Mass Combat Question

[joelmarler]

I assume that if you cast a spell like TTYF it can only hit one target per round, meaning that if you are fighting multiple foes you can only kill up to one foe each round. I also assume this is the case with ranged weapons. Is this the case with melee attacks too? If you were battling 10 MR1 rats, and you rolled 10 higher than your combined enemies in melee, would you kill all of the rats or just one?

[giant2005]

You would kill more than one. Remember that a combat exchange isn't a single swing of your weapon - it is a couple of minutes of intense battle. During that time you are defending yourself from the enemy's attacks while finding time to strike back. If you roll well enough, you find enough time to strike back more than once and possibly against more than one enemy.

[joelmarler]

So would you be able to kill more than one enemy per round using ranged and single target magic attacks then?

[darrght]

Oct 17, 2017 1:39:59 GMT -5 joelmarler said:

So would you be able to kill more than one enemy per round using ranged and single target magic attacks then?

I think with the former, single shot ranged missile attack, the answer is still no, only one foe struck = one foe damaged, unless the DEX SR to hit was an astonishing 'critical' due to DARO when the GM would have to get creative.

With magical attacks that yield damage, the waters are a little murkier. I've always considered foes in close proximity are potentially in line for some 'collateral damage' from TTYFs, Blasting Powers and Freeze Pleezes. In fact, having just had a squint at the Deluxe rules, BP and FP have a blast range of 5 feet around the primary target and the spell book says n/a for TTYF suggesting there shouldn't be that collateral effect. I think I'd still allow for some hits to leak around the vicinity of a target of a TTYF.

I was trying to be helpful but honestly, I'm not sure I've succeeded joelmarler

[giant2005]

Oct 17, 2017 1:39:59 GMT -5 joelmarler said:

So would you be able to kill more than one enemy per round using ranged and single target magic attacks then?

No, those are just single attacks - those are things that you can quickly pull off before the grand melee begins.

[khaboom]

I play a round of combat lasts 30 seconds. I also play that it takes 30 seconds to be ready to cast another spell - although it has often seemed to me that a (say) L12 wizard might well be able to rack off more than one L1 TTYF in that time. Surely he could become more proficient?
Equally, why should an archer not fire more than once in that time? I generally justify by saying targets are dodging.
If players asked and the 'facts' fitted, I would probably allow more than one attack. But they never have

[giant2005]

It isn't so much that an archer can only fire once in that time, it is just that they can only fire once before their target gets close enough to stab them. T&T takes the more realistic approach where it is considered a death sentence to be stupid enough to try and keep shooting people one they are getting all stabby on you. In T&T, when it gets to that point you need to throw the bow away for a melee weapon yourself, or spend some time being defensive and trying to build some distance between you again.

[jeffepp]

Ranged attacks are a trade-off. Your full attack value is added to the side total, but your damage only applies to the target, IF you're successful. The loosing side gets to decide how to distribute general melee damage. By successfully hitting the target, you are directing the damage. So, any overkill damage is "lost", and you can only kill the target. Armor still applies, of course.

A TTYF is much the same. By the book, it only targets one creature. In both cases, the goal is to kill the target, while you're companions hold off the rest.

In general melee though, there's no real limit to how many opponents you damage. But, those opponents get to choose the distribution. Melee fighters often do more damage, over all, but still may take several rounds to put an enemy down.

[khaboom]

Not all targets counter-attack Some are Glue You'd to the spot!

[mahrundl]

These are just off-the-cuff ideas, and I don't know whether they'd play out well. You could allow more spreading of damage from missiles and magic as follows:

An archer might be able to hit more than one target by making more / harder saving rolls, in conjunction with spreading the damage from their bow. If a 2nd level SR was needed to hit, with a 3rd level SR you might be able to split your damage equally between 2 targets, and with a 4th level SR you might be able to hit 3, or split the damage unevenly, or something else.

Likewise, a high level Wizard might be able to split her 4th level TTYF so that it does her IQ in damage to each of 3 or 4 different targets, rather than many times her IQ in damage to a single target.

Something to consider, if the idea grabs you...

[jeffepp]

For the ranged combat, that's one way to do it.

For TTYF, by the book, it's limit of one target is intended as a way to "obsolete" it in favor of higher level spells. But, if you want to house rule it, that's fine. I would make the wizard research, or buy, quest for, what ever, an improved version of the spell, though.

[joelmarler]

I've got another question too:

1) If you're fighting multiple enemies, do you add all of their MRs together to figure out how many dice and adds your foes get as a whole, or do you calculate how many dice and adds each foe gets then add them together? Because if you do it the second way, the enemies get more dice.

[zanshin]

Oct 22, 2017 0:38:09 GMT -5 joelmarler said:

I've got another question too:

1) If you're fighting multiple enemies, do you add all of their MRs together to figure out how many dice and adds your foes get as a whole, or do you calculate how many dice and adds each foe gets then add them together? Because if you do it the second way, the enemies get more dice.

Traditionally, the second way. It is harder to fight 3 Mr 15 Goblins than one MR 45 Orc.

[darrght]

Agreed zanshin more opponents should make combat harder. In your example, the difference is only a single D6 (5D6 versus 3 x 2D6) but with higher MRs, the difference in dice can be significantly greater (e.g 3 x MR 30 opponents makes it 10D6 versus 3 x 4D6)

[mahrundl]

Oct 22, 2017 5:54:47 GMT -5 zanshin said:

Oct 22, 2017 0:38:09 GMT -5 joelmarler said:

I've got another question too:

1) If you're fighting multiple enemies, do you add all of their MRs together to figure out how many dice and adds your foes get as a whole, or do you calculate how many dice and adds each foe gets then add them together? Because if you do it the second way, the enemies get more dice.

Traditionally, the second way. It is harder to fight 3 Mr 15 Goblins than one MR 45 Orc.

Conversely, unless they are trained / practised at fighting as a group, the 3 goblins might get in each other's way and reduce their effectiveness...

Which is just my way of saying that you can play it either way. Treat the group as a rabble (combined MR) or as a disciplined unit (sum of individual MRs) - it gives you options on how hard to make the fight.