PDA

View Full Version : Combat Maneuvers and Their [Relative] Difficulty



Lonely Tylenol
2013-01-07, 10:20 AM
So, to make a long story short, I've been working on my own tabletop system and set of mechanics for some time now, although it has mostly been idle scribblings up to this point. In short, the system uses a combination of ability scores that affect the number of dice thrown (resulting in a variable number of d6, from 1 to 5, based on ability) as well as a branching skill system (you can invest an equal amount of skill points into skill sets based on ability, as well as individual skills within that set for specialization), such that, in a 5-level system (what I am balancing it toward, initially), you can end up with rolls from anywhere between 1d6+0 (a 1st-level character of minimal ability in that score with no training; analogous to an old man, bent over a cane and with no training or physical fitness of any sort, trying to push a cart) to 5d6+10 (a 5th-level character who has both natural ability and rigorous training at their disposal; analogous to a master of legerdemain, at the top of her game, lifting objects from somebody's purse). Combat, magic (of all sorts) and skills will use this system, and since it is so all-important as far as its use is concerned, I will be tight-fisted with allocating bonuses as I go about working this system up.

I'm currently trying to work out the system for mundane combat, whereby, in addition to the standard, unmodified attack, one can add modifiers (either penalties to-hit, or bonuses to the target's difficulty to-hit) in order to apply a number of different effects in addition to, or instead of, the attack. This can be done in a number of different ways: for example, one can replace their traditional, standard attack with a trip attempt, taking whatever penalties (or bonuses!) are appropriate; or, one can attempt to knock somebody down (an attack that simultaneously deals damage and knocks the target down); or, one can attempt to follow a sweeping attack with a blow that deals damage once the target has fallen.

To offer a few examples, here's how iterative attacks and attacks with multiple weapons are being handled with this system:
- Iterative attacks: For each attack after the first, you may take 2d6 off of whatever you rolled last; if there is still a positive number of dice, you may roll an additional attack with the new number of dice. For example, a master swordsman with innate ability and training in his weapon may make up to three iterative attacks: first at 5d6+10, second at 3d6+10, and third at 1d6+10.
- Two-weapon fighting: When wielding two weapons, you may make two attacks where you would normally make one, but you must take 1d6 off of every attack roll made during this turn. For example, if the same master swordsman were to wield a sword in both hands, he would be able to make two attacks, each at 4d6+10.

All modifiers, where applicable, can be applied in addition to other modifiers. For instance, the swordsman above can combine two-weapon fighting with iterative attacks to make four attacks at 4d6+10/4d6+10/2d6+10/2d6+10. He could not make a third set of iterative attacks, however, because after removing 2d6 from the last set, there are no more dice to roll.

Modifiers can be applied both to the number of dice rolled (representing variables in ability; doing something that the body might be less naturally suited toward) as well as to the bonuses (variables in training or preparedness; improvising). For example, the archetypal "Power Attack" may be made in two ways: by sacrificing the number of d6 rolled on the attack (to gain an equal number of d6 to damage) and by sacrificing points from the flat numerical bonus (to gain an equal number to damage). This, like all other things, can be combined with other modifiers (even itself); for instance, if the exact same swordsman were to ignore his training, grab his second weapon fly into a blind rage and swing wildly at his opponent, he could make his four attacks at 3d6+7/3d6+7/1d6+7/1d6+7. All four of his attacks would be MUCH less accurate--sacrificing 1d6+3 to hit--but each hit would also add an additional 1d6+3 to damage. Typically, however, most combat maneuvers will be strictly either-or (you won't be able to wield two weapons by sacrificing flat bonuses instead of attack dice).

Where I'm getting stuck is in two places, really: the first is a failure of imagination. I'm sure there are things you can do to somebody in combat in addition to/instead of tripping, knocking down, pushing, knocking back, charging, grappling, throwing, pulling, sundering, defensive fighting, "power attacking", iterative attacks, multi-weapon fighting, feinting, and a few others that isn't expressed in this. More importantly, I'd like to explore the possibilities of called shots--attacks to specific parts of the body, such as the eyes, the throat, the solar plexus, or the legs--and benefits that may be inferred from them, as well as other abilities that are like in kind (to borrow another D&D analogue, the [Ambush] feats from Complete Scoundrel conjure ideas, but are mostly contained in a vacuum and seldom explored).

The second is a failure of expertise. Simply put, while I imagine I can balance some of these things adequately well (weighing the benefit of a tripped opponent vs. the difficulty it should cost as a result), I don't have a firm grasp of what these abilities should cost from a simulationist perspective. Take the three situations above, for tripping, as an example. Is tripping easier, or more difficult, than a standard attack? By how much? How much more difficult would it be to affix an attack to the trip in a single action? Does it make both the trip and the attack more difficult, or just one? Which? Is knocking somebody down (an attack that renders somebody prone, much like a trip attempt) easier, or more difficult, than simply tripping them? What about relative to other maneuvers? Is knocking somebody back (an attack that pushes somebody back, much like a bull rush attempt) easier or more difficult than knocking somebody down?

TL;DR: What would you consider to be valid maneuvers and abilities to be used in mundane melee or ranged combat, and how difficult (relative to other mundane combat abilities) do you believe them to be? I'm not asking for you to try put it into game terms as described here ("a trip attempt is worth a -2 to hit"), but even describing it in layman's terms, or simple, relative terms would be adequate for building a framework for all these ("knocking somebody down is more difficult than simply tripping them, but both are easier than trying to trip and then attack somebody in a single, fluid movement").

Mahalo! :smallbiggrin:

Spiryt
2013-01-07, 10:28 AM
Where I'm getting stuck is in two places, really: the first is a failure of imagination. I'm sure there are things you can do to somebody in combat in addition to/instead of tripping, knocking down, pushing, knocking back, charging, grappling, throwing, pulling, sundering, defensive fighting, "power attacking", iterative attacks, multi-weapon fighting, feinting, and a few others that isn't expressed in this. More importantly, I'd like to explore the possibilities of called shots--attacks to specific parts of the body, such as the eyes, the throat, the solar plexus, or the legs--and benefits that may be inferred from them, as well as other abilities that are like in kind (to borrow another D&D analogue, the [Ambush] feats from Complete Scoundrel conjure ideas, but are mostly contained in a vacuum and seldom explored).

The second is a failure of expertise. Simply put, while I imagine I can balance some of these things adequately well (weighing the benefit of a tripped opponent vs. the difficulty it should cost as a result), I don't have a firm grasp of what these abilities should cost from a simulationist perspective. Take the three situations above, for tripping, as an example. Is tripping easier, or more difficult, than a standard attack? By how much? How much more difficult would it be to affix an attack to the trip in a single action? Does it make both the trip and the attack more difficult, or just one? Which? Is knocking somebody down (an attack that renders somebody prone, much like a trip attempt) easier, or more difficult, than simply tripping them? What about relative to other maneuvers? Is knocking somebody back (an attack that pushes somebody back, much like a bull rush attempt) easier or more difficult than knocking somebody down?

TL;DR: What would you consider to be valid maneuvers and abilities to be used in mundane melee or ranged combat, and how difficult (relative to other mundane combat abilities) do you believe them to be? I'm not asking for you to try put it into game terms as described here ("a trip attempt is worth a -2 to hit"), but even describing it in layman's terms, or simple, relative terms would be adequate for building a framework for all these ("knocking somebody down is more difficult than simply tripping them, but both are easier than trying to trip and then attack somebody in a single, fluid movement").

Mahalo! :smallbiggrin:

There's so much ways to 'trip' somebody, rendering him prone in different ways, with different harm to him, and advantagous position for the tripper, that's it's really impossible to answer in " a more difficult than b".

That times all different circumstances, weapon, physical builds, skills and styles...

So it's not easy to build 'realistic' combat rules at all, in general.

Lonely Tylenol
2013-01-07, 11:12 AM
There's so much ways to 'trip' somebody, rendering him prone in different ways, with different harm to him, and advantagous position for the tripper, that's it's really impossible to answer in " a more difficult than b".

That times all different circumstances, weapon, physical builds, skills and styles...

So it's not easy to build 'realistic' combat rules at all, in general.

That helps... Sort of...? :smallconfused: I mean, I'm glad to know that I'm not just driving myself crazy thinking about this (and I was), and that it really is just that difficult to simulate this mechanically while preserving game feel, but... I am no closer to knowing where to go from here, so it remains a daunting task. :smalleek:

I guess if I could try to specify what I'm looking to gain out of this... It would be to first typify these maneuvers and abilities if at all possible (instead of thinking of all of the different ways one can physically trip someone, pick a method that is "typical" of tripping, evaluate its difficulty, and extrapolate from that) and then build outward from there. Circumstances which make the doing of this typical method easier or more difficult (such as advantageous or disadvantageous positioning, the state of awareness of the target, relative size, number of feet, ability of the target) are definitely going to factor into the game heavily, and are probably, after all is said and done, going to be pages long in list form. Modifiers based on weapon will probably be easy enough to load onto the weapon side of the maneuver (see whip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#whip), SRD, +2 bonus to disarm), making them a nonfactor, for the most part, unless weapons on the whole make the maneuver more difficult (in which case a penalty or bonus would be applied based on whether or not a weapon is being used, and then certain weapons affect this modifier based on their ease of use). Physical build of the target will probably factor into the base difficulty of these maneuvers (a physically larger target, or a target agile enough to escape, is more difficult to grapple), but I haven't figured out exactly how yet.

So, basically... I'm prepared for this to involve literal pages of modifiers, qualifiers, and exceptions, to be determined both now and later. What they apply to is the problem: I don't know how to typify a maneuver without being either grossly inaccurate or imbalancing (and hopefully not both).

I hope that helps...

Spiryt
2013-01-07, 11:24 AM
I do think that the problem with defining anything 'typical'...


Is knocking somebody down (an attack that renders somebody prone, much like a trip attempt) easier, or more difficult, than simply tripping them? What about relative to other maneuvers? Is knocking somebody back (an attack that pushes somebody back, much like a bull rush attempt) easier or more difficult than knocking somebody down?

Well, you can knock somebody down by dazing them (strike to the head), causing pain by striking wherever, actually kicking legs from beneath them...

Most of those require very effective - powerful and/or accurate, well timed, fluid strike.

If one can strike like that, at least specific target, it will often get easier than actually throwing them down.

If he can't, he should probably get in to clinch instead... And vice-versa, obviously.

Actually 'physically" knocking someone down by strike, due to accelerating his body will generally require really powerful strike...

If 'down-knocker' (:smallbiggrin:) isn't a lot bigger, (s)he probably has to move almost whole body violently and in coordinated way due to good old newton laws.

Even then, catching target off-balance, at least somehow is probably safest bet.

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/735111/i14175_groopfrontkicklarge.gif

Push-kick, as above is classic "tripping" strike - lunging with whole body mean huge momentum, relatively slow speed means that it 'pushes' instead of slamming into target.

Lonely Tylenol
2013-01-07, 11:48 AM
I do think that the problem with defining anything 'typical'...

Fair. :smallamused:


Well, you can knock somebody down by dazing them (strike to the head), causing pain by striking wherever, actually kicking legs from beneath them...

Maybe finding a way to categorize them would help? Were I to try to conform these to my current understanding of how I want my mechanics played out, I would categorize the above as a called shot to the head, or a concussive blow (dazing somebody); "dropping somebody" through standard attacks (causing somebody enough pain to drop them outright--whether it's lethal or nonlethal would determine the difficulty of that); and a conventional unarmed trip (although I know enough from my friend, who is an MMA fighter, not to pretend that a sweeping kick does not hurt!), respectively... And this:


http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/735111/i14175_groopfrontkicklarge.gif

Push-kick, as above is classic "tripping" strike - lunging with whole body mean huge momentum, relatively slow speed means that it 'pushes' instead of slamming into target.

As the "knocking down" combination of an attack that trips that I was thinking of when I described it. (Or, a combination of the "knocking down" and "knocking back" maneuvers without doing damage, if it's not meant to, which I guess would actually be a bull rush and a trip.)

That is, at least, how I would typify each of these, if asked to; it is probably (certainly!) not the most accurate, but it's the closest thing I can think of for an approximation. While a blow to the head may "knock down" someone, I would still prefer to categorize it as a "blow to the head"--or a "concussive blow", or a "called shot" to the head--which may have similar results, achieved differently, and perhaps with different difficulty. :smallsmile:

I hope I am not being too roundabout or confusing with all of this! I'm starting to feel even more grossly unprepared than I was at the onset. Which, I suppose, is natural, given the context. :smalltongue:

warty goblin
2013-01-07, 12:08 PM
I think the problem is that things like tripping, grappling etc are, in armed combat, entirely situational. That is a person seldom begins an attack thinking 'I'm going to trip this guy.' They trip the guy because at some point in the combat he ends up a bit off balance and they have the opportunity to do so.

So one possibility would be to make flat-out tripping a person quite difficult, but allow a fighter to 'soften them up' by making attacks to knock them off balance. e.g. if this attack 'hits' it does no damage, but the defender gets -5 (or whatever) to defend against a trip attack made before their next turn.

If you are feeling really vindictive and want to emphasize controlling your enemy through your attacks, force the victim to spend one of their iterative attacks to recover their balance. More profound unbalancings could force the expendature of better attacks.

Very much the same sorts of mechanics could work for disarming etc.

Spiryt
2013-01-07, 12:18 PM
I think the problem is that things like tripping, grappling etc are, in armed combat, entirely situational. That is a person seldom begins an attack thinking 'I'm going to trip this guy.' They trip the guy because at some point in the combat he ends up a bit off balance and they have the opportunity to do so.



If said person's opponent have weapon that gives significant advantage in fight at most ranges, like, poleaxe vs dagger scenario - then actually person will usually indeed think "I'm going to trip this guy", "or tie him up at least" - right away.

So it's all situational indeed.

warty goblin
2013-01-07, 12:30 PM
If said person's opponent have weapon that gives significant advantage in fight at most ranges, like, poleaxe vs dagger scenario - then actually person will usually indeed think "I'm going to trip this guy", "or tie him up at least" - right away.

So it's all situational indeed.

I'd only get to that after going through 'run like crazy' and 'get my buddy to clock him one with his poleaxe.'

But yes, it is situational. However if I do decide tripping the fool is my best option, I'll still probably have to maneuvre him into a position where doing so is possible and leaves me in a place where I can take advantage of that. Which is what my proposed mechanic can, at a high level, represent.

Now a person could of course add some reach mechanics. These however are frankly seldom very satisfying in my experience, and can lead to lots of extra bookkeeping. I at least don't find tracking the combat distance between everybody all that much fun. And then you need rules to change that distance. It's worth doing if you're really going for the simulation of course, but for something as high level abstractionist as power attacking and iterative attacks using unskewed distributions, I'm not sure it's worth much bother.

Spiryt
2013-01-07, 12:48 PM
I'd only get to that after going through 'run like crazy' and 'get my buddy to clock him one with his poleaxe.'

But yes, it is situational. However if I do decide tripping the fool is my best option, I'll still probably have to maneuvre him into a position where doing so is possible and leaves me in a place where I can take advantage of that. Which is what my proposed mechanic can, at a high level, represent.



Well, again, if person with dagger have some satisfying armor, (s)he most probably doesn't have to run anymore, as maneuvering into position becomes much easier - and can in fact happen just like that - dive into the clinch, taking some relatively harmless strike. Happens in like every manual and at every live steel rioti reenacting.

So situation is different again.

warty goblin
2013-01-07, 12:55 PM
Well, again, if person with dagger have some satisfying armor, (s)he most probably doesn't have to run anymore, as maneuvering into position becomes much easier - and can in fact happen just like that - dive into the clinch, taking some relatively harmless strike. Happens in like every manual and at every live steel rioti reenacting.

So situation is different again.

Yes, again the situation is different. Is it worth coming up with a different rule to cover it? Probably not. A game system is an abstract model, and like any such creation, you lose the ability to represent certain things. The more complex the model, the more you can represent. Since tabletop RPGs can't be that complex in order to be playable, a reasonable course of action is to choose a model that does a decent job of abstracting quite a lot of common situations. It will of course get all these situations wrong to some degree, and get quite a few edge scenarios completely and totally wrong.

Since this is a thread for creating game mechanics, that seems to be the more useful contribution. Enumerating every possible weapons combination, and the most efficacious tactics for them is a job for fight masters, not game designers.

erikun
2013-01-07, 01:47 PM
Iterative attacks: For each attack after the first, you may take 2d6 off of whatever you rolled last; if there is still a positive number of dice, you may roll an additional attack with the new number of dice. For example, a master swordsman with innate ability and training in his weapon may make up to three iterative attacks: first at 5d6+10, second at 3d6+10, and third at 1d6+10.
Is there a reason for iterative attacks? Is the extra damage necessary when compared to defense, but only with the diminishing attack bonus? Are the additional attacks necessary for balancing different combat styles? (You mention dual-weilding later.)

The only system I am familiar with that uses iterative attacks is D&D3 (and derived systems), and in those, later iteratives are mostly useless.


TL;DR: What would you consider to be valid maneuvers and abilities to be used in mundane melee or ranged combat, and how difficult (relative to other mundane combat abilities) do you believe them to be?
One big problem that I'm seeing is that you are using very D&D3 terms (tripping, grappling) and so are probably limiting yourself with what you can do in combat. If I want to knock someone to the ground, I will be aiming to knock them to the ground - not "trip" them or "bullrush and knock prone" them. How well they defend against it determine if they are lying on the ground, or down on one knee, or still standing.

As for things that I would want to do to an opponent in combat, I can think of: knocking them to the ground, getting around their guard, feinting, repositioning them (such as grabbing them to shift positions), herding them to a specific location, blocking a path, disarming them, attacking a specific object or location, stunning them, and physically restraining them. Getting a rope or net around them for restraint sounds like an option as well.

Lonely Tylenol
2013-01-07, 02:37 PM
I think the problem is that things like tripping, grappling etc are, in armed combat, entirely situational. That is a person seldom begins an attack thinking 'I'm going to trip this guy.' They trip the guy because at some point in the combat he ends up a bit off balance and they have the opportunity to do so.

So one possibility would be to make flat-out tripping a person quite difficult, but allow a fighter to 'soften them up' by making attacks to knock them off balance. e.g. if this attack 'hits' it does no damage, but the defender gets -5 (or whatever) to defend against a trip attack made before their next turn.

If you are feeling really vindictive and want to emphasize controlling your enemy through your attacks, force the victim to spend one of their iterative attacks to recover their balance. More profound unbalancings could force the expendature of better attacks.

Very much the same sorts of mechanics could work for disarming etc.

That sounds like a good idea for a mechanic, although the specifics I am fuzzy on. I'll explore it further.


Is there a reason for iterative attacks? Is the extra damage necessary when compared to defense, but only with the diminishing attack bonus? Are the additional attacks necessary for balancing different combat styles? (You mention dual-weilding later.)

The only system I am familiar with that uses iterative attacks is D&D3 (and derived systems), and in those, later iteratives are mostly useless.

They are mostly for balancing different combat styles, as well as to give a more diverse set of options. The option also exists to try to balance one mighty blow with a barrage of lesser cuts, and so on, and so forth. I want to do what I can to sort of offer as many possibilities (within reason) as I can, and then cut the wheat from the chaff after the fact. Things can always be added and taken out.

I do think that iterative attacks are a good idea (provided you can swap them for other things), but not that they should take full attack actions to make.


One big problem that I'm seeing is that you are using very D&D3 terms (tripping, grappling) and so are probably limiting yourself with what you can do in combat. If I want to knock someone to the ground, I will be aiming to knock them to the ground - not "trip" them or "bullrush and knock prone" them. How well they defend against it determine if they are lying on the ground, or down on one knee, or still standing.

D&D was the first tabletop that I seriously got into, and then the first one I played (I borrowed D&D 2e books, and read D&D 3.0e, but never played before D&D 3.5e), and remains the one that I have the most mastery of. I think that's where attachment to a lot of the terms comes from. It still helps me to use these terms, though, especially since a lot of people here have varied understandings of a diverse set of systems, but most people here (in a comic originally about D&D 3.5e) are aware of D&D's mechanics, making them (I feel) a very good common denominator for discussion.


As for things that I would want to do to an opponent in combat, I can think of: knocking them to the ground, getting around their guard, feinting, repositioning them (such as grabbing them to shift positions), herding them to a specific location, blocking a path, disarming them, attacking a specific object or location, stunning them, and physically restraining them. Getting a rope or net around them for restraint sounds like an option as well.

Awesome! Thanks.

warty goblin
2013-01-07, 06:28 PM
That sounds like a good idea for a mechanic, although the specifics I am fuzzy on. I'll explore it further.


One potential expansion of this would be to get rid of set iterative attacks, and instead treat dice like flexible skill levels. So if you are a master swordsman and get the full 5d6 can allocate them to different attacks and abilities at will. If they really want to unbalance an enemy, they can spend say 3d6 for that, then only 2d6 for a follow-up attack. Or they could decide that they need to force an enemy to commit to defense, before switching targets faster than the enemy can realign their block for a hit. Maybe if you make two attacks that hit, but sacrifice the damage, your third attack gets a substantial bonus to both attack and damage.


This would I think increase the flexibility of combat, and allow for a more skilled fighter to have access to a larger bag of tricks. Rolling a bunch of attacks isn't all that interesting, particularly if most of them have a very low chance of doing anything. This allows a fighter a lot of on-the-fly options to tailor how they fight an enemy.

SowZ
2013-01-07, 06:45 PM
It sounds like dual wielding is going to be OP in this system. If you only lose 1d6, dual wielding may not be good for low level characters. But at reasonably high levels of competency, it is the only way to go. Consider,
Avg of one attack with a result of 27 OR twice the attacks with a result of 24. Penalties for dual wielding should either be incredibly severe or scale with your attack bonus if dual wielding allows two attacks.

Consider, -1 d6 AND half your static bonus. So, one attack at 5d6+10 or two attacks at 4d6+5. This would still favor dual wielding unless two handed fighting or shield fighting provide their own special bonus.

erikun
2013-01-07, 11:58 PM
As for things that I would want to do to an opponent in combat, I can think of: knocking them to the ground, getting around their guard, feinting, repositioning them (such as grabbing them to shift positions), herding them to a specific location, blocking a path, disarming them, attacking a specific object or location, stunning them, and physically restraining them. Getting a rope or net around them for restraint sounds like an option as well.
One last thing that I forgot to mention: Intentionally wounding someone with the intention to hamper them. Hamstring them, blows to the legs, attacking elbows, and so on don't involve trying to knock them out, but do involve trying to make them less effective at fighting back.

Kol Korran
2013-01-08, 04:37 AM
hhhmmmm, some thoughts:
I suggest instead of building set maneuvers, that you can do with modalities. A person tries to accomplish something, and pays for it in some way that can be chosen. the combinations can sort of create maneuvers on their own?

I suggest to start with some basic things such as:
basic offense
- strike fast: this either allows you to act more (costing less actions and so on) or prevent your enemy ro respond effectively ( if you're using defensive maneuvers as well)

- strike hard: either cause more damage, have a greater chance at a "better" type of damage (such as criticals or wound systems)

- strike precise: by pass defenses or possibly be able to strike vital points. all depends on your system.

basic defense
- dodge: avoid getting hit, may be forced to change position

- absorb: able to withstand hits better (like DR?), may increase the chance of getting hit, or lower your movement. ususaly better with armor for obvious reasons.

- block: with shield, might be tougher than dodging, and require some skills, but has some "shield advantages" (including being used against projectiles)

- parry: same just with your weapon. may have related advantages/ disadvantages.

then come the trip and all of those. but each "basic strike" can be mae of the components above, as does "basic defense". you must spread your resources somehow (you're using a dice pool system of a sort?)

on top of these you may put the fancier moves. I will need to think of those, but perhaps i'll have time to do so later, sorry, have to go.

Madeiner
2013-01-08, 05:39 AM
Dont know if it can help, but i once spoke to a sword instructor at a fair.
He was speaking to a professional fencer, and they dueled for a while.

The fencer was trying to disarm him, and the other guy then explained that it was a futile attempt, as disarming a competent fighter is way more difficult than simply hitting him, especially if you have a lighter weapon than your opponent.

Lonely Tylenol
2013-01-08, 06:35 AM
One potential expansion of this would be to get rid of set iterative attacks, and instead treat dice like flexible skill levels. So if you are a master swordsman and get the full 5d6 can allocate them to different attacks and abilities at will. If they really want to unbalance an enemy, they can spend say 3d6 for that, then only 2d6 for a follow-up attack. Or they could decide that they need to force an enemy to commit to defense, before switching targets faster than the enemy can realign their block for a hit. Maybe if you make two attacks that hit, but sacrifice the damage, your third attack gets a substantial bonus to both attack and damage.


This would I think increase the flexibility of combat, and allow for a more skilled fighter to have access to a larger bag of tricks. Rolling a bunch of attacks isn't all that interesting, particularly if most of them have a very low chance of doing anything. This allows a fighter a lot of on-the-fly options to tailor how they fight an enemy.

I... Actually, really like that idea.

I'll see what I can play with. Thanks. :smallbiggrin:


It sounds like dual wielding is going to be OP in this system. If you only lose 1d6, dual wielding may not be good for low level characters. But at reasonably high levels of competency, it is the only way to go. Consider,
Avg of one attack with a result of 27 OR twice the attacks with a result of 24. Penalties for dual wielding should either be incredibly severe or scale with your attack bonus if dual wielding allows two attacks.

Consider, -1 d6 AND half your static bonus. So, one attack at 5d6+10 or two attacks at 4d6+5. This would still favor dual wielding unless two handed fighting or shield fighting provide their own special bonus.

I disagree, largely because of the way the bell curve works with that current system. At all but certain critical points, the steep curve makes the single attack at a higher bonus highly advantageous: for example, if you were to try to hit a target for whom you needed to hit 25, with 4d6+10 you have a 44.3% chance on the attack, but with 5d6+10 you have a 77.9% chance of landing the attack. Even with two attacks to one, the odds favor the swordsman with one sword dealing more damage in a given round (all attacks equal) than the two-weapon swordsman. Of course, when you get to the higher end of the spectrum, this breaks down even more in favor of the single-weapon fighter, as the curve breaks off steeply for the two-weapon swordsman where the single-weapon swordsman's probability curve is just hitting its peak. The only time when a two-weapon fighter has a slight advantage is around the point where both of the two-weapon fighter's main attacks have good odds of hitting, while the single-weapon fighter's first iterative is guaranteed, but the second has uneven odds. The two-weapon fighter breaks ahead at about a value of 21 (the odds of hitting with each weapon are 84.1%, while the odds of hitting with both iteratives are 96.8% and 50%, respectively; the odds of hitting with both iteratives is 48.4%, while the two-weapon fighter has a 70.7% chance of landing both attacks); at 22, the two-weapon fighter has better odds of hitting twice, but lower odds of hitting even once (with statistics enough to matter). As the values continue to drop into the teens, the two-weapon fighter pulls ahead significantly. This makes a master swordsman much better suited to using two weapons, or attack barrages, or the equivalent, against swaths of weaker foes (where hitting is almost a guarantee at the first iterative, and highly probable at the second iterative), but single-weapon fighting much better suited to equally difficult enemies (where hitting with the first iterative is likely, but not assured, and subsequent iteratives very unlikely).

If a middling or median defense value is around the 18-20 range at the high end for mooks, and 23-25 for the tougher monsters (which is about what I was going for at the later levels), then the two-weapon fighter has a definite edge against weaker foes, and a slight disadvantage against big bads. This does merit a rebalancing--but not as huge as half the bonus. If two-weapon or attack barrages or flurries or whatever term you might care to use conferred a -1 or -2 bonus, in addition to the redistribution of dice, they would be more closely in line with single-weapon fighting (except against enemies with negligible defenses, where the point is moot).


One last thing that I forgot to mention: Intentionally wounding someone with the intention to hamper them. Hamstring them, blows to the legs, attacking elbows, and so on don't involve trying to knock them out, but do involve trying to make them less effective at fighting back.

I was actually planning on working things like hamstrings, concussive blows, and the like into the "called shot" mechanic that I was describing earlier, with, say, a called shot to the leg hampering movement and a called shot to the arm causing an enemy to drop their weapon, and being fairly easy to do, while a called shot to the head is relatively difficult and confers a stronger bonus (dazing and possibly knocking somebody down).


hhhmmmm, some thoughts:
I suggest instead of building set maneuvers, that you can do with modalities. A person tries to accomplish something, and pays for it in some way that can be chosen. the combinations can sort of create maneuvers on their own?

I suggest to start with some basic things such as:
basic offense
- strike fast: this either allows you to act more (costing less actions and so on) or prevent your enemy ro respond effectively ( if you're using defensive maneuvers as well)

- strike hard: either cause more damage, have a greater chance at a "better" type of damage (such as criticals or wound systems)

- strike precise: by pass defenses or possibly be able to strike vital points. all depends on your system.

basic defense
- dodge: avoid getting hit, may be forced to change position

- absorb: able to withstand hits better (like DR?), may increase the chance of getting hit, or lower your movement. ususaly better with armor for obvious reasons.

- block: with shield, might be tougher than dodging, and require some skills, but has some "shield advantages" (including being used against projectiles)

- parry: same just with your weapon. may have related advantages/ disadvantages.

then come the trip and all of those. but each "basic strike" can be mae of the components above, as does "basic defense". you must spread your resources somehow (you're using a dice pool system of a sort?)

on top of these you may put the fancier moves. I will need to think of those, but perhaps i'll have time to do so later, sorry, have to go.

I'm afraid I don't understand this system very well. Are you talking about strikes that are based off these basic modalities? For instance, if "block" is a modality, preparing to block would enable you to try to stun somebody with a shield bash? Or...

Spiryt
2013-01-08, 08:29 AM
One last thing that I forgot to mention: Intentionally wounding someone with the intention to hamper them. Hamstring them, blows to the legs, attacking elbows, and so on don't involve trying to knock them out, but do involve trying to make them less effective at fighting back.

That's pretty much definition of called shot.... Blowing out someone's leg is actually 'trying to knock out" only not quite literally.

Vast majority of people who are not professional combatants, doesn't have that mentality etc. doesn't require to be "knocked out" to have enough either, and even a pro fighter/boxer/karateka/judoka is going to give up facing enough abuse, even if this doesn't stop him physically.

Then, attacking elbows or legs with say, sword is very much deadly with "knocked out" effect, in the sense that it doesn't make less just effective at fighting back, it's actually debilitating on it's own.

In short, no matter of what weapon/lack of it, pretty much any serious strike/takedown/lock is intended to do damage, it all depends what kind - and what is intentional and what happens "by the way".

Friv
2013-01-08, 09:11 AM
My personal suggestion, and take this with a grain of salt, is that you want combat maneuvers to focus on the result rather than the action.

So results that you might want:

*) Force someone to move / force someone not to move
*) Impede someone's ability to fight directly
*) Put someone in a tactically disadvantageous position, impeding them indirectly

Rather than creating twenty exception-based systems for lots of things, start with what those three things look like, and then work from there. Forcing someone to move could involve a brutal bull-rush knocking them back, or simply herding them with quick sword-work, or drawing them with your own retreat, or so on. Impeding someone's ability to fight could involve a feint that distracts them, a called shot that gets blood in their eyes, throwing a fistful of sand at them, and so on. Putting them into a tactically disadvantageous position could involve tripping them, jumping over them to take the high ground (snicker), or stabbing them in the ankle so that they buckle, or disarming them.

SowZ
2013-01-08, 01:01 PM
I... Actually, really like that idea.

I'll see what I can play with. Thanks. :smallbiggrin:



I disagree, largely because of the way the bell curve works with that current system. At all but certain critical points, the steep curve makes the single attack at a higher bonus highly advantageous: for example, if you were to try to hit a target for whom you needed to hit 25, with 4d6+10 you have a 44.3% chance on the attack, but with 5d6+10 you have a 77.9% chance of landing the attack. Even with two attacks to one, the odds favor the swordsman with one sword dealing more damage in a given round (all attacks equal) than the two-weapon swordsman. Of course, when you get to the higher end of the spectrum, this breaks down even more in favor of the single-weapon fighter, as the curve breaks off steeply for the two-weapon swordsman where the single-weapon swordsman's probability curve is just hitting its peak. The only time when a two-weapon fighter has a slight advantage is around the point where both of the two-weapon fighter's main attacks have good odds of hitting, while the single-weapon fighter's first iterative is guaranteed, but the second has uneven odds. The two-weapon fighter breaks ahead at about a value of 21 (the odds of hitting with each weapon are 84.1%, while the odds of hitting with both iteratives are 96.8% and 50%, respectively; the odds of hitting with both iteratives is 48.4%, while the two-weapon fighter has a 70.7% chance of landing both attacks); at 22, the two-weapon fighter has better odds of hitting twice, but lower odds of hitting even once (with statistics enough to matter). As the values continue to drop into the teens, the two-weapon fighter pulls ahead significantly. This makes a master swordsman much better suited to using two weapons, or attack barrages, or the equivalent, against swaths of weaker foes (where hitting is almost a guarantee at the first iterative, and highly probable at the second iterative), but single-weapon fighting much better suited to equally difficult enemies (where hitting with the first iterative is likely, but not assured, and subsequent iteratives very unlikely).

If a middling or median defense value is around the 18-20 range at the high end for mooks, and 23-25 for the tougher monsters (which is about what I was going for at the later levels), then the two-weapon fighter has a definite edge against weaker foes, and a slight disadvantage against big bads. This does merit a rebalancing--but not as huge as half the bonus. If two-weapon or attack barrages or flurries or whatever term you might care to use conferred a -1 or -2 bonus, in addition to the redistribution of dice, they would be more closely in line with single-weapon fighting (except against enemies with negligible defenses, where the point is moot).



I was actually planning on working things like hamstrings, concussive blows, and the like into the "called shot" mechanic that I was describing earlier, with, say, a called shot to the leg hampering movement and a called shot to the arm causing an enemy to drop their weapon, and being fairly easy to do, while a called shot to the head is relatively difficult and confers a stronger bonus (dazing and possibly knocking somebody down).



I'm afraid I don't understand this system very well. Are you talking about strikes that are based off these basic modalities? For instance, if "block" is a modality, preparing to block would enable you to try to stun somebody with a shield bash? Or...

Hmm, interesting. I wasn't really factoring in the bell curve because you are using a system with multiple dice, yeah. Do you have a separate accuracy/damage mechanic? Is damage factored into the initial roll with how much you beat the defense by?

Of course, another way to balance it is to make the weapons that take two hands confer better stats.

Nonetheless, I think the penalties like this should scale with level a bit. If for no other reason than to keep a fighting style a reasonable option at low levels of play and to keep it from becoming the most optimal one at high levels. If someone wants to play a dual wielding swordsman, they don't want to wait to apply their concept for a few months. Half your static bonus would not be too severe if it was instead of the die penalty.

Of course, I'm just a guy on a forum and I'm not trying to say you have to do something and won't be offended if you don't change anything. Just figured critique/new ideas are what you are looking for. Calculations on paper are helpful. But the best way to know if any given mechanic is imbalanced is to playtest the game.

Kol Korran
2013-01-09, 04:08 AM
I'm afraid I don't understand this system very well. Are you talking about strikes that are based off these basic modalities? For instance, if "block" is a modality, preparing to block would enable you to try to stun somebody with a shield bash? Or...
Yes, my bad. I should have explained clearer. Shortage of time and all that. Let me try again:
The character has a certain... "offensive dice pool". lets say... 5 dices/ points. each of the offensive modalities can be used with 0,1,2 or 3 dices. so the attacker can be the utmost fast (3 point) and maybe quite accurate (percision 2 points), but the strikes pathetically weak (0 points). or perhaps 1, 2, and 2 or such. the points given do not have to equal the number of dices or bonuses or such. this way you can modulate the components of your strike. from one strike to the next, your fighting style can change, possibly having to counter your opponents defensive strategy as well. out thunk your opponent, sort of.

the same could go for "defensive dice pool" as well, with my basic thoughts be dodge, block, parry and absorb.

a person can learn special maneuvers that give them an extra edge. such as "serpent strike", that gives an extra bonus to speed if you put at least 2 points in it or so. trip, bull rush and more can be added here as well, as "special options", that all might use, that "cost" certain amount of points/ dices

you might decide to have the offensive and defensive dice pool actually be one joined dice pool, but if you draw from the "other" part of the dice pool it may cost you extra. (for example lets say you have 4 attack, 2 defense. you may get an extra 1 attack for the cost of the 2 defense). this may allow people to go more on the attck or defense if they need to be, sacrificing the other ability.

just my thoughts. not sure if they help, but i hope they do.

Lonely Tylenol
2013-01-09, 06:11 PM
My personal suggestion, and take this with a grain of salt, is that you want combat maneuvers to focus on the result rather than the action.

So results that you might want:

*) Force someone to move / force someone not to move
*) Impede someone's ability to fight directly
*) Put someone in a tactically disadvantageous position, impeding them indirectly

Rather than creating twenty exception-based systems for lots of things, start with what those three things look like, and then work from there. Forcing someone to move could involve a brutal bull-rush knocking them back, or simply herding them with quick sword-work, or drawing them with your own retreat, or so on. Impeding someone's ability to fight could involve a feint that distracts them, a called shot that gets blood in their eyes, throwing a fistful of sand at them, and so on. Putting them into a tactically disadvantageous position could involve tripping them, jumping over them to take the high ground (snicker), or stabbing them in the ankle so that they buckle, or disarming them.

Yeah, I think results-based would be a good place to start, and I kind of am already--I think most of the problems I've had early on were confusion of terms, mostly on my end (I could have simply used "push" as a general term for "bull rush", so on). Truthfully, though, aside from the ones that actually are mechanically different, this can all be described from a roleplay perspective: for example, your first two examples, involving the brutal bull-rush and herding them with sword-work, can be the reflavoring of the same mechanical action of "pushing" (or "bull-rushing") your opponent. It isn't my place to say how these things can be flavored, really; I'm more looking for a mechanical framework that allows people to focus more on the flavor aspect. So I guess focusing on the result, and then contexts for those actions, would be great, but I probably don't want to get too specific.


Hmm, interesting. I wasn't really factoring in the bell curve because you are using a system with multiple dice, yeah. Do you have a separate accuracy/damage mechanic? Is damage factored into the initial roll with how much you beat the defense by?

Damage isn't factored into the initial roll; your damage is based on your weapon's damage and some other relevant modifiers (not all of which have been determined, but are likely things like "how strong you are"); however, one of the options I mentioned in the original post is the ability to sacrifice a number of d6 as well as a number of points of the static bonus on the attack roll (a minimum of 0 for each, and a maximum of your maximum bonus, as long as at least 1d6 is being rolled) in order to gain a bonus to the damage roll equal to the amount sacrificed (basically, Power Attack in two dimensions). Thus, if you typically roll 4d6+10 on your attack (exceptional skill with above-average physical capability), and you roll, say, an 8 on the attack (result of 18) but the attack still connects, you might feel comfortable sacrificing a few points, or perhaps 1d6, from your attack roll next round, knowing that you were able to hit while rolling well below the average.


Of course, another way to balance it is to make the weapons that take two hands confer better stats.

They are going to--this is pretty much a necessity, considering the balance between "grip and rip" vs. "sword and board" pretty much demands that "grip and rip" gets offered better weapons as a trade for the weaker defense--but I haven't decided the exact balance yet.


Nonetheless, I think the penalties like this should scale with level a bit. If for no other reason than to keep a fighting style a reasonable option at low levels of play and to keep it from becoming the most optimal one at high levels. If someone wants to play a dual wielding swordsman, they don't want to wait to apply their concept for a few months. Half your static bonus would not be too severe if it was instead of the die penalty.

Well, because the number of dice thrown doesn't really scale per level (just the static bonuses), the distribution is always going to be the same; assuming the character is maxing the same statistics at every level, you would use the same distribution at level 1, but shift the target numbers around 8 points (so a level 1 fighter with two weapons breaks ahead of the single-weapon fighter at 13, which, if the base armor value is 10, is about the armor value you might expect of somebody in light armor in a typical situation). At all levels, two-weapon fighting would remain better for swaths of mooks, while single-weapon fighting against tough opponents capable of rebuking a reckless advance.

I do agree that this might need some rebalancing, but if so, it would be subtle--perhaps the damage of a two-handed weapon or a shield becomes slightly better, or only one of the bonuses scales at half-rate with two-weapon fighting (so at, for example, fourth level, a single-weapon fighter would have an accuracy roll of 5d6+8, while a two-weapon fighter would have a roll of 4d6+6/4d6+6). I'll have to crunch the numbers a little more to come up with a final balancing point for this before I even consider testing it.


Of course, I'm just a guy on a forum and I'm not trying to say you have to do something and won't be offended if you don't change anything. Just figured critique/new ideas are what you are looking for. Calculations on paper are helpful. But the best way to know if any given mechanic is imbalanced is to playtest the game.

Of course. Right now, I have a comprehensive set of probability tables, and am crunching the numbers on paper and everything, but it'll have to be tested before anything becomes final. :smallsmile:


Yes, my bad. I should have explained clearer. Shortage of time and all that. Let me try again:
The character has a certain... "offensive dice pool". lets say... 5 dices/ points. each of the offensive modalities can be used with 0,1,2 or 3 dices. so the attacker can be the utmost fast (3 point) and maybe quite accurate (percision 2 points), but the strikes pathetically weak (0 points). or perhaps 1, 2, and 2 or such. the points given do not have to equal the number of dices or bonuses or such. this way you can modulate the components of your strike. from one strike to the next, your fighting style can change, possibly having to counter your opponents defensive strategy as well. out thunk your opponent, sort of.

the same could go for "defensive dice pool" as well, with my basic thoughts be dodge, block, parry and absorb.

a person can learn special maneuvers that give them an extra edge. such as "serpent strike", that gives an extra bonus to speed if you put at least 2 points in it or so. trip, bull rush and more can be added here as well, as "special options", that all might use, that "cost" certain amount of points/ dices

you might decide to have the offensive and defensive dice pool actually be one joined dice pool, but if you draw from the "other" part of the dice pool it may cost you extra. (for example lets say you have 4 attack, 2 defense. you may get an extra 1 attack for the cost of the 2 defense). this may allow people to go more on the attck or defense if they need to be, sacrificing the other ability.

just my thoughts. not sure if they help, but i hope they do.

Aha, I see now. :smallsmile:

It's definitely an interesting mechanic, and it looks like it would allow for a more thought-provoking play style (as you said, you have to out-think your opponent), but I don't know if it would complicate things too much if used in addition to existing.

What I think this might be better suited for is as a class feature; what I'm considering doing is having a few basic classes (Warrior/Thief/Mage, basically) that are basically barren templates, and then including a plethora of different customization options on top of this, so the classes can be customized in a lot of different ways. This is how I plan on introducing subsystems and the like as well, for people who are interested in doing combat different ways.