PDA

View Full Version : Final Fantasy Style Combat Space



DMMike
2013-03-07, 06:23 PM
I'm scaling back my homebrew combat rules, from the D&D 3.5 grids and spaces. I want something way simpler than that, but more concrete than it-all-happens-in-your-head.

Some important combat features that this system should utilize:
- Surprise. Unaware combatants can get ambushed (back attacked!) or backstabbed.
- Distance. Missile weapons and magic should function better than melee weapons at range.
- Terrain use. Because a flat, 20' by 20' room is boring.
- Long-reach. A giant can pop you on the head, even if you're 20' away.
- Movement skill. My system uses a skill for movement, which allows you to do tricky maneuvers, or simply move faster.

I'm currently eyeballing a FF4-style system, which places two combat parties on either side of a line of scrimmage. There would be two ranks - the front line and the rear, and any further back might be simply "hiding" or "fleeing."

The first sticking point I'm having: ranged weapons can obviously make attacks from the rear rank. But should combatants in the rear be immune to melee weapons, or could they still be hit, but for less than normal damage? Or?

scarmiglionne4
2013-03-07, 07:27 PM
I'm scaling back my homebrew combat rules, from the D&D 3.5 grids and spaces. I want something way simpler than that, but more concrete than it-all-happens-in-your-head.

Some important combat features that this system should utilize:
- Surprise. Unaware combatants can get ambushed (back attacked!) or backstabbed.
- Distance. Missile weapons and magic should function better than melee weapons at range.
- Terrain use. Because a flat, 20' by 20' room is boring.
- Long-reach. A giant can pop you on the head, even if you're 20' away.
- Movement skill. My system uses a skill for movement, which allows you to do tricky maneuvers, or simply move faster.

I'm currently eyeballing a FF4-style system, which places two combat parties on either side of a line of scrimmage. There would be two ranks - the front line and the rear, and any further back might be simply "hiding" or "fleeing."

The first sticking point I'm having: ranged weapons can obviously make attacks from the rear rank. But should combatants in the rear be immune to melee weapons, or could they still be hit, but for less than normal damage? Or?

Melee weapons should definitely be able to hit creatures in the rear rank. They should be both harder to hit AND take less damage.

I'm thinking +4 or +6 to AC, half damage on a hit, and no possibility for a full-attack action against those in rear rank.

Those in the rear rank suffer the same penalties if they try to melee attack anyone.

Do you plan to implement something like an active time battle system?

DMMike
2013-03-09, 01:20 AM
Active combat: ideally, yes. But I'm really working on a system that's simpler than I want to play. It's core rules that are supposed to be built upon. So yeah, I'd add active combat ASAP.

Also, it's a big pain in the butt if 1) you can't reach an enemy and 2) you're not allowed to maneuver toward him. So the compromise: allow attacking back-rank enemies, just with a damage penalty (50%).

Full attack: why not? As long as it's for half-damage.

I'm not sure about the attack penalty though. Under my system, the attack roll determines if ANY damage is done. Then, armor can reduce that damage if the attack is successful. So to impose attack AND damage penalties is basically to negate the entire attack.

scarmiglionne4
2013-03-09, 09:47 AM
Active combat: ideally, yes. But I'm really working on a system that's simpler than I want to play. It's core rules that are supposed to be built upon. So yeah, I'd add active combat ASAP.

Also, it's a big pain in the butt if 1) you can't reach an enemy and 2) you're not allowed to maneuver toward him. So the compromise: allow attacking back-rank enemies, just with a damage penalty (50%).

Full attack: why not? As long as it's for half-damage.

I'm not sure about the attack penalty though. Under my system, the attack roll determines if ANY damage is done. Then, armor can reduce that damage if the attack is successful. So to impose attack AND damage penalties is basically to negate the entire attack.

I was asking about active time battle so that speed could maybe just be a bonus to initiative more or less.

About reaching an enemy: If you are in the rear rank and you want to "move towards" an enemy, you just switch from rear rank to forward rank. Like the Row command in other FF games. You still can't "move towards" an enemy in rear rank, otherwise rear rank will be meaningless and you may as well not bother with these rules if everyone is moving wherever they want anyway.

On Full-Attack: In early FF games (even IV, even though it is not as easily seen) damage occurs in multiples of your attack rating. In other words, characters are achieving multiple hits when they deal more damage. Attacking into the rear rank results in fewer hits. So, you either penalize the crap out of it, which I don't recommend because I don't think hits will EVER happen then, or you just make Full Attack not an option against foes in the rear rank.

Also, since the character's being attacked are in the rear rank, an attacking creature is always having to maneuver around characters in the forward rank to get to them. I equate that to greater than 5' of movement. If you don't do this, low HD character's in the rear are going to be smashed fast. Half damage alone will not protect them as well as you might think.

As a compromise, how about no full attack, and 50% damage. That is pretty near to how FF works in as simple a math as you can get. The only accurate alternative would be characters in rear rank have a +10 AC bonus and take only half damage but what happens when +10 stops meaning anything at higher levels? I don't think half damage is protection enough.

DMMike
2013-03-09, 12:09 PM
I was asking about active time battle so that speed could maybe just be a bonus to initiative more or less.

Oh no, I would take that up a notch! Initiative counts upward (so that initiative count never goes negative), and after your action, you roll a d4 (for random factors), add your initiative modifiers (the lower the better), and add or subtract status penalties. The result is your new time to act (which can fall before the point where every other character has acted). Players probably have a d100 counter in front of them, and when (if) the initiative count hits 100, everyone who hasn't acted acts, and the counter begins at zero.


On Full-Attack: In early FF games (even IV, even though it is not as easily seen) damage occurs in multiples of your attack rating. In other words, characters are achieving multiple hits when they deal more damage. Attacking into the rear rank results in fewer hits. So, you either penalize the crap out of it, which I don't recommend because I don't think hits will EVER happen then, or you just make Full Attack not an option against foes in the rear rank.
You lost me at "attacking into the rear rank results in fewer hits." Is this a FF phenomenon, or a general statement? I'm not quite seeing the point of a damage penalty, if the system imposes a number-of-attacks penalty.


Also, since the character's being attacked are in the rear rank, an attacking creature is always having to maneuver around characters in the forward rank to get to them. I equate that to greater than 5' of movement. If you don't do this, low HD character's in the rear are going to be smashed fast. Half damage alone will not protect them as well as you might think.
Well, it stands to reason that if you need to spend movement time going from your own back row to your front row, then it should also take movement to get from the enemy's front row to their back row. So that might equal a full-attack penalty. And the damage penalty becomes: I'm trying to dodge the jerks in the front row, so I'm having a spot of trouble focusing damage on the back row.


As a compromise, how about no full attack, and 50% damage. That is pretty near to how FF works in as simple a math as you can get. The only accurate alternative would be characters in rear rank have a +10 AC bonus and take only half damage but what happens when +10 stops meaning anything at higher levels? I don't think half damage is protection enough.
Which, I guess, is the above solution. It leaves open the possibility of multiple attacks, but they're slowed by the movement requirement. In the interest of self-defense, the bad guys are probably maneuvering away if you're moving forward, so the movement spent attacking the back row doesn't land you permanently on the enemy's side.

Should there be a problem with using bows and spells in the front row, besides the obvious one of being close to the enemy tanks?

BarroomBard
2013-03-09, 01:19 PM
There are two games you might want to look at for inspiration on this point.

Agon is a game about playing as the epic heroes in Greek myths. In Agon's combat system, all the characters are set on a two dimensional grid - a line. Starting positions are determined by the battlefield conditions (weather, light, surprise, etc.) and an initiative roll. Different weapons have different optimum ranges, so combat consists of moving yourself or your opponent so that you are at your optimum range but they are not at theirs.

The One Ring is one of the newest Lord of the Rings RPGs. In combat, all the players choose stances which represent how they are choosing to fight and move. There are Aggressive, Defensive, Ranged, and Support stances. Aggressive stance is for people who run straight at the enemy in an all out assault. It's easier for them to hit, but also easier for them to be hit. Ranged stance is for archers. They have a harder time being hit, but have a higher target number for hitting opponents as well.

Anyone can be attacked by anyone else, although there are rules for fighting in narrow spaces which basically allow archers to hide behind their front line and not be hit.

scarmiglionne4
2013-03-09, 04:42 PM
You lost me at "attacking into the rear rank results in fewer hits." Is this a FF phenomenon, or a general statement? I'm not quite seeing the point of a damage penalty, if the system imposes a number-of-attacks penalty.

That's FF. I was trying to rationalize it in D&D terms. If there is no damage penalty the rear rank does nothing at early levels.



Should there be a problem with using bows and spells in the front row, besides the obvious one of being close to the enemy tanks?

In FF4 spells had charge times, so you could be attacked one to who knows how many times before your spell went off. If you are in the forward row you would be taking full-attacks at full damage at simply would not live long enough to cast one of the better spells.

Bows were bad to use in the front row because you could not equip a shield, which simply meant you were getting hit more often. Anything that took two-hands in FF4 meant a big evasion drop. So in D&D terms, using a bow is really not any worse than using a greataxe as far as defense is concerned. But being in the rear rank makes up for the loss of evasion(AC) and since it is a ranged weapon there is no penalty for attacking from or into the rear rank.

It is also interesting to note that Kain can Jump from and into the rear rank at no penalty, so if you plan to have Dragon Knights/Dragoons/Lancers you may want to keep that in mind.

DMMike
2013-03-09, 07:45 PM
Barroom Bard: I think I saw the One Ring mentioned at Enworld. Does what you're talking about have some conditions to meet before a character can be in a rearward stance (back row)?


That's FF. I was trying to rationalize it in D&D terms. If there is no damage penalty the rear rank does nothing at early levels.

In FF4 spells had charge times, so you could be attacked one to who knows how many times before your spell went off. If you are in the forward row you would be taking full-attacks at full damage at simply would not live long enough to cast one of the better spells.

Bows were bad to use in the front row because you could not equip a shield, which simply meant you were getting hit more often. Anything that took two-hands in FF4 meant a big evasion drop. So in D&D terms, using a bow is really not any worse than using a greataxe as far as defense is concerned. But being in the rear rank makes up for the loss of evasion(AC) and since it is a ranged weapon there is no penalty for attacking from or into the rear rank.

It is also interesting to note that Kain can Jump from and into the rear rank at no penalty, so if you plan to have Dragon Knights/Dragoons/Lancers you may want to keep that in mind.

The system I'm using is similar to d20 - you roll a d20 to find your success, and add ability and skill points. And it has a version of AC, that only uses dodge and Dex bonuses, and can increase like a skill. Armor is treated as damage reduction, so the archer from your later example would lose damage reduction instead of AC from not having a shield.

My combat doesn't use partial, move, or standard actions. Just actions. You get 3, and gain another for every 5 points that your ability scores are above 10. However, defending (FF's evasion) requires an action. If you didn't save an action for evading, you'll have only your armor or distance from the enemy to protect you.

So casters don't like this front row, because they likely have low health and low armor - making damage hazardous. Archers might have more health, but why subject yourself to full melee damage (and worse damage reduction) when you can fire from the back row?

Kain - such an icon! The Jump attack, translated to my system, would probably use an extra action or two, like spells, to put a limit on Jumps per round. Since a normal spear-wielding character, attacking from back row, would need to use the "Row" command first to reach any enemies, Kain would be doing well if he jumped one round, and spent the next round conducting an attack into the enemy back row, and still return to his own back row. ?

scarmiglionne4
2013-03-09, 09:36 PM
Kain - such an icon! The Jump attack, translated to my system, would probably use an extra action or two, like spells, to put a limit on Jumps per round. Since a normal spear-wielding character, attacking from back row, would need to use the "Row" command first to reach any enemies, Kain would be doing well if he jumped one round, and spent the next round conducting an attack into the enemy back row, and still return to his own back row. ?

Well... Would he no longer be in the rear rank, though? In Final Fantasy Tactics Lancer's always end up back in their starting position after a jump. I guess it all depends on how realistic you plan to make the ability to leap so high into the air it takes about a D&D round to come back down riding your spear into an enemy from above.

I don't like shields adding to DR. Armor adds to the defense rating/absorb/DR and shields add to evasion/AC. Some of the more legendary shields might also add to DR, but as a rule if you are going for an FF feel, shields should only add to AC.

OutsiderOpinion
2013-03-12, 02:34 PM
Not to rock the boat here, but I like the idea of units in the rear being immune to melee attacks, still there needs to be a limitation here, so how about this for a compromise:
Units in the back row are immune to melee attacks if they are "defended," however, only one unit in the back row can be defended for each conscious unit in the front row. Archers and support units can stay completely safe from melee attack as long as they have a meat shield to hide behind.

I like this because it adds an element of strategy. How do we get at all those hobgoblin archers behind their line of shields? Oh no, the party monk just passed out and now the Mage is exposed, I'd better have the Ranger stop sniping and draw his sword so that the Fighter can start protecting the Mage instead. Naturally there would also be abilities such as the Jump attack from Final Fantasy Tactics that allowed these rules to be occasionally skirted, and there would also be opportunity to allow a single unit to guard more than one person, perhaps with a certain feat. Larger size classes should probably be allowed to guard multiple units, at any rate.

DMMike
2013-03-14, 09:05 AM
Shields as DR: started new thread.

Where would Kain end up: depends on the Perk/Skill. A normal attack requires an attack skill, and the physical ones are Unarmed, Melee, and Missile. Getting to where you want to attack uses the Movement skill. Jumping into an enemy's rear rank would require a tremendous Movement effort, and since this ruleset doesn't allow being in an enemy rank, the friendly front row is the next closest place to be. There's actually a pretty serious game balance problem involved by introducing the Jump attack (or any special ability) because FF4's game balancing was centered around not making any character outshine, well, Cecil, and an RPG's game balancing requires a few more axes than that.

Defending back row characters: Outsider, I'm with you on wanting back row characters to be immune to up-close/melee attacks. I think the effect of that is to reduce the realism of the two-row space. It forces characters not into a battle, but into a screenshot where good guys appear on one side, and bad guys on the other. Meaning that there's no maneuvering going on, you're just "in a row."

Yes, the Defending action makes that more realistic, as in: you're only in the back row if someone's in front of you. Otherwise, you're vulnerable to full melee attack damage. This is where the grid-proponents chime in: if I had a battle grid to use, I could just move (or adjust) and cast/shoot, so I wouldn't be vulnerable to full attacks!

I'm feeling that the 50% (back) row allows for all-of-the-above. Tactics, by choosing not where you are in the battle, but in what row you are, defending friends by making the front row more of a threat, flank and maneuver by allowing the back row to be hit (but not fully vulnerable), and an offensive/defensive posture with the front and back rows, respectively.

Should it be possible to defend a friendly? Yes! Is it? I think it would require a new rule, which might make the system more complex. I can see two solutions in my current ruleset:

1) Use the Parry skill to defend someone else. Well, it would cost you an action, which is fair because you have to allot them tactically. I would personally give the attacker a difficulty bonus on that contest, since it's probably harder to defend someone other than yourself.

2) Take a Perk. Perks are for bending the rules - slightly. One perk allows you to take a free action if it's used for Parrying. Another might allow any chosen comrade to use your Parry skill in place of their own, provided you choose that character on your turn, and are in the same row as that character.