back bonuses, since you are not even really ready to make a defense here)
Since having to defend against multiple enemys, and having a enemy at your back you don't care about, are kind of similar, I would make a first suggestion to handle this as a "second defense" allready, as if the first defense is always readied for the object of your aggression focus.
(also opens interesting tactics for lama martial artists )
This makes for a -30 penalty, and the enemy will possibly even go multi-attacking if he is getting any other bonuses too.
Could be Ouch.


So, that could be a way to handle this problem without forsaking realism, and not even to complex I feel.

[FearlessElbow]

There's a way to ALMOST achieve this through techs.  Take Additional Defence (+4) and add in +s to Block (Single), for as many Blocks as you want to add in, increasing in value as you go to ramp up the bonuses.  It would be HORRIBLY expensive (both in terms of MK and Ki), and wouldn't leave you the ability to apply the penalty to multiple attacks from the 1st person, but it's do-able.  If you made it maintainable, the first round cost would be even higher, but it would be cheaper as you went on.

But then I know you're not keen on self-created techs, so maybe it's not for you.

[EVILrokzz]

Um... what kind of group are you playing with if all they do is "gang bang" just one enemy?

I've never had this as an issue since I either "designate" who has who as an opponent (logic behind it - if there is a mean looking toll-human in your face, you have a hard time attacking the guy all the way to the right) and, if this is ignored, the guy gets a free attack at -90 (surprised penalty) from the troll-human

Taken from realism and anime because when you charge into combat or combat comes to you there is no "I'll fight THAT guy!", you just attack the first thing that comes in your face or grab a hold of
Even in anime, out of a group fight (which is mostly cinematic since no-one usually gets injured in these) pairs emerge and here we see who is fighting who

The exception to this is the huge Boss Dragon with 20k LP, 3 heads that breathes fire AND shoots lasers from it's eyes

Also, your rule seems a bit complex and unneeded but if you have a group that has just that kind of mentality and find that this is the only way to make it work - use it
If I recall, your players are less "I want my character to develop depth and personality" and more on the "WRAGH! OP PUNCH AND DESTROY!"? If so, only way to deal with that is stricter rules such as this one

[alphawhelp]

There's a way to ALMOST achieve this through techs.  Take Additional Defence (+4) and add in +s to Block (Single), for as many Blocks as you want to add in, increasing in value as you go to ramp up the bonuses.  It would be HORRIBLY expensive (both in terms of MK and Ki), and wouldn't leave you the ability to apply the penalty to multiple attacks from the 1st person, but it's do-able.  If you made it maintainable, the first round cost would be even higher, but it would be cheaper as you went on.

But then I know you're not keen on self-created techs, so maybe it's not for you.

you mean +s Block (Multiple)

Additional Defenses don't work like Additional Attacks, a +Single bonus won't apply to all of them, just one.

[FearlessElbow]

I know.  But since Lizbeth wants each bonus to be progressively higher than the last (rather than all the same), it needs to be a series of different Block (Single)s, rather than one Block (Multiple).

[Lagnalok]

Players will always use what seems to them as most effective, if you wan't them to use different tactics, let the enemy use these... or mimic the players in what they do so that they themself need to come up with a counter plan.

Or you could use simple footwork to engange the group before they can group up on a single opponent - move in close combat range with the passive movement and use the normal rulses for disengagement... the only way to avoid this is either to be able to move further away than the one closing in - which could lead the character to isolate himself from the others - or by being the one with the highest initiative (able to spent a active action to use full movement), thought that allows only to gang up in a two vs one for the moment.

On the other hand, as soon as the first character closes in on the enemy that they will gang uppon, let that enemy back up and the others close in, leading into a 4 vs 1 situation where that player can't get to the one they wanted to target actually... and force the other players to join their comrade that is now in a pinch.

Or give all enemies enough persuation/intimidate to each provoke a different player into attacking them (persuation/intimidate which ever you see fit for such a task vs the players composure).

[Lizbeth]

because I don't like rules that are purely made for balancings sake and abandon realism.

Life points are very realistic.

There are reasons why this can't happen so easily in real life, and one could try to blend these reasons in.

Real life is real life. Anima system is Anima. I'll explain it below.

- One is the range of weapons. You cannot have an infinite number attack the same guy with just swords in any round. They could maybe pass the enemy to each other within time, but the possible simultaneous strikes would be limited (maybe 3 vs. 1 with normal longswords).

Rules say about possibility of 5-6 opponents against one target.

- Another one is the area. If you want to move into the attack range with another opponent, don't forget that in an even battle, there are still all the other enemys around. If you run just pass them, they probably won't let you. This calls for free attacks, on which our runner could get a penalty for his reckless assault.

That's not a DnD with attacks of opportunity or real life. It's a turn-based game and running around the battlefield is natural there.

- The last and strongest one is that every fighter has limited attention, even when being supernatural animeish. When you focus your attention to attack one guy, your attention with all the others gets flawed - not to mention that your fighting stance towards them isn't ideal and 'readied' at all.

As I said we ignore this moment on purpose.

In an even battle of 5 vs. 5, where one groups five people storm towards a single target - they may benefit from the enemys multiple defense penalty, yes, but there are still 4 other opponents around, completly unsupervised, and ready to strike in flanks and backs.

No back attacks according to rules. And yes, these opponents will also have to swarm one target in general. Also I don't use 5-man parties, closer to 2-3.

There's a way to ALMOST achieve this through techs.

I don't want to multiclass every major npc to tech. I want some ways to make combat where each combatant focuses on his opponent rather than all party focusing on one combatant.

Um... what kind of group are you playing with if all they do is "gang bang" just one enemy?

That's a good tactics actually. Weaponmaster's swing is much more effective if the target is softened with multiple defences penalty.

I either "designate" who has who as an opponent (logic behind it - if there is a mean looking toll-human in your face, you have a hard time attacking the guy all the way to the right) and, if this is ignored, the guy gets a free attack at -90 (surprised penalty) from the troll-human

I don't remember any free attack by the rules.

Taken from realism and anime because when you charge into combat or combat comes to you there is no "I'll fight THAT guy!", you just attack the first thing that comes in your face

If you ever played strategy games you know that while you can let your units to shoot whoever they desire, the tactics to manually concentrate fire is much more effective. In general it allows to defeat equal opponent while loosing only 35-50% of your forces. Same goes there.Let's assume that each character reduces other character hp by 20 per round. 5 characters, one party concentrates fire, other is dueling.
First round: 20-20-20-20-20 VS 0-0-0-0-ko
2nd: 40-40-40-40-20 VS 0-0-0-ko-ko
3rd: 60-60-60-40-20 VS 0-0-ko-ko-ko
4th: 80-80-60-40-20 VS 0-ko-ko-ko-ko
concentrated fire = early kill = opponents stop contributing to battle.

Or you could use simple footwork to engange the group before they can group up on a single opponent - move in close combat range with the passive movement and use the normal rulses for disengagement...

Ranged attacks. No need for disengagement.

Or give all enemies enough persuation/intimidate to each provoke a different player into attacking them (persuation/intimidate which ever you see fit for such a task vs the players composure).

Thats' an a house rule too.

[Lagnalok]

Or you could use simple footwork to engange the group before they can group up on a single opponent - move in close combat range with the passive movement and use the normal rulses for disengagement...

Ranged attacks. No need for disengagement.

Or give all enemies enough persuation/intimidate to each provoke a different player into attacking them (persuation/intimidate which ever you see fit for such a task vs the players composure).

Thats' an a house rule too.

Too bad they use ranged attacks.

For the other matter, strictly speaking, using a perusation vs composure check as a tount works by the rules:

Persuation(Intelligence)
This ability permits the character to influence or convince others.

Which is basicly what a taunt does, while

Composure (Willpower, passive)
This is the ability to remain unperturbed in the most critical situations. With this ability, an individual can remain calm and coolheaded even in the face of death.

seems to be perfect as a counter...

works more or less just like how you can use intimidate to put someone in the state of fear or even panic... just the other way arround. In terms of reading between the lines this is also rather close to how we had to interpret jump and some other secondaries before core exxet came arround. Thought yeah, it's not as offical as in "written down", I stated it as an option that could be taken as an alternative.

[EVILrokzz]

Um... what kind of group are you playing with if all they do is "gang bang" just one enemy?

That's a good tactics actually. Weaponmaster's swing is much more effective if the target is softened with multiple defences penalty.

I never questioned it's effectiveness but it's "delivery". Meaning the players might know of it, but do the PCs know? I'd ask for a Tactics and Leadership roll. You need both knowledge of tactics, organisation and someone to put them into action. For ranged attack it's the "On my mark, fire at Target A!" guy while for melee it's the "You take him on while I'll take on the big guy in the middle!" guy
Then again, this is about the best that can be done with skills as far as is written. I have further HOUSERULED tables for each skill and made notes and examples of their use in certain situations, but those are just that - houserules But using Tactics and Leadership is RAW, just takes a little imagination.

I either "designate" who has who as an opponent (logic behind it - if there is a mean looking toll-human in your face, you have a hard time attacking the guy all the way to the right) and, if this is ignored, the guy gets a free attack at -90 (surprised penalty) from the troll-human

I don't remember any free attack by the rules.

You would be correct, there are none but I make a distinction between a player saying "I try to withdraw from combat!" and the player saying "I attack the guy on the right!". The first guy rolls Acrobatics to try to get away from his opponent as per rules while the second guy recklessly ignores such rules, gets no roll and is simply attacked (as if he automatically fails) so my players watch what they say Sorry for the confusion

Taken from realism and anime because when you charge into combat or combat comes to you there is no "I'll fight THAT guy!", you just attack the first thing that comes in your face

If you ever played strategy games you know that while you can let your units to shoot whoever they desire, the tactics to manually concentrate fire is much more effective. In general it allows to defeat equal opponent while loosing only 35-50% of your forces. Same goes there.Let's assume that each character reduces other character hp by 20 per round. 5 characters, one party concentrates fire, other is dueling.
First round: 20-20-20-20-20 VS 0-0-0-0-ko
2nd: 40-40-40-40-20 VS 0-0-0-ko-ko
3rd: 60-60-60-40-20 VS 0-0-ko-ko-ko
4th: 80-80-60-40-20 VS 0-ko-ko-ko-ko
concentrated fire = early kill = opponents stop contributing to battle.

I did play strategies, but that's just the point - I did, the character I made is some Assassin guy... or a Wizard, not a military strategist
I make a point of not giving players what PCs do not know and enforce harsh penalties for metagaming. That is why I asked that "what kind of group are you playing with" question

Seems to me that you are a bit lenient as far as roleplaying goes How does a guy go, for example, from "I was a renowned blacksmith and warrior" to "I know a strategy to take down an opponent by focusing on him and wearing him down with multiple blows"? Answer - he doesn't, he stays with "I enter combat and bash and slash anything bigger than me!". This is where roleplay comes in. Roleplay is not about "effectiveness" but about "aesthetics". If I want a Tao who punches faces, he punches faces - doesn't matter how effective it is, it's what he does

I've been in a few fights in my life and not one was "planned" beforehand and I can't see a valid reason why this wouldn't be the case in an anime fight, especially because group vs group fights get pretty hectic. Not once was there a "Well just all beat down on that 1 guy and then beat up each one of them in turn". I'd like to see how you'd manage to get around a wall of people by a simple "Let's just hit THAT guy!" and expect the other guys not to bash you in... it's asking for a beatdown

Also, as far as my anime roleplaying point goes, it was in Gaia 1, there is a short insert where Rah faced off against 3 demons (or 2, I remember Pride and Wrath) and they didn't gang up on him but fought him in turn with Wrath going first by bashing a few walls with Rah and breaking his ribs but Rah beat them both... one by one
You can try and say "That was for story reasons" and I'll say "A story is good roleplay"... also... it wouldn't be fun if it was just "Demons came, beat Rah to a pulp, never triggered the machine and that's it... happy end"

Sorry for the long reply, I was feeling chatty so bear with me

[Kalis]

Tactics and leadership rolls for something as obvious as it is more difficult to defend against multiple attackers? Are you serious? Any character who has ever done any real martial training at all would realize that.

The way to encourage one on one fights is with fluff, not nonsensical rules.

[FearlessElbow]

Tactics and leadership rolls for something as obvious as it is more difficult to defend against multiple attackers? Are you serious? Any character who has ever done any real martial training at all would realize that.

Unless you're ninja.  Inverse Ninja Law and all that.  Lizbeth's rule makes perfect sense for the Inverse Ninja Law.

[Rii Nagaja]

Unless you're ninja.  Inverse Ninja Law and all that.  Lizbeth's rule makes perfect sense for the Inverse Ninja Law.

Lol

[EVILrokzz]

Tactics and leadership rolls for something as obvious as it is more difficult to defend against multiple attackers? Are you serious? Any character who has ever done any real martial training at all would realize that.

The way to encourage one on one fights is with fluff, not nonsensical rules.

Um no, not for figuring out that it's more difficult to defend oneself from multiple attackers but for the act of organizing and leading a group of people in a way in which 5 guys can attack just 1 out of, for example, 5 guys with no penalties nor automatic selection of opponents. That is why there is a squad leader in a military squad - someone needs to stop soldiers from just walking around shooting anything that moves In the past battles were just a clash of 2 armies and who has the most capable men wins. Later on tactics were developed such as flanking, use of terrain and such. Tactics even apply in a 2-on-2 fight. If 2 guys attack just 1 guy out of the two, what is stopping the other guy from smashing their faces in while the 2 guys concentrate on the 1 guy? Answer - tactics and leadership (someone needs to inspire the other guy to use his tactic after all)

Really now, anyone who has ever been in a group-vs-group fight knows how hard it is to just beat on 1 guy out of the entire group and not get hammered down by the rest. It just doesn't happen. For this reason I use Tactics. I don't give player characters any "free" knowledge that they wouldn't have. We've played RTS games and know about "concentrated fire" tactics - how does a PC in Gaia know something like that passively with no points invested in Tactics? Answer - he doesn't, he spent his entire life punching trees/rocks or fighting 1-on-1 or whatever. He never fought with a group of people and even if he did he didn't follow anyone and fought 1-on-1 lone wolf style ignoring the others or jumping in to help from time to time. However a leader with points invested in Tactics and Leadership knows how to make the most out of a group in terms of positioning and avoiding the other group and can inspire others to follow his orders. No real reason PCs should be immune to this

Tactics and leadership rolls for something as obvious as it is more difficult to defend against multiple attackers? Are you serious? Any character who has ever done any real martial training at all would realize that.

Unless you're ninja.  Inverse Ninja Law and all that.  Lizbeth's rule makes perfect sense for the Inverse Ninja Law.

LOL 2

[Lizbeth]

I never questioned it's effectiveness but it's "delivery". Meaning the players might know of it, but do the PCs know? I'd ask for a Tactics and Leadership roll. You need both knowledge of tactics, organisation and someone to put them into action. For ranged attack it's the "On my mark, fire at Target A!" guy while for melee it's the "You take him on while I'll take on the big guy in the middle!" guy
Then again, this is about the best that can be done with skills as far as is written. I have further HOUSERULED tables for each skill and made notes and examples of their use in certain situations, but those are just that - houserules But using Tactics and Leadership is RAW, just takes a little imagination.

Well, that's a house rules again. But I don't want HOUSERULES to force characters to invest in Persuasion or Tactics. I want houserules that makes duel a viable choice.

You would be correct, there are none but I make a distinction between a player saying "I try to withdraw from combat!" and the player saying "I attack the guy on the right!". The first guy rolls Acrobatics to try to get away from his opponent as per rules while the second guy recklessly ignores such rules, gets no roll and is simply attacked (as if he automatically fails) so my players watch what they say Sorry for the confusion

Well, that's your gaming style. In our company it is assumed that the character rolls for Acrobatics by default.

I did play strategies, but that's just the point - I did, the character I made is some Assassin guy... or a Wizard, not a military strategist
I make a point of not giving players what PCs do not know and enforce harsh penalties for metagaming. That is why I asked that "what kind of group are you playing with" question

My group is very rules-driven. So they'll just invest in Tactics if I'll try to say stuff like "you cannot do this because you're a smith, not a tactician".

Seems to me that you are a bit lenient as far as roleplaying goes How does a guy go, for example, from "I was a renowned blacksmith and warrior" to "I know a strategy to take down an opponent by focusing on him and wearing him down with multiple blows"? Answer - he doesn't, he stays with "I enter combat and bash and slash anything bigger than me!". This is where roleplay comes in. Roleplay is not about "effectiveness" but about "aesthetics". If I want a Tao who punches faces, he punches faces - doesn't matter how effective it is, it's what he does

Aaand again without come way to propagate roleplaying in combat no one will ever bother with this. I know it because I am behaving this way as a player.

I've been in a few fights in my life and not one was "planned" beforehand and I can't see a valid reason why this wouldn't be the case in an anime fight, especially because group vs group fights get pretty hectic. Not once was there a "Well just all beat down on that 1 guy and then beat up each one of them in turn". I'd like to see how you'd manage to get around a wall of people by a simple "Let's just hit THAT guy!" and expect the other guys not to bash you in... it's asking for a beatdown

Well, I have some dojo and street experience too, but we are talking about characters who slay dragons and such, they are not always governed by casual logic.

Also, as far as my anime roleplaying point goes, it was in Gaia 1, there is a short insert where Rah faced off against 3 demons (or 2, I remember Pride and Wrath) and they didn't gang up on him but fought him in turn with Wrath going first by bashing a few walls with Rah and breaking his ribs but Rah beat them both... one by one
You can try and say "That was for story reasons" and I'll say "A story is good roleplay"... also... it wouldn't be fun if it was just "Demons came, beat Rah to a pulp, never triggered the machine and that's it... happy end"

Yep, they roleplayed. But that was for drama, not for efficiency.

Sorry for the long reply, I was feeling chatty so bear with me

I'm ok with it. 

The way to encourage one on one fights is with fluff, not nonsensical rules.

Like how?

Really now, anyone who has ever been in a group-vs-group fight knows how hard it is to just beat on 1 guy out of the entire group and not get hammered down by the rest.

Yeah, but rules are not supporting this.