How Would You: High APM vs Low APM

[Alrik Vas]

I'm curious how other people run this. When a character has say, 11 attacks per round (as some Juicers and others tend to when they get up in level), and they are fighting two low level (1st-3rd) characters, who together have 8 attacks, how do you guys run it? I know the number of attacks combined don't mean anything really, just giving an extreme so show that sometimes there are characters that are basically more than twice as fast as two other characters working in tandem...

Do they stagger back and forth according to initiative as usual? And after 4 actions between each combatant, the high level character just takes 7 unanswered actions?

Is a fight usually over at this point so it doesn't matter?

Would you allow the 11 attack character to take multiple actions in the space of one, or do you think that taking actions that use up multiple attacks works for this? (long bursts, power punches, deathblows all take multiple attacks per round). By the way time flows (which i know is never accurately represented in RPG's, hence our need for rules) each of the 4 attack characters takes one action, it's been like 4 seconds, when the 11 action character makes a single attack, it's been 1 second, maybe 1.3 or something.

I'm just curious how you all handle these situations.

[kaid]

I'm curious how other people run this. When a character has say, 11 attacks per round (as some Juicers and others tend to when they get up in level), and they are fighting two low level (1st-3rd) characters, who together have 8 attacks, how do you guys run it? I know the number of attacks combined don't mean anything really, just giving an extreme so show that sometimes there are characters that are basically more than twice as fast as two other characters working in tandem...

Do they stagger back and forth according to initiative as usual? And after 4 actions between each combatant, the high level character just takes 7 unanswered actions?

Is a fight usually over at this point so it doesn't matter?

Would you allow the 11 attack character to take multiple actions in the space of one, or do you think that taking actions that use up multiple attacks works for this? (long bursts, power punches, deathblows all take multiple attacks per round). By the way time flows (which i know is never accurately represented in RPG's, hence our need for rules) each of the 4 attack characters takes one action, it's been like 4 seconds, when the 11 action character makes a single attack, it's been 1 second, maybe 1.3 or something.

I'm just curious how you all handle these situations.

The way I have usually seen it done is just alternates around the table and the guy witha lot of attacks winds up with a lot of abilities that they can use at the end of the round or a lot of active dodging.

The biggest weirdness that comes from this is people with less attacks wind up moving farther per melee attack if they are running/moving. Not a huge deal but a bit of an odd artifact. Really if there are enough combatants around the guys with a lot of attacks wind up spending more of them dodging since they have so many they don't mind blowing a bunch evading damage and it does not cripple them offensively like it wound somebody with fewer attacks per melee.

[Talavar]

Having the juicer (or other high attack/round character) go twice per "turn" isn't a bad fix either though. Keeps things a little more balanced.

[Jefffar]

RAW, yeah, it sucks to be the guy that runs out of actions first by a considerable degree. I envision it like in a modern boxing match where after trading jabs suddenly one of the fighters strings together a series of blows while the other fighter can only cover up and wait until he has a shot.

Still, it can be a little awkward and isn't exactly the most realistic.

So I have been experimenting with a system in which I divide the melee round into a number of phases. Each PC and NPC gets to use a maximum number of actions per phase and cannot exceed their total number of actions per melee. This does well at making sure the other guy is still in the fight through the melee but also lets a fast character unload early, make combinations or unload with a power punch faster than normal.

So far it has been successful in making combat more interactive, but also speeding it up.

[Alrik Vas]

I like speeding it up. Care to share?

[Jefffar]

Alright, here we go.

Divide the melee into 5, three second phases.

A PC or NPC with less than 6 attacks gets to act a maximum of once per phase.
A PC or NPC with 6 to 10 attacks gets to act a maximum of twice per phase.
A PC or NPC with 11 or more attacks gets to act a maximum of three times per phase.

Go around the group with each phase as if it were a mini-melee with each PC or NPC getting 1 to 3 actions per phase as above. A PC or NPC can elect not to take all their available actions in any given phase or indeed elect to take none, waiting for the right moment to strike.

No PC or NPC may use a total number of attacks in a melee greater than the number of attacks per melee they have. If they run out of attacks before they run out of phases, tough luck for them. If they run out of phases before they run out of attacks, the extra are wasted.

[Alrik Vas]

Yeah, seems like a more organized way of doing it. Now if i can just find/run a game to try it for myself.

[Killer Cyborg]

Do they stagger back and forth according to initiative as usual? And after 4 actions between each combatant, the high level character just takes 7 unanswered actions?

Yes.
Exactly that.
It represents the point where the more skilled combatant simply dominates combat, and the lesser-skilled opponents cannot effectively get any attacks in.

Would you allow the 11 attack character to take multiple actions in the space of one, or do you think that taking actions that use up multiple attacks works for this? (long bursts, power punches, deathblows all take multiple attacks per round).

Officially, an attack that takes up two actions usually takes two attacks time-wise.
So when two combatants are facing off, and one tries a power punch, it looks like this:
Combatant 1: Starts power punch.
Combatant 2: Attacks (or whatever)
Combatant 1: Finishes power punch.
Combatant 2: Attacks (or whatever)

But I have house-ruled that it take the attacks off of the tail end.
So instead it looks like:
Combatant 1: Performs a power punch.
Combatant 2: Attacks (or whatever)
Combatant 1: Attacks (or whatever)
And so on. But Combatant 1 has one less overall attack. So if he's the guy with 11 attacks against a guy with 4 attacks, then instead of having 7 uninterrupted attacks at the end, he only has six.

[cchopps]

For years we used the system where characters with more attacks just get to use them all at the end of the round. A few years ago we started using a chart someone posted up here that broke the round into 15 seconds and your number of attacks determines which second you attack on (initiative determines order on each second). This meshed well with the speed rules and my group really likes it.

C. Chopps

[flatline]

I have done away with attacks per melee entirely.

I consider them to be a broken mechanic. And when I say broken, I mean that it (a) does not accurately represent our intuition of how things are supposed to work and (b) can ruin the game.

--flatline

[Jefffar]

So what do you do instead?

[flatline]

So what do you do instead?

We always called it "narrative combat" since it playes out the way an author might describe combat in a novel.

Basically, time advances the smallest amount of time required for someone to finish their current action or decide to abort their current action. Once someone finishes or aborts their current action, consequences are determined (whatever is appropriate, like rolling damage, perhaps), and then they declare their next action.

It's a very natural way of handling action->reaction with groups. Someone starts doing something and everyone who can perceive it gets a chance to abort their actions (and pay any consequences) and declare new actions.

The thing that makes this tricky is deciding how long it takes for a particular character to complete their declared action. that's totally up to the GM (or consensus if the GM plays that way). Also, some actions are not perceivable by others, so they get no chance to react. Also, some actions complete so quickly that it's difficult to meaningfully react (although you're certainly welcome to try).

--flatline

[Bill]

I'm considering allowing players to spend up to two actions per round. That will give them a little more control over how quickly they run out and allow the super-fast folks to pull off more advanced maneuvers in single rounds. All I've really got to do is work out under what circumstances multi-action maneuvers can be disrupted if the character is capable of executing them in a single round. Perhaps as a contingent action?

[Eclipse]

Maybe just say everyone has six actions per round, but those with more have them as spare actions they can use at any time,

e.g. in the round 1, action 1 phase, person A attacks person B. Person B can sacrifice his potential attack (which would be used on his initiative order) to instead dodge (dodging takes time too) but if person C then attacks person B, person B can't dodge as he's committed already to dodging person A. If however he has a spare action due to being a nimble class or having the right drugs etc, he can then dodge person C as well, or if there is no person C, he can use his spare action to instead attack person A in return.

Of course he could just not opt to dodge and instead take the hit from person A and use his standard action for that phase to attack back, depending on the situation..

But you can only use one spare action per phase, just something up your sleeve. Any spare actions you haven't used at the end of the six phases in a round are lost.

Or you can use the four action phases per round as a baseline, whatever. Then as you go over 8 attacks per melee, you get up to two spare actions per phase.

I'm sure this has plenty of flaws too..

[Giant2005]

So what do you do instead?

We always called it "narrative combat" since it playes out the way an author might describe combat in a novel.

Basically, time advances the smallest amount of time required for someone to finish their current action or decide to abort their current action. Once someone finishes or aborts their current action, consequences are determined (whatever is appropriate, like rolling damage, perhaps), and then they declare their next action.

It's a very natural way of handling action->reaction with groups. Someone starts doing something and everyone who can perceive it gets a chance to abort their actions (and pay any consequences) and declare new actions.

The thing that makes this tricky is deciding how long it takes for a particular character to complete their declared action. that's totally up to the GM (or consensus if the GM plays that way). Also, some actions are not perceivable by others, so they get no chance to react. Also, some actions complete so quickly that it's difficult to meaningfully react (although you're certainly welcome to try).

--flatline

How exactly does that work? Do you guys not have any established rules at all regarding combat speed, and kind of make them up as you go?
Is this the sort of thing you mean:
GM: "The Headhunter prepares an attack"
Player: "My Wilderness Scout reacts faster than the Headhunter and quickly dispatches him before he can land his attack."
GM: "Nah, the Headhunter is a Man-At-Arms class, he is faster than you in combat."
Player: "My Wilderness Scout had two extra cups of coffee today and put more sugar than usual on his cereal this morning - he is hyped up to hell so he can do it."
GM: "That sounds fair, the Headhunter is dead."

[green.nova343]

For years we used the system where characters with more attacks just get to use them all at the end of the round. A few years ago we started using a chart someone posted up here that broke the round into 15 seconds and your number of attacks determines which second you attack on (initiative determines order on each second). This meshed well with the speed rules and my group really likes it.

C. Chopps

Sounds like the chart Stan Bundy came up with years ago. It broke up the melee into the 15 seconds (i.e. someone with 15 AT/melee attacked every second, whereas a guy with only 5 attacked every 3 seconds). You had the option of either using initiative rolls to break ties (i.e. "It's second 7 & both Bob & Tom are up; Tom won initiative, so he goes before Bob"), or adding everyone's initiative rolls to their attack sequence numbers (high numbers went first).

[flatline]

So what do you do instead?

We always called it "narrative combat" since it playes out the way an author might describe combat in a novel.

Basically, time advances the smallest amount of time required for someone to finish their current action or decide to abort their current action. Once someone finishes or aborts their current action, consequences are determined (whatever is appropriate, like rolling damage, perhaps), and then they declare their next action.

It's a very natural way of handling action->reaction with groups. Someone starts doing something and everyone who can perceive it gets a chance to abort their actions (and pay any consequences) and declare new actions.

The thing that makes this tricky is deciding how long it takes for a particular character to complete their declared action. that's totally up to the GM (or consensus if the GM plays that way). Also, some actions are not perceivable by others, so they get no chance to react. Also, some actions complete so quickly that it's difficult to meaningfully react (although you're certainly welcome to try).

--flatline

How exactly does that work?

Exceedingly well once the group gets the hang of it.

Do you guys not have any established rules at all regarding combat speed, and kind of make them up as you go?
Is this the sort of thing you mean:
GM: "The Headhunter prepares an attack"
Player: "My Wilderness Scout reacts faster than the Headhunter and quickly dispatches him before he can land his attack."
GM: "Nah, the Headhunter is a Man-At-Arms class, he is faster than you in combat."
Player: "My Wilderness Scout had two extra cups of coffee today and put more sugar than usual on his cereal this morning - he is hyped up to hell so he can do it."
GM: "That sounds fair, the Headhunter is dead."

It is certainly up to the GM to decide if that's how things will play out, but your example would never have flown in any group that I've played with, if only because the preferred level of detail is totally missing. Narrative combat isn't a way of glossing over combat so much as describing every detail that might matter.

For example:
GM: The Headhunter gets out of his chair and raises his sledgehammer.
Player: I draw my pistol.
GM: You're sitting on a chair with a back that makes that difficult. The chair is up against a bookshelf, so you can't push it backwards. Judging by the speed he lifts the sledgehammer, you realize you won't be able to draw your pistol before he gets to you.
Player: I bolt sideways out of the chair as I draw my pistol.
GM: (assesses situational modifiers to both strike and dodge roll...decides it's not cut and dry, and so rolls for both headhunter and player). Okay, you bolt around the table towards the door and send the chair into the wall. The chair bounces a bit off the wall but the headhunter bats it away with his hammer since he can no longer reach you with it. He starts coming around the table after you.
Player: Did I successfully draw my pistol?
GM: Yes, but you only have time for a snap shot before he gets to you.
Player: Uh, doesn't he react to my pistol?
GM: Nope. He's coming at you like he totally doesn't care about your pistol.
Player: Okay, I backup towards the door and shoot the bookshelf beside him.
GM: Is this the pistol with the explosive shells?
Player: Yes
GM: the bookshelf explodes. You see lots of debris hit the headhunter and you recognize the flicker of a force field as the debris is deflected.
Player: No wonder he's not afraid of my pistol.
GM: Indeed. Are you wearing your helmet? There's lots of dust and small particles flying about now.
Player: Umm...probably not. I was wearing it when I entered, but put it on the table when he offered me the cigar.
GM: You're regretting that now. You left your helmet on the table when you bolted and now you're having trouble seeing and breathing with all the crap in the air.
GM (to other players not currently at the table): You'd better come back to the table. Your characters hear an explosion. You see the mercenaries outside the house jump up and begin readying their weapons.
...

The more detail, the better. This example was inspired by something that happened in a campaign over a decade ago. Unfortunately for us players, we never found the book we were looking for...perhaps it was on the bookshelf that got shredded. The GM never told us (no, I wasn't the trigger happy character with the explosive bullets...).

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

We used to just let you attack as much as you wanted on your initiative and let movement be purely on the call of the GM depending on your SPD. If you didn't save any actions for defense that was your fault. This was back when my brothers and i played, we were all about 10-15. Made perfect sense at the time.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Alright, here we go.

Divide the melee into 5, three second phases.

A PC or NPC with less than 6 attacks gets to act a maximum of once per phase.
A PC or NPC with 6 to 10 attacks gets to act a maximum of twice per phase.
A PC or NPC with 11 or more attacks gets to act a maximum of three times per phase.

Go around the group with each phase as if it were a mini-melee with each PC or NPC getting 1 to 3 actions per phase as above. A PC or NPC can elect not to take all their available actions in any given phase or indeed elect to take none, waiting for the right moment to strike.

No PC or NPC may use a total number of attacks in a melee greater than the number of attacks per melee they have. If they run out of attacks before they run out of phases, tough luck for them. If they run out of phases before they run out of attacks, the extra are wasted.

Will it continue upwards every 5? I've seen characters with more than 15 or 20 attacks per melee.

[ZorValachan]

For years we used the system where characters with more attacks just get to use them all at the end of the round. A few years ago we started using a chart someone posted up here that broke the round into 15 seconds and your number of attacks determines which second you attack on (initiative determines order on each second). This meshed well with the speed rules and my group really likes it.

C. Chopps

Last game/campaign I used this and it worked very well.

Some months back I read another system that I like better (and similar to Jefffar's), which I will use in my next game.
I like 5 second intervals in my games , so will divide each Melee Round into 3 phases. Then 'rotate' attacks per melee round into these phases. So a guy with 3 attacks per melee will get 1 attack per phase. A guy with 4 will get 2 attacks in phase 1 and 1 in phases 2 and 3. A guy with 5 will get 2-2-1. A guy with 6; 2-2-2. etc. Phases will be in Initiative order and a person can use all the attacks for that phase on his turn. He can use later phase attacks for dodging/parrying, but not any from the next melee round to prevent the negative infinity attacks per melee KS presented in a Q+A in a Rifter a year or two ago. Movement is divided by 3 and a person can move up to this third per phase (cannot take from the next phase). it would work to keep people more engaged, rather than waiting for the guy with 11 attacks to do his 6, while the others with 5 attacks get bored, fall asleep, start playing angry birds...

[Jefffar]

Nerika, I am of two minds about that one actually, and here's why.

First, those in the 16 plus attacks per melee band usually have something extra going on that lets them combine multiple attacks as a single action anyway. For example the Tentacles superpower gives you the ability to do a bonus attack for each pair of tentacles and lets you combine these bonus attacks into essentially volleys of tentacle strikes. These sort of multi-attack at once abilities cut down on the practical number of attacks said individual needs to take.

Second, my idea says nothing about defensive actions like a dodge. So a character with 17 attacks for example, could dodge twice and still be able to attack three times every phase.

Third, there is the issue of fairness in letting a character use all their abilities and attributes to their maximum.

Fourth, in the games I GM, double digit attacks per melee scores are very rare so it hasn't actually been an issue yet.

So I can go either way with it, and for fairness I would probably extend it for the higher attack characters.

[popscythe]

The biggest weirdness that comes from this is people with less attacks wind up moving farther per melee attack if they are running/moving. Not a huge deal but a bit of an odd artifact.

I think that might be an illusion caused by thinking of the combat round as everyone standing still while the other guy acts. The reality is that everything is happening at once over the course of 15 seconds. The SPD attribute gives you the amount of distance you can cover in 15 seconds, not the amount of distance you can cover in 15 seconds divided by your number of attacks. If a juicer is running for one second, he will clearly run further than a dead boy running for one second. If you do the math that way it works out the way it should. If the dead boy says "I'm doing nothing but running for my next attack" just estimate how long he'll be running for during the duration of that attack. Because his slower "actions per melee" take longer, it takes him four seconds to turn and run, where as the juicer gets at least two shots at him during those four seconds.

See what I mean?

[say652]

1 with iniative attacks first, target defends, the next highest number attacks, target defends, when all actions are used up the "juicer" with three attacks left could basically get in 3 shots on 1 target which can only parry if they have an auto-parry or take 1 free shot at both targets then throw a grenade or other explosive device since without an autododge with no actions left cannot dodge.

[Tor]

By the rules, you get all your extra attacks at the end. It's probably a common house rule that if it's a straight out 8 attacks versus 4 (or 6 vs 3, etc) that it's a 2 for 1 deal, though.

Allowing them all at the end isn't so bad though, long as the high-attacks guy survives the initial exchange. Admittedly, you could have 100 attacks per melee and they won't do you much good if you're 1-hit-killed by Atlas.

For high attack guys worried about that, it might be worthwhile to focus on passive combat (dodging, spending attacks to cast defensive spells, shifting position, attacking weak minion characters) and allow powerful enemies to exhaust their attacks THEN attack then, when they have no attacks per melee left to simultaneous attack you with.

It's also workable if you think of this as super punch out. Like that game, combat is pretty slow paced, back and forth, but you're building up your punch meter as you score the hits. Suddenly, you hit the power shot, and do a cool combo right at the end until you're tuckered, which may or may not take your enemy down or not.

[Alrik Vas]

By the rules, you get all your extra attacks at the end. It's probably a common house rule that if it's a straight out 8 attacks versus 4 (or 6 vs 3, etc) that it's a 2 for 1 deal, though.

Allowing them all at the end isn't so bad though, long as the high-attacks guy survives the initial exchange. Admittedly, you could have 100 attacks per melee and they won't do you much good if you're 1-hit-killed by Atlas.

For high attack guys worried about that, it might be worthwhile to focus on passive combat (dodging, spending attacks to cast defensive spells, shifting position, attacking weak minion characters) and allow powerful enemies to exhaust their attacks THEN attack then, when they have no attacks per melee left to simultaneous attack you with.

It's also workable if you think of this as super punch out. Like that game, combat is pretty slow paced, back and forth, but you're building up your punch meter as you score the hits. Suddenly, you hit the power shot, and do a cool combo right at the end until you're tuckered, which may or may not take your enemy down or not.

I see this as an acceptable explaination.

I suddenly have a question about Simultaneous Attacks though: Don't you need to have higher Initiative than your opponent to do that? If not, please explain how the mechanic operates in a ranged/melee fight as i'm probably not remembering correctly.

[Nekira Sudacne]

By the rules, you get all your extra attacks at the end. It's probably a common house rule that if it's a straight out 8 attacks versus 4 (or 6 vs 3, etc) that it's a 2 for 1 deal, though.

Allowing them all at the end isn't so bad though, long as the high-attacks guy survives the initial exchange. Admittedly, you could have 100 attacks per melee and they won't do you much good if you're 1-hit-killed by Atlas.

For high attack guys worried about that, it might be worthwhile to focus on passive combat (dodging, spending attacks to cast defensive spells, shifting position, attacking weak minion characters) and allow powerful enemies to exhaust their attacks THEN attack then, when they have no attacks per melee left to simultaneous attack you with.

It's also workable if you think of this as super punch out. Like that game, combat is pretty slow paced, back and forth, but you're building up your punch meter as you score the hits. Suddenly, you hit the power shot, and do a cool combo right at the end until you're tuckered, which may or may not take your enemy down or not.

I see this as an acceptable explaination.

I suddenly have a question about Simultaneous Attacks though: Don't you need to have higher Initiative than your opponent to do that? If not, please explain how the mechanic operates in a ranged/melee fight as i'm probably not remembering correctly.

It's easy, simultanious attack allows you to attack someone who is attacking you, regardless of inititive. if there are 12 guys in the fight, and the guy who moves second attacks the guy who moves 11th, the 11th guy can simul and attack immediately. this counts as his attack--at the 11th place he does nothing sinse he moved.

if guy 2, 3, and 4 all attack guy 11 in turn, he can simul-attack all 3 of them, so long as he has enough attacks per melee to do so.

if 8 people attack him before he moves, he can simul-attack as many people as he has attacks per melee to use--provided he survives that long.

also: if guy 2 attacks guy 11, and then guy 5 attacks guy 2, then guy 2 can simul-attack--even though he already attacked this turn. it comes off his next turn.

[Levi]

I have a set of house rules that I use for initiative. They sound a little complicated at first, but after just a couple melees it all makes sense and is very easy. I call it Time Sliced Initiative. Here it is:

This method is designed to speed up and simplify combat. The basic premise is that each character takes their action/attack at specific points during a melee based on an initiative count down.

Once combat has been initiated, all characters involved roll their D20 and add or subtract any bonuses or penalties as they may apply. This will determine what initiative they start the melee on.

Next, each player divides their initiative by their number of attacks rounding up for any remainders. This number will be how often they go after their first attack. So if a character has an initiative of 18 and 3 attacks, they will take their attacks every six initiative decrements. IE: that character would attack on 18, 12, and 6 last. An example is below.

Jim and Bob have squared off and are ready to take each other out. So they roll initiative as normal. Jim totals only 11 for initiative and Bob 16.
Bob has 4 attacks. 16 divided by 4 = 4. So he will start the melee on 16 then he will go on 12 (because 16-4=12), then 8 (as12-4=8), and last on 4 (8-4=4).
Jim has also has 4 attacks. 11 divided by 4 is 2 with a remainder of 3, so we round up to 3. He will start the melee on 11 then he will go on 8 (because 11-3=8), then 5 (as 8-3=5), and last on 2 (5-3=2).

The melee round would start by the GM polling the characters (just Jim and Bob in this case) to see who had the highest initiative. After each attack is complete the GM would continue to count down the initiative until the next attack, and until 0 is reached. Then the process would start over if needed.

So in this case the first attack would be Bob at initiative of 16. Then the melee would continue with Bob going at 12, Jim at 11, Bob and Jim would have a simultaneous attack at 8, then Jim at 5, Bob at 4 for his last attack, and finally the melee would end with Jim at 2.

Melee Initiative:
16 = Bob
12 = Bob
11= Jim
8= Bob and Jim (simultaneous attack)
5 = Jim
4 = Bob
2= Jim

One of the nice side effects to this system is that you don’t get to the end of the melee and have one or two character with 5 attacks to take all in a row very often.

Of course this is the basic framework and there are some special circumstances for combat maneuvers like dodges, low initiative rolls, and initiative losses to HFs. The next section gives details of how to handle these issues. However, it may be good idea to start with just basics and add the rest of the rules once you are comfortable with basics.


Special Circumstances:

Losing initiative or attacks: This is actually pretty simple. If a character fails a save vs HF, magic, or anything else that would cause them to lose initiative or to lose an attack for the melee, they simply skip their next initiative. If the character who was to take their actions on initiatives 14, 10, 6, 2 where to lose initiative or an attack before they went at 14, they would lose that first attack. If that character had already taken their attack at 14 and 10 and then lost an attack, they would skip their attack at the initiative of 6.

Dodges: There are two ways to handle this. The first is to allow characters to use a dodge at any point in the melee as long as they have attacks left. If they chose to use a dodge, the dodge uses their next initiative action/attack. The next method is to have character “hold” an attack for use as dodges. Holding attacks is explained below. The exception to these two ways of handling dodges is the auto-dodge. Those with auto-dodge may dodge at any time without holding an attack or using up their next one.

Simultaneous attacks: These can be handled in the same two ways as dodges. Either the character uses up their next attack, or they must be holding an attack.

Low initiative rolls: It is also possible for a character’s total initiative roll to be lower than the number of attacks they have in a melee. In this case the character will take an attack on each initiative after their first attack until they get to 0. Initiatives below 0 cannot be used. So if a character has 4 attacks and only totals 2 on initiative, they will attack on 2, 1, and 0; effectively losing one attack for that melee.

Holding attacks: Is optional for use with dodges and simultaneous attacks. When this rule is invoked characters may not dodge or make simultaneous attacks unless they are tied for initiative with their attacker, or they are holding an attack from a higher initiative. Held attacks can only be used to respond to an attacker with dodges or simultaneous attacks. If a character does not use his held attack before the next attack, that attack is lost. Using this rule forces characters play a little more defensively and to plan ahead. It also makes special abilities like auto-dodge, even at the lower dodge bonus, a very nice ability to have.

[Alrik Vas]

By the rules, you get all your extra attacks at the end. It's probably a common house rule that if it's a straight out 8 attacks versus 4 (or 6 vs 3, etc) that it's a 2 for 1 deal, though.

Allowing them all at the end isn't so bad though, long as the high-attacks guy survives the initial exchange. Admittedly, you could have 100 attacks per melee and they won't do you much good if you're 1-hit-killed by Atlas.

For high attack guys worried about that, it might be worthwhile to focus on passive combat (dodging, spending attacks to cast defensive spells, shifting position, attacking weak minion characters) and allow powerful enemies to exhaust their attacks THEN attack then, when they have no attacks per melee left to simultaneous attack you with.

It's also workable if you think of this as super punch out. Like that game, combat is pretty slow paced, back and forth, but you're building up your punch meter as you score the hits. Suddenly, you hit the power shot, and do a cool combo right at the end until you're tuckered, which may or may not take your enemy down or not.

I see this as an acceptable explaination.

I suddenly have a question about Simultaneous Attacks though: Don't you need to have higher Initiative than your opponent to do that? If not, please explain how the mechanic operates in a ranged/melee fight as i'm probably not remembering correctly.

It's easy, simultanious attack allows you to attack someone who is attacking you, regardless of inititive. if there are 12 guys in the fight, and the guy who moves second attacks the guy who moves 11th, the 11th guy can simul and attack immediately. this counts as his attack--at the 11th place he does nothing sinse he moved.

if guy 2, 3, and 4 all attack guy 11 in turn, he can simul-attack all 3 of them, so long as he has enough attacks per melee to do so.

if 8 people attack him before he moves, he can simul-attack as many people as he has attacks per melee to use--provided he survives that long.

also: if guy 2 attacks guy 11, and then guy 5 attacks guy 2, then guy 2 can simul-attack--even though he already attacked this turn. it comes off his next turn.

That is messy and nonsensical. I'm trying to remember the way we used to do it that didn't make me shake my head and sigh.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I said it was easy. I didn't say it made sense

[flatline]

I only remember allowing a simultaneous attack once. It was when two gunmen tied for initiative and tried to shoot each other.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

I only remember allowing a simultaneous attack once. It was when two gunmen tied for initiative and tried to shoot each other.

--flatline

And that makes sense to me. Though i recall simultaneous attacks having bizarre interaction with martial art maneuvers from NSS, and with WP Paired Weapons. Like, you could do combination moves, parrying the simultaneous strike while still hitting. crazy stuff.

[Killer Cyborg]

I only remember allowing a simultaneous attack once. It was when two gunmen tied for initiative and tried to shoot each other.

--flatline

And that makes sense to me. Though i recall simultaneous attacks having bizarre interaction with martial art maneuvers from NSS, and with WP Paired Weapons. Like, you could do combination moves, parrying the simultaneous strike while still hitting. crazy stuff.

It gives paired weapons and certain moves quite an advantage.