Attacks per melee

[Whiskeyjack]

Just finished up my first Rifts game in about 12 years. Went pretty good. Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves.
While playing I came across a problem I had encountered before that I never did satisfactorily fix.
The attacks per melee range from 4 to 7 with the current group. How does everyone else deal with players in combat who have different amounts? Do you just go until the one person is out and have them sit back and watch the rest of the melee as a spectator? Or do you skip a turn during combat so they can participate to the end? Or do you do something else entirely?

[Nekira Sudacne]

Just finished up my first Rifts game in about 12 years. Went pretty good. Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves.
While playing I came across a problem I had encountered before that I never did satisfactorily fix.
The attacks per melee range from 4 to 7 with the current group. How does everyone else deal with players in combat who have different amounts? Do you just go until the one person is out and have them sit back and watch the rest of the melee as a spectator? Or do you skip a turn during combat so they can participate to the end? Or do you do something else entirely?

the official rule is every person has one action according to init order. as people run out, those with more keep going. and yes, if one person has 8 and everyone else has 4, that means he gets 4 actions at the end of the round where no one else can do anything.

[Whiskeyjack]

That just seems weird. You're totally dominating a battle, then just suddenly stop. Go ahead, it's your turn now.

[flatline]

One of our very first house rules was to eliminate attacks per melee. We were playing Heroes and when Rifts came out, we did the same in Rifts.

Attacks per melee is the single most awkward game mechanic in the Palladium system.

--flatline

[Whiskeyjack]

So how do you handle attacks? Just alternate back and forth? What about creatures that realistically would get extra attacks due to extra limbs etc?

[Damian Magecraft]

Just finished up my first Rifts game in about 12 years. Went pretty good. Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves.
While playing I came across a problem I had encountered before that I never did satisfactorily fix.
The attacks per melee range from 4 to 7 with the current group. How does everyone else deal with players in combat who have different amounts? Do you just go until the one person is out and have them sit back and watch the rest of the melee as a spectator? Or do you skip a turn during combat so they can participate to the end? Or do you do something else entirely?

In My Games
we divide the melee into 3 sub phases and distribute the APM among them using a front loading method.
Examples:
Larry the LLW has 4 APM which would be distributed as 2/1/1
Jake the Juicer has 5 APM which would be distributed as 2/2/1
Donald the Dragon has 6 APM which would be distributed as 2/2/2
Gretta the Glitter Girl has 7 APM which would be distributed as 3/2/2
and so on...
combat is still run round robin within each sub-phase.
this reduces the length of thumb twiddling by the less "endowed" melee types.

[Whiskeyjack]

I like that type of layout Damien. The process might take some getting used to, but it seems fairly workable. It should work even better when I get my dry erase board on my table.

[Incriptus]

Everybody hates it when I say this (at my table)

But think of it like in a WWE wrestling match. Two guys are attacking each other, trading blows then the wrestler with more attacks per melee opens up with a few unanswered attacks. . . It also happens in a lot of older poorly choreographed movies.

Another way of thinking of it is that you're keeping up fairly well at the beginning however the character with more attacks eventually starts to overwhelm you, forcing you to stay on the defensive.

From a combat perspective it is advantageous for the guy with less attacks. If you got 3 attacks, and he has 8 attacks, if you can beat him in 2 attacks, you want to run by the official rules. If you're the guy with 8 attacks, you want that above round robin.

From my personal perspective when I have 8 attacks and the other guy has 3 ... I use a power punch, so what it takes two attacks, I got attacks to spare. When he attacks back I don't parry, I entangle, I disarm, I body flip/throw. I do all those things you'd never do because they take up an extra attack.

From the perspective of my other players .... I think the design above is really worth trying, and I may just do so my next game on Friday.

[Pepsi Jedi]

The rule mechanics are trying to give 'rules' and 'mechanics' to life situations that don't really have such things enforced.

Sometimes you see things like.. the guy with 8 melee attacks ending up with 'unanswered' attacks at the end. (Honestly I think they should be at the beginning. As if he's moving faster and gets attacks off before others can react, but that's me.)

So we play it like they have it in RAW
Round robin gives everyone a 'chance' to get a few hits in, but those that are just superior get some extra at the end. (WHich could be 'viewed' as the beginning of the next.)

It's just easier to deal with a little bit of awkwardness than to make yet another house rule and be further and further from the canon stuff.

our Gm's typically give us guys that are around our power level, so have roughly the same number of attacks, OR the baddie is of a higher power level, but there's just the one, or 'fewer' of them than there are of us. So the 'extra' attacks help to deal with the fact that it's two, three, four on the one.

I like the idea that "At the start of the round, those with less attacks are keeping up, but towards the end they're just overwhelmed by the better fighter. That's as good a way to explain it as any.

Damian's way isn't bad. If I were to change things and try and make them more difficult, or complex. I'dl likely use his. I just don't use too many house rules.

[H.P. Hovercraft]

The "Attacks Per Melee" as a game mechanic is a bit awkward and unrealistic, yet I've found that it usually still works as far as game play goes.

In our group, we once tried to spread attacks out based on how many each character had vs their opponent. This involved both a ratio chart and a calculator and only ended up slowing down the already tedious act of combat. We later refined it to a system similar to what Damian offered above (which worked fairly well, although took some getting used to).

Yet even the RAW version isn't all that unrealistic. Watch any boxing or MMA match and in the beginning of each "melee" both opponents are usually attacking equally; giving jabs and feints.......sizing up their opponent until one of them sees either a weakness or an opening and then unleashes with the rest of their "attacks for the melee" to gain advantage.

[guardiandashi]

The "Attacks Per Melee" as a game mechanic is a bit awkward and unrealistic, yet I've found that it usually still works as far as game play goes.

In our group, we once tried to spread attacks out based on how many each character had vs their opponent. This involved both a ratio chart and a calculator and only ended up slowing down the already tedious act of combat. We later refined it to a system similar to what Damian offered above (which worked fairly well, although took some getting used to).

Yet even the RAW version isn't all that unrealistic. Watch any boxing or MMA match and in the beginning of each "melee" both opponents are usually attacking equally; giving jabs and feints.......sizing up their opponent until one of them sees either a weakness or an opening and then unleashes with the rest of their "attacks for the melee" to gain advantage.

I have a broken munchy char and one way to keep her attacks under control was even though she ended up having over 20 attacks... she was only allowed to make 15 attacks per melee, things that counted as "single attacks" for here were power attacks 2 actions 1 attack, dual attacks IE attacking separate targets with left and right hands simultaneously (used 2 actions but counted as 1 attack) using "special attacks" including auto counters etc.

note she was still insane when she went off on something but in some ways it wasn't AS bad.

[Killer Cyborg]

Everybody hates it when I say this (at my table)

But think of it like in a WWE wrestling match. Two guys are attacking each other, trading blows then the wrestler with more attacks per melee opens up with a few unanswered attacks. . . It also happens in a lot of older poorly choreographed movies.

Another way of thinking of it is that you're keeping up fairly well at the beginning however the character with more attacks eventually starts to overwhelm you, forcing you to stay on the defensive.

Exactly.
That kind of thing happens in life, too.

The system isn't a perfect representation, but it's good enough IMO.
A better way would be for each attack to reduce the initiative of the person who got hit (or who had to defend), but that gets real complicated really fast.

One house-rule that we used to speed things up, and to break up that final flurry at the end a bit, was to allow all attacks used up in non-attack things to come off of the tail end.
Say you have 6 attacks per melee, and you're up against somebody with 4 attacks per melee.
You attack. Now you're down to 5 attacks.
He attacks, and you dodge (with the attack spent dodging coming off the tail end of things), and now you're down to 4 attacks.
You attack again. Now you're down to 3 attacks.
He attacks again, this time with a leg sweep that costs you 1 attack to get back up. You get back up, and now you have 2 attacks.
Then it's your turn again. You've got 2 attacks left, so you spend them on a power punch. Instead of the official "you spend an attack round winding up, Popeye-style, before punching" method, we'd just say that your punch lands (or misses) in that one attack round, and the second attack used up comes off the back end.
So now you're out of attacks, even though it's only the 3rd round of attacks, and you had 6 attacks.
The other guy makes his fourth and final attack, then it's time for a new initiative.

[Whiskeyjack]

In hand to hand I've always found it fairly realistic. The person with fewer attacks just gets caught off balance and is forced on the defensive. The issue last night was when the person with fewer attacks wasn't being attacked at all. I guess it would best be invisioned as the other combatants moving in such a way as he couldn't get a shot in.
I think I'll give Damiens way a shot next game and see how it works. If no one likes it we'll go back to the straight round robin.

[flatline]

So how do you handle attacks? Just alternate back and forth? What about creatures that realistically would get extra attacks due to extra limbs etc?

We used something we called narrative combat. Here are some cut/pastes from previous threads where I attempted to explain it:

Spoiler:

Every combatant declares what they're going to do and the clock advances by the amount of time that the shortest declared action consumes (or less time if everyone starts a long action but someone aborts). Actions that can be completed in that amount of time are all resolved and then a new round begins. Time accumulates for actions that don't complete so that after 2 seconds of time, a 5 second action requires 3 seconds to complete if it's not aborted or interrupted.

The same action might take different amounts of time for each combatant. For example, a soldier might be able to acquire a target and snap off an aimed shot once a second, but someone with lesser competancy might require 3 seconds to get all thier bonuses.

Actions that can occur in less time than other combatants can react to would be grouped together, but dice rolls would be made for each action in the action group.

It may sound complicated, but once your group gets used to it, it's extremely natural, fast, and flexible.

Edit: If you think about it, this is probably exactly how you already handle non-combat.

Spoiler:

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).

Spoiler:

Each turn is 1 second long, each character gets one set of complementary actions each turn (penalties assigned as appropriate), actions that take longer require multiple turns to complete. Dodges are declared and rolled before attacks and affect the target number for attacks rather than rolled after the fact for each attack. Auto-dodges are converted instead to "free" target number penalties for all attacks.

Faster actions (or actions that started in previous turns) finish faster than slower actions regardless of initiative rolls (initiative is almost never rolled, actually).

Makes combat much faster, more fluid, and less mechanical. Requires the players to trust the judgement of the GM so-as not to get bogged down.

For those who have heard me mention "narrative combat" in previous posts, this is roughly how we do it.

Here's a much longer description that I PM'ed someone a while ago. If you only read one of these, this is the best one.

Spoiler:

I use a method that I call Narrative Combat (because that's what the guy I learned it from called it...I have no idea if that's a common term or not).

Basically, instead of deciding how many things you can do in a specific length of time, you decide how long a particular action takes. If I start an action that takes 2 seconds to complete at the same time that you start an action that takes 1 second to complete, you'll be able to start another action (and maybe finish it) before I complete my first action. If your first action interrupts my first action or if I decide to abort my action in response to your action, then I start my new action without ever completing my first action.

If you think about it, this is what we do in real life. For example, I start to walk towards the kitchen to get something to drink, but when my toddler opens the door and the cat runs towards it, I abort my action to try to stop the cat from getting outside. Or I could say "heck with it" and continue into the kitchen knowing that the cat will come back when it's hungry.

Now, there are two things to consider that make this approach a little tricky at first.

1. Some people can perform a particular action faster than others. It takes me about 4 seconds to swing a sledge hammer accurately. If I were stronger or more coordinated, it would take me less time. Presumably, a Juicer who is both stronger and more coordinated, could do it in a fraction of that time (say 1 second). However, I can accurately swing a tack hammer very fast and no matter how must stronger or more coordinated a juicer is than I am, he will not be able to hammer with that tack hammer enough faster than me to make a difference in game terms. Evaluating how fast a character can do something is something that the player and GM will simply have to judge. If there is disagreement, in order to not bog down the game, the player must either accept the GM's ruling or choose another action. Starting out, there might be lots of quick discussions, but as the players and GM get used to how things work, it actually becomes quite fluid and only stops for discussion if someone is trying something new or unusual.

2. Complementary actions: some actions can overlap. If I'm an experienced shotgunner, I might be able to reload my weapon as I maneuver to a better position. Or maybe I can shoot while moving without taking a significant penalty. In a combat situation, those who have trained for combat will be able to overlap their actions more than those who haven't. Of course, two actions can't be complementary if one interferes with the other (i.e. you can't shoot and reload at the same time since guns don't work that way and even if they did, you don't have enough hands).

I know this all sounds complicated, but usually you start simple and things grow more sophisticated as the group gets more comfortable with how things work. I suggest just starting with 1 second rounds and giving everyone one action. This will force them to often take multiple rounds to finish what they start but they'll quickly get used to it. Don't let any action take less than 1 second (at least at first) but do allow some characters to do bigger actions in that second if they are particularly suited for the action (like the juicer swinging a sledge hammer or the physicist doing a mental calculation).

Introduce the idea of complementary actions slowly, perhaps by suggesting obvious complementary actions when appropriate. However, be prepared to assign penalties to rolls when an action isn't getting sufficient attention. Characters that are trained in combat would probably suffer smaller penalties than a combat novice. Again, this requires the players to trust the GM's judgment, but again, this gets easier and more fluid as everyone gets used to it.

Anyways, that's the basic idea. Depending on how good the GM is, this works well with 4 or 5 players. If the group has been doing it a while and are comfortable with each other, then it can work with much larger groups (I've participated in games with a dozen or so players that went quite smoothly using this kind of play).

The reason I like Narrative Combat is that it takes the emphasis off the system and rolling dice and places it on actually visualizing what's going on and using common sense to make decisions rather than following some obscure rule. Combat goes very fast and there's a smooth transition into and out of combat (as opposed to "okay, everyone roll initiative!").

I hope I haven't made this sound hard, 'cuz really it's not. Try it with one or two players and see what happens.

And an example of how it might play out.

Spoiler:

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.

--flatline

[Whiskeyjack]

That's an interesting take on combat flatline. The group I grew up gaming with did combat very similar in that everything was explained. Even the the point of us standing up to show how we were attacking to determine what moves were feasible.
I may give this style a try eventually. The current group are all Pathfinder players, so they're more "I roll, I hit or miss". The combat isn't very expressive with them.

[Mechghost]

Way back when I was in college (ancient times lol) just around when Rifts came out and we played that and HU and TMNT, we had a chart for the 15 seconds that each round took and depending on how many attacks you had you looked at the chart to see what seconds your attacks took place in, for example if you had 5 attacks they were in 3, 6, 9, 12, 15. Initiative was for when your attack was at same time as someone else's (both on 6 for example). Actions that used more than 1 attack carried to the next second, Power punch on 3 would use 6 as well.
It seems a little clunky but worked very smooth when the players followed it (we had players try to "break" the system so they would "win" even though it was a team effort)

[Pepsi Jedi]

The "Attacks Per Melee" as a game mechanic is a bit awkward and unrealistic, yet I've found that it usually still works as far as game play goes.

In our group, we once tried to spread attacks out based on how many each character had vs their opponent. This involved both a ratio chart and a calculator and only ended up slowing down the already tedious act of combat. We later refined it to a system similar to what Damian offered above (which worked fairly well, although took some getting used to).

Yet even the RAW version isn't all that unrealistic. Watch any boxing or MMA match and in the beginning of each "melee" both opponents are usually attacking equally; giving jabs and feints.......sizing up their opponent until one of them sees either a weakness or an opening and then unleashes with the rest of their "attacks for the melee" to gain advantage.

I have a broken munchy char and one way to keep her attacks under control was even though she ended up having over 20 attacks... she was only allowed to make 15 attacks per melee, things that counted as "single attacks" for here were power attacks 2 actions 1 attack, dual attacks IE attacking separate targets with left and right hands simultaneously (used 2 actions but counted as 1 attack) using "special attacks" including auto counters etc.

note she was still insane when she went off on something but in some ways it wasn't AS bad.

How did you get over 20 attacks per melee?

[glitterboy2098]

most of the games i've been in recently have adopted these "phase" rules, which do help to even out the problem a bit.
https://megaversal-hunt.obsidianportal.com/wikis/combat

basically the melee is broken into 6 phases. one attack per character per phase.. unless you have more than 6, then you can start adding a 2nd attack per phase till your extras run out.

[Athos]

The "Attacks Per Melee" as a game mechanic is a bit awkward and unrealistic, yet I've found that it usually still works as far as game play goes.

In our group, we once tried to spread attacks out based on how many each character had vs their opponent. This involved both a ratio chart and a calculator and only ended up slowing down the already tedious act of combat. We later refined it to a system similar to what Damian offered above (which worked fairly well, although took some getting used to).

Yet even the RAW version isn't all that unrealistic. Watch any boxing or MMA match and in the beginning of each "melee" both opponents are usually attacking equally; giving jabs and feints.......sizing up their opponent until one of them sees either a weakness or an opening and then unleashes with the rest of their "attacks for the melee" to gain advantage.

I have a broken munchy char and one way to keep her attacks under control was even though she ended up having over 20 attacks... she was only allowed to make 15 attacks per melee, things that counted as "single attacks" for here were power attacks 2 actions 1 attack, dual attacks IE attacking separate targets with left and right hands simultaneously (used 2 actions but counted as 1 attack) using "special attacks" including auto counters etc.

note she was still insane when she went off on something but in some ways it wasn't AS bad.

How did you get over 20 attacks per melee?

Am guessing here, but maybe a Rahu Man with 4 arms wielding 4 swords with any hand to hand and boxing and wp paired weapons.

[guardiandashi]

The "Attacks Per Melee" as a game mechanic is a bit awkward and unrealistic, yet I've found that it usually still works as far as game play goes.

In our group, we once tried to spread attacks out based on how many each character had vs their opponent. This involved both a ratio chart and a calculator and only ended up slowing down the already tedious act of combat. We later refined it to a system similar to what Damian offered above (which worked fairly well, although took some getting used to).

Yet even the RAW version isn't all that unrealistic. Watch any boxing or MMA match and in the beginning of each "melee" both opponents are usually attacking equally; giving jabs and feints.......sizing up their opponent until one of them sees either a weakness or an opening and then unleashes with the rest of their "attacks for the melee" to gain advantage.

I have a broken munchy char and one way to keep her attacks under control was even though she ended up having over 20 attacks... she was only allowed to make 15 attacks per melee, things that counted as "single attacks" for here were power attacks 2 actions 1 attack, dual attacks IE attacking separate targets with left and right hands simultaneously (used 2 actions but counted as 1 attack) using "special attacks" including auto counters etc.

note she was still insane when she went off on something but in some ways it wasn't AS bad.

How did you get over 20 attacks per melee?

Am guessing here, but maybe a Rahu Man with 4 arms wielding 4 swords with any hand to hand and boxing and wp paired weapons.

I did say she was broken and munchy...

the GM had a "house rule" that you could add attacks from some hand to hand forms.
the Char had martial arts to ~8th level, ninjitsu to ~10th level, something else from mystic china that was built around weapons, and some special forms/arts that increased attacks, and PP /spd, plus she had spent a few years training as a gunfighter, and a while (at least a couple decades) training in the sword fighting techniques used by a certain multi movie franchise who's initials start s, and w

[Bill]

I allow players to spend up to two actions per turn. It has encouraged players with more actions to try more complex maneuvers and exciting descriptions while those with fewer can save them for dodging. It doesn't have to work like that, a player who's character has 12 actions could drag it out, but the folks I've played with tend to take the opportunity to be awesome.

[Kagashi]

Ive used three methods, each have their pros and cons.

1) standard palladium. Its simple, and most characters have about the same numbers of attacks and keeps things somewhat balanced. However, you get that one guy with 15 attacks and when everybody else runs out at 6, he gets 9 attacks to just walk around and plug people in the back of the head with a laser pistol. Not very realistic.

2) Time based. Each attack "goes off" at a certain time period based off of the number of attacks divided by 15.

Tom has 3 attacks, he can react every 5 seconds.
Dick has 4 attacks, he can react every 3.75 seconds.
Harry has 8 attacks, he can react every 1.875 seconds.

GM simply has to stay true to the timeline and let players know when they can react. This is more realistic and when plotted out graphically, illustrates simultaneous attack much better than the previous method.

3) Everybody has the same number of attack regardless of OCC, H2H, skill bonuses, race, ect...

I use 5 APM cause it divides well into 15 seconds. I then assign a "combo" when Palladium thought somebody should have an extra attack. For example, Palladium says boxing gets +1 attack. I would assign that character the ability to something with boxing that would normally spend two attacks. Like Dodge/Punch. He would be able to do this once per melee round. An RPA pilot would be able to Dodge/Shoot as one of his extra attacks earned from the Elite skill and so on.

#1 is by far the easiest to run table top cause everybody is familiar with it and really does not have issues unless you have a dude with uber attacks per melee. #2 is more realistic, but run into issues of confusing people on when they can attack and when they are effectively doing something where they cannot react. I use this method primarily for play by post games where I am tallying up combat for the melee round, then posting the results. #3 requires players and GMs alike to relearn combat all together. So far, I like it, but its not everybody's cup of tea.

[Secondhand Smoke]

Ive used three methods, each have their pros and cons.

1) standard palladium. Its simple, and most characters have about the same numbers of attacks and keeps things somewhat balanced. However, you get that one guy with 15 attacks and when everybody else runs out at 6, he gets 9 attacks to just walk around and plug people in the back of the head with a laser pistol. Not very realistic.

2) Time based. Each attack "goes off" at a certain time period based off of the number of attacks divided by 15.

Tom has 3 attacks, he can react every 5 seconds.
Dick has 4 attacks, he can react every 3.75 seconds.
Harry has 8 attacks, he can react every 1.875 seconds.

GM simply has to stay true to the timeline and let players know when they can react. This is more realistic and when plotted out graphically, illustrates simultaneous attack much better than the previous method.

3) Everybody has the same number of attack regardless of OCC, H2H, skill bonuses, race, ect...

I use 5 APM cause it divides well into 15 seconds. I then assign a "combo" when Palladium thought somebody should have an extra attack. For example, Palladium says boxing gets +1 attack. I would assign that character the ability to something with boxing that would normally spend two attacks. Like Dodge/Punch. He would be able to do this once per melee round. An RPA pilot would be able to Dodge/Shoot as one of his extra attacks earned from the Elite skill and so on.

#1 is by far the easiest to run table top cause everybody is familiar with it and really does not have issues unless you have a dude with uber attacks per melee. #2 is more realistic, but run into issues of confusing people on when they can attack and when they are effectively doing something where they cannot react. I use this method primarily for play by post games where I am tallying up combat for the melee round, then posting the results. #3 requires players and GMs alike to relearn combat all together. So far, I like it, but its not everybody's cup of tea.

Option 3 sounds like a fantastic idea! I'm going to try and get a GM interested in this!

A few ideas:
Auto dodge would add a dodge combo to every action, boxing adds an extra melee punch attack combo as you say once a round, but still provides a natural knock out on 20, cyber knights gain a free psi sword double attack once a round (as per their +1 attack), gunslingers can combo a free attack or trick shot as per their additional attacks....

I'm really liking this.

[Glistam]

I've always thought it might just be simple to say everyone gets 5 attacks per melee, and any extra attacks are just converted to an initiative bonus. Conversely, any less attacks per melee translates into a penalty to initiative. Spells, maneuvers, and such can still rob one of their "next attack" as per usual.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I typically don't like that sort of option. A martial artist, commando, juicer, crazy, etc, is going to be trained in how to fight. They're going to be better at it and attack faster than the 300lbs house wife chain smoking parliments and levering her self off the couch to stuff food in her face hole.

That last option says that the Ninja, commando, or juicer has the same number of attacks as the mumu wearing 300lbs house wife, but they just go first.

That doesn't work for me.

[Kagashi]

Ive used three methods, each have their pros and cons.

1) standard palladium. Its simple, and most characters have about the same numbers of attacks and keeps things somewhat balanced. However, you get that one guy with 15 attacks and when everybody else runs out at 6, he gets 9 attacks to just walk around and plug people in the back of the head with a laser pistol. Not very realistic.

2) Time based. Each attack "goes off" at a certain time period based off of the number of attacks divided by 15.

Tom has 3 attacks, he can react every 5 seconds.
Dick has 4 attacks, he can react every 3.75 seconds.
Harry has 8 attacks, he can react every 1.875 seconds.

GM simply has to stay true to the timeline and let players know when they can react. This is more realistic and when plotted out graphically, illustrates simultaneous attack much better than the previous method.

3) Everybody has the same number of attack regardless of OCC, H2H, skill bonuses, race, ect...

I use 5 APM cause it divides well into 15 seconds. I then assign a "combo" when Palladium thought somebody should have an extra attack. For example, Palladium says boxing gets +1 attack. I would assign that character the ability to something with boxing that would normally spend two attacks. Like Dodge/Punch. He would be able to do this once per melee round. An RPA pilot would be able to Dodge/Shoot as one of his extra attacks earned from the Elite skill and so on.

#1 is by far the easiest to run table top cause everybody is familiar with it and really does not have issues unless you have a dude with uber attacks per melee. #2 is more realistic, but run into issues of confusing people on when they can attack and when they are effectively doing something where they cannot react. I use this method primarily for play by post games where I am tallying up combat for the melee round, then posting the results. #3 requires players and GMs alike to relearn combat all together. So far, I like it, but its not everybody's cup of tea.

Option 3 sounds like a fantastic idea! I'm going to try and get a GM interested in this!

A few ideas:
Auto dodge would add a dodge combo to every action, boxing adds an extra melee punch attack combo as you say once a round, but still provides a natural knock out on 20, cyber knights gain a free psi sword double attack once a round (as per their +1 attack), gunslingers can combo a free attack or trick shot as per their additional attacks....

I'm really liking this.

Yeah, those are great examples. It helps prevent the "how does boxing allow me to shoot faster" issue too.

but yeah, the KO on natural 20 would still remain in place. Its just the +1 attack that would need to be turned into a combo of sorts.

Ive tinkered with allowing combos with WPs too. Say at levels 3, 7, 11, and 15 or something. Common combos would be: Dodge/shoot, Shoot/reload, shoot/shoot (double tap) and so on. Kickboxing and Wrestling should offer a combo as well, same as boxing.

The only stipulation is, once the combo has been picked, thats what the character is good at and sticks with. The combo doesnt change. And it has to be chosen from an area which the skill or ability already covers. (IE Boxing isnt going to give you a Dodge/Shoot combo...boxing has nothing to do with shooting guns.).

I have to capture all my ideas down on paper one day. Ill send it to you when I do. It would be great to bounce ideas off of somebody else.

[Dog_O_War]

Just finished up my first Rifts game in about 12 years. Went pretty good. Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves.
While playing I came across a problem I had encountered before that I never did satisfactorily fix.
The attacks per melee range from 4 to 7 with the current group. How does everyone else deal with players in combat who have different amounts? Do you just go until the one person is out and have them sit back and watch the rest of the melee as a spectator? Or do you skip a turn during combat so they can participate to the end? Or do you do something else entirely?

I use a different system entirely.

There are 15 seconds in a round, so I do a countdown (you could count up, but that does not mesh with my surprise-round method). Your attacks are divided up and placed as evenly along the list as possible.

That is; the turn starts on second 15 - everyone gets their first attack here, in an order determined by their initiatives.
Then I move down the seconds (14, 13, etc.) - I use this method for several reasons: first is that fast characters actually get their attacks more often (as it should be). Second is for short-timed events, like a primed grenade going off 3 seconds after it was thrown.

Third is for surprise rounds (as mentioned above). What happens during a surprise round is that one side does not get to roll initiative normally. I find however, that a person standing there like a vegetable breaks the verisimilitude; it feels dumb.

So instead what I do is have people roll a d6 (just one) and add their initiative bonus to it; this determines how fast they are able to snap out of surprise, as you take the number you got and that is the second you can begin to act on. Fast characters (those with a +9 initiative or higher) may even still get their opening action!

As an example, we will use a character with 5 attacks and a +5 initiative. Normally they get to attack on 15, 12, 9, 6, and 3, but they were surprised, so they have to roll a d6 and add 5 to see when they may begin to act. We will say they rolled a 6 for a total of 11; on second 11 they character may begin to react to things; they do not have an attack on 11, but at least they can defend themselves, and when the countdown gets to 9, 6, and 3, they will get actions as normal on those seconds.

This does not mean that you get to roll a normal initiative during a surprise round; they are acting on initiative 0, meaning even a person who only had a 1 will still get to do their action before them if they are acting during the same second of the countdown.


The d6 was chosen arbitrarily; I picked it because it was a small enough die as to not just remove the point of rolling and adding initiative, and I chose to add initiative because traditionally those "fast" characters also have a high initiative - this typically means little in most games and I wanted to give it more meaning.

[Athos]

I have always just played the traditional rifts method, where at the end of the round a character with more attacks makes them all at once while those who are out of attacks just wait, but I think I am going to change that in the future. I like the idea of "segments" or whatever you want to call them, like the above examples where there are 3 or 5 or however many attack opportunities per round and those with a lot of attacks get to attack multiple times during their phase. I think I will probably go with 4 phases over 3 or 5 just because that is the most common number of attacks for a basic character with hand to hand combat. This seems like a good house rule, at least good enough to spend some time testing it out. d20 has multiple attacks on each initiative for higher level characters and monsters and such, and it seems to work ok from what I have seen, so this idea makes a lot of sense to me, thanks for the suggestion.

[Alrik Vas]

I typically don't like that sort of option. A martial artist, commando, juicer, crazy, etc, is going to be trained in how to fight. They're going to be better at it and attack faster than the 300lbs house wife chain smoking parliments and levering her self off the couch to stuff food in her face hole.

That last option says that the Ninja, commando, or juicer has the same number of attacks as the mumu wearing 300lbs house wife, but they just go first.

That doesn't work for me.

I'd say, under the system of "everyone has the same number of actions" that it's 3...unless you have hand to hand training, then it's 5, and combos are available.

That's just me, if I were using that system.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I typically don't like that sort of option. A martial artist, commando, juicer, crazy, etc, is going to be trained in how to fight. They're going to be better at it and attack faster than the 300lbs house wife chain smoking parliments and levering her self off the couch to stuff food in her face hole.

That last option says that the Ninja, commando, or juicer has the same number of attacks as the mumu wearing 300lbs house wife, but they just go first.

That doesn't work for me.

I'd say, under the system of "everyone has the same number of actions" that it's 3...unless you have hand to hand training, then it's 5, and combos are available.

That's just me, if I were using that system.

It still doesn't work for me. It's too flat and static. That still says the 300lbs mumu wearer has 60% of the attacks as a juicer. ANd that all combat people move at the same speed, no matter their level of training or other factors.

I've had martial arts training. I'm sorry but if you're trained, yes you can land a significant number more strikes in the same allotment of time than a non trained person. TBH a Melee round should be more like 5 seconds than 15, but still. In fencing, in Isshin Ryu, in Kendo, I have and more over have seen people much better than me, move alot faster than those with out training or with out the level of training. One of my sensi's in Isshin Ryu had hands that were blindingly fast. Unarmed or with a bo or sai.

In game terms he'd be a high level martial artist, with starting attacks, attacks with the martial art form. Attacks from boxing, and then the additional attacks you get as you move up the lvl scale with the martial art. (Maybe another one due to his OCC too). If he struck less than 10 times in 5 seconds I'd be amazed. Full strikes too. Not half strikes or pulled punches or anything.

You'd find that sort of thing in other martial arts too. Heck not even martial artists. Watch some you tube videos on prison fights/riots. Some of those guys would be attributed to 6.. 8 strikes with a knife in just a few seconds.

Game mechanics are an (imperfect) Attempt to give structure to real life stuff. In this case fighting, to prevent the "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" "No you didn't" thing. ANY System for RP is imperfect in this aspect.

That said, giving unarmed people 3 and everyone else in the world a flat 5, just doesn't work for me. That's way way too general and ignores... well. dozens and dozens of aspects.

[Subjugator]

Just finished up my first Rifts game in about 12 years. Went pretty good. Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves.
While playing I came across a problem I had encountered before that I never did satisfactorily fix.
The attacks per melee range from 4 to 7 with the current group. How does everyone else deal with players in combat who have different amounts? Do you just go until the one person is out and have them sit back and watch the rest of the melee as a spectator? Or do you skip a turn during combat so they can participate to the end? Or do you do something else entirely?

In My Games
we divide the melee into 3 sub phases and distribute the APM among them using a front loading method.
Examples:
Larry the LLW has 4 APM which would be distributed as 2/1/1
Jake the Juicer has 5 APM which would be distributed as 2/2/1
Donald the Dragon has 6 APM which would be distributed as 2/2/2
Gretta the Glitter Girl has 7 APM which would be distributed as 3/2/2
and so on...
combat is still run round robin within each sub-phase.
this reduces the length of thumb twiddling by the less "endowed" melee types.

We did this exact same thing.

/Sub

[Alrik Vas]

@Pepsi Jedi

I don't disagree, but I think that you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. if extra attacks beyond those 5 effectively translate into combo actions happening more often. h2h gives you extra actions? you power punch in a single attack, or do a wing chun flurry, or dodge and strike at once, or takedown and draw a pistol to press it against the back of your target's head.

essentially, you act 5 times, but can do more with those 5 everyone than someone who is untrained, only getting 3.

[guardiandashi]

@Pepsi Jedi

I don't disagree, but I think that you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. if extra attacks beyond those 5 effectively translate into combo actions happening more often. h2h gives you extra actions? you power punch in a single attack, or do a wing chun flurry, or dodge and strike at once, or takedown and draw a pistol to press it against the back of your target's head.

essentially, you act 5 times, but can do more with those 5 everyone than someone who is untrained, only getting 3.

if you went with that "5 actions plus combos" rule I can see some of the funky combos my char Alecia would have.
Quadruple tap, fires 4 shots similar to "double tap"
Dual weapon fighting, and paired weapon fighting can use similar identical and non similar weapons in both hands (she was routinely using a shemarian railgun in 1 hand and a neroni PCP in her offhand)
dodge counterstrike
multi strike
and yes many of these "abilities can be combined such as dodge counterstrike (counterstriking with dual weapon fighting, and then using quad tap.. ) so she dodges your attack, and suddenly fires 4 shots with each hand...

[Tiree]

Just finished up my first Rifts game in about 12 years. Went pretty good. Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves.
While playing I came across a problem I had encountered before that I never did satisfactorily fix.
The attacks per melee range from 4 to 7 with the current group. How does everyone else deal with players in combat who have different amounts? Do you just go until the one person is out and have them sit back and watch the rest of the melee as a spectator? Or do you skip a turn during combat so they can participate to the end? Or do you do something else entirely?

In My Games
we divide the melee into 3 sub phases and distribute the APM among them using a front loading method.
Examples:
Larry the LLW has 4 APM which would be distributed as 2/1/1
Jake the Juicer has 5 APM which would be distributed as 2/2/1
Donald the Dragon has 6 APM which would be distributed as 2/2/2
Gretta the Glitter Girl has 7 APM which would be distributed as 3/2/2
and so on...
combat is still run round robin within each sub-phase.
this reduces the length of thumb twiddling by the less "endowed" melee types.

I do this for my Play by Post games I run. PbP I see all the actions first, so the players don't really see it in action. But it allows me to write my GM posts better.

In my tabletop games I do 5 phases. I tried to do this as well in PbP, but it was a bit unwieldy to do so. But since 5 divides into 5 rather easily for 3 second phases. Now this option also allows for combo attacks to go off and attacks that require multiple actions as well

[Damian Magecraft]

Just finished up my first Rifts game in about 12 years. Went pretty good. Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves.
While playing I came across a problem I had encountered before that I never did satisfactorily fix.
The attacks per melee range from 4 to 7 with the current group. How does everyone else deal with players in combat who have different amounts? Do you just go until the one person is out and have them sit back and watch the rest of the melee as a spectator? Or do you skip a turn during combat so they can participate to the end? Or do you do something else entirely?

In My Games
we divide the melee into 3 sub phases and distribute the APM among them using a front loading method.
Examples:
Larry the LLW has 4 APM which would be distributed as 2/1/1
Jake the Juicer has 5 APM which would be distributed as 2/2/1
Donald the Dragon has 6 APM which would be distributed as 2/2/2
Gretta the Glitter Girl has 7 APM which would be distributed as 3/2/2
and so on...
combat is still run round robin within each sub-phase.
this reduces the length of thumb twiddling by the less "endowed" melee types.

I do this for my Play by Post games I run. PbP I see all the actions first, so the players don't really see it in action. But it allows me to write my GM posts better.

In my tabletop games I do 5 phases. I tried to do this as well in PbP, but it was a bit unwieldy to do so. But since 5 divides into 5 rather easily for 3 second phases. Now this option also allows for combo attacks to go off and attacks that require multiple actions as well

we tried using 5 phases at first.
My group found it worked but the the sense of progression was too slow for them.
yes, I know the progression is the same regardless of the number of phases but the human mind is a funny thing...

[Tiree]

we tried using 5 phases at first.
My group found it worked but the the sense of progression was too slow for them.
yes, I know the progression is the same regardless of the number of phases but the human mind is a funny thing...

I get that, we preferred 5. We just came off a stint of playing Champions where it was 15 phases, so it wasn't that big of an adjustment

[Alrik Vas]

you could do 5 phases, allow only one action per phase to be devoted to movement, that way you avoid move time warps and allow actions to be banked for dodging. suddenly things smooth out.

[Alrik Vas]

question for everyone who does phases.

extra attacks that are awarded for sharpshooting or the paratrooper, things that have to be used with a certain item like a firearm, when do you include these in initiative?

[Tiree]

When they apply. So usually it's a "must use for the whole melee" therefore it has to be used the whole melee, otherwise it doesn't work.

[Alrik Vas]

I see, yeah. I was running it wrong, treating it like a free attack, which it isn't, it's just an additional. Slight difference.

[Zer0 Kay]

This is how I deal with it in my game viewtopic.php?f=44&t=147410#p2847312