New rules set in progress -- Combat rules

Remove all ads!

A couple people have asked me about the rules set I was designing, so I thought I would post my ideas in parts, starting with some of my ideas about combat. Please post your thoughts, comments, ideas, and any improvments you think I should make.

To begin with, each character would have a pool of 'action points' to draw from each round. The player would state an action he wishes to perform (e.g. attack, block, dodge, move, etc.), which would cost a certain number of action points. The more invovled the actions, the higher the cost in points. Smaller weapons(daggers) would cost less AP's than larger weapons(two-handed swords). When an attack is made, the defender's dexterity modifies the attack ONLY if the defender executes a dodging maneuver, if he stands motionless, he will be hit. Armor provides resistance to the damage of some weapons, the better the armor (plate mail over leather), the greater resistance to attacks, but a greater penalty to dexterity defense modifiers (it is assumed that better armor is heavier. Each armor will have it's own stats later). Shields will have no bearing on defense unless used in a blocking maneuver, which costs ap's equal to its use cost. Actions can be combined by combining the action costs of each respective action (a shield rush would combine the cost of using a shield with that of making a charge).

More later, I have to go.

 

I personally dislike the idea of Action Points. Just because a dagger is smaller than a longsword doesn't mean you should get extra attacks with it. It would upset game balance too much.

I'm also not too crazy about the idea of armor absorbing damage. It is more or less logical than the idea of armor providing AC bonus, but it would probably upset game balance as well.

 

It may seem unbalancing, but that may be because I haven't explained my changes to HP and damage. I am still working out the details of weapon damage and HP, but this is what I have so far. HP is the amount of subdual damage the character can take, or the amount of blood the character can lose before falling unconscious. While armor would stop many blows, when an attack does hit, it inflicts one of two wounds: glancing/minor or critical. Critical wounds cause massive bleeding, and a character reduced to zero HP from a critical wound dies. Minor wounds bleed, though less profusely, and a character reduced to zero HP from minor wounds falls unconcious, as if they had taken subdual damage.

There is much work to do on the concept, but I think it is a start.

Edit

Some things I haven't mentioned.
Feinting: It costs 2 attacks + 2 APs to attempt a feint. If the defender makes any attempts to block or parry the first attack (which is not a real attack), he can take no actions to block the second attack (the real attack).

I would say that a dagger is a faster weapon than a long sword, and would have the pontential to make more attacks in skilled hands.
An unskilled thief could launch a flurry of dagger stabs at a fighter with chain mail and a long sword, though he would accomplish little as most of his attacks would be turned away by dodges, the chain mail, parries, etc. Only more skilled thieves would possess the skill to slip the dagger tip through the gaps in his armor.
Game balance would not suffer if a smaller, less effective weapons was faster than a larger, more devastating weapon.

One last thing for now,
Falling flat: This has an ap cost, just as any other action, though it would be used as a last resort. The character throws himself out of harm's way, dives for cover, whatever, but he hits the ground and is prone for the duration of the round, forgoing the rest of his ap's that round. He has to get up in the next round (which costs ap's), which may leave him exposed to attacks.

I have covered most of the general combat features, except for types of damage and instant kills, but I will leave those for later.

[ January 09, 2003, 04:37: Message edited by: Izaad ]

 

Sounds almost like the rules in Fallout. I like the idea of dodge. Sounds cool!

 

this sounds.... GREAT

 

What you're doing is breaking down a turn into individual actions. An attack roll doesn't mean a single swing, as far as I know. It means a series of slashes and parries and ripostes that are summed up in one roll: did you, amidst that dueling, manage to slip through and pierce your opponents armor? Or did all of your strikes fail to hit target? Multiple weapons obviously give you better chances of hitting your opponent, so you get a roll for each one of those weapon's attempts.

Dexterity bonus to AC isn't necessarily dodging, otherwise it would be called a dodge bonus. It's called: Dexterity bonus to AC. It's not just jumping out of the way of your opponents attacks like you think, but also reacting to their swing and bringing your own weapon up to block it in time.

Don't get me wrong, I think that an alternative combat system is a cool idea, but if you're going for a more loose system, this is just some constructive criticism to consider. [I tried to make an alternative, and gave up in a huff because I couldn't achieve realism without including absurd complexity.]

Amon-Ra

 

Amon-Ra, I understand what you are saying, but I have found D&D to be too abstract for reasons just like these. This new system would end the the dull grind of battle that is so commonplace in D&D: attack, take damage, attack, critical hit, instant death, experience, etc. Characters would dodge left, stab high but pull back in a feint and stab in again low past the weak parry attempt. All the things the DM finds himself describing to the players after the fight ("Ok, so this is what happened...")

Oh, and by the way, does anyone think it overkill to have different attacks for weapons (e.g. slash or stab, swing left or right, attack high or low)?

 

Your system sounds similar to Harnmaster and ICE's system for Middle Earth. If you'd like some ideas you may want to check them out.

 

Sounds like too much work. I want my combat to be over quickly so that I can return to my roleplaying.

 

Hrm... Back when I was wee... oh, say yay-high, my friends and I played games that were totally on-the-fly. Basically, everything rested on the DM and the numbers were only guidelines.

Say a fighter is walloping on a common thug with a shield and short sword. The fighter brings up his blade with a strong over-head swing, [rolls, DM takes into account the fighters level, strength, the fact he's a fighter, and comes to a conclusion: say in this case, his roll was too low] so the thug brings his shield up to block, but is still slightly staggered by the force of the strike. The fighter's friend, a rogue, takes advantage of the off-guard thug and slides in with his dagger, [rolls, DM takes into consideration the rogues level, dexterity, and fact that he's a rogue, and comes to a conclusion: say in this case, the roll was superb] so the rogue guts the thug like a fish.

This sort of playing was fun- it meant basically, if you were doing the thing your class was meant to do [bashing, being an opportunist, casting] then the DM could give you, say, a 35-70% chance of success. Any really low rolls gave opportunity for colorful mishaps, like tripping or dropping your weapon, while high rolls meant things like criticals, or possibly breaking your opponents weapon as you hit. This eliminated, for a good part, power-gaming and min-maxing.

The only part I find hard to conceive is making a rules system around this. The point was, no rules. You have the numbers, the DM knows how good of a fighter you are, how good of a rogue you are, how deadly your aim is, how powerful your magic is, and all that's left is for you to declare your action and roll, and let the DM decide what happens based on that info. Breaking the game system down to calculating these numbers i think adds way too much complexity. Spending 5 minutes determining what a roll of 14 means when stabbing low against a character that is parrying with two short-swords is working against what you are trying to acheive.

Keep it relatively simple, or get your players used to doing it, and more power to you. Just make sure its more fun than what you're doing now, otherwise, what's the point?

Amon-Ra

[ January 19, 2003, 05:20: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

 

You raise a very good point Amon-Ra. Do you think it would be a good idea to have each of these various actions impact one die roll per attack? I mean, a long sword would normally deal a minor wound on a roll of 1-10, and a critical wound 10-20, but when an attack is made against platemail, it shifts to 1-5 attack hits , 6-10 minor wound, 10-20, critical wound. (Something like that, this is just an example) Or have a dodge maneuver make the chances 1-5 miss, 6-15 minor wound, 16-20 critical wound?