PDA

View Full Version : Simple action system - need recommendations!



DMMike
2014-01-03, 02:18 PM
Picture a combat system with only one type of action, and all characters get three. Doing anything requires an action, including defending (Parry).

This system uses a simple higher-roll-wins concept for opposed actions. So if a Parry action is higher than a Fight action, no damage gets dealt. If a Fight action rolls higher than a Movement action, the mover's not going anywhere, or the mover takes damage before backing off.

There are turns, which allow PCs to use the best roll for multiple, similar actions. So a spellcaster makes three rolls for a three-action spell, and gets to use the highest roll for each action.

Otherwise, characters can use a single action in response to any other action. This means if you get attacked, you can respond with a defense. If you've been waiting for someone to come in the door, you can clock him as soon as you see his head.

So please help with:
The above system allows a character to respond to attacks with another attack. So fighters with better armor (which reduces damage) or better attacks can consistently attack in hopes of killing the initiator before they'll need to defend. Is a motivator rule necessary to put more emphasis on defending?

Note: positioning doesn't matter in this system. In combat, it's like early Final Fantasies: there's just front and back row. Back row offers defensive benefits, and offensive penalties.

Glimbur
2014-01-03, 09:30 PM
I think your problem is deeper than that. I could save my actions to defend, but even if I roll perfectly all I am doing is stalling. Otherwise I could just attack attack attack and either they defend or also attack.

Possibly offer some other benefit for defending. In the Street Fighter RPG, Blocking also increases your Speed on the next turn, which is useful. Honestly, I really like their combat system.

Grinner
2014-01-03, 09:39 PM
I think your problem is deeper than that. I could save my actions to defend, but even if I roll perfectly all I am doing is stalling. Otherwise I could just attack attack attack and either they defend or also attack.

You're making the mistake of assuming that it's a simple face-off between two opponents. Stalling might in fact be the objective, allowing the mage time to ready his spell. On the other hand, nothing the OP has written even implies that tanking is a possibility.

DeAnno
2014-01-03, 10:25 PM
Maybe parrying is overpriced in terms of your action economy? Try having each parry cost half an action maybe, if you want to see it used more.

DMMike
2014-01-03, 11:25 PM
Parrying is stalling, yes. If you're in a melee, parrying is a pretty good idea if you can draw your opponent's attention, while your comrades attack. If you're going one-on-one, a parry makes the most sense if it's against your enemy's last action, and you have one or more left to attack him (while he's out of actions with which to defend).

Parrying might be overpriced - unless you're about to die. Then, the chance to dodge all damage (instead of just some damage) could be priceless. The system I'm writing has a strong emphasis on simplicity, so I'm not excited about the idea of introducing half actions.

Funny, but I think you guys have solved the problem by forcing me to think. In a melee, parry is what you do to hold the front line, while your back row goes nuts. One-on-one, it gets trickier: a defender can withdraw to the back row, taking one normal attack. The attacker, then, must use a second action to approach the defender (unless he wants to attack for half damage), leaving him with one action, and the defender with two. So if he moves up and attacks again, he's potentially facing two attacks from the "defender." If he attacks from one row away, he can do half damage (or switch to a ranged weapon), and face only one attack if the defender moves up for full damage.

What do you think?

(For what it's worth: the parry action looks, unintentionally, just like the "defend" action from Final Fantasy - which was the inspiration for my combat positioning rules.)

erikun
2014-01-04, 11:19 AM
There are turns, which allow PCs to use the best roll for multiple, similar actions. So a spellcaster makes three rolls for a three-action spell, and gets to use the highest roll for each action.
This is why defending is basically worthless. If I attack, I get to use 3d20 and take the best roll for all three attacks. If I parry, I use only 1d20 and hope that my single roll is better than all three attacks my opponent uses. Even 3d20 parry defense only grants roughly 50% of avoiding damage against 3d20 attacks, while doing nothing to fight back. That's certainly not ideal, especially if you need to spend different parry attempts against multiple opponents. (Somewhat better if you can take one parry action and apply it against all attacks that round.)

Have you actually tried this system yet? As in, had two characters with 3d20 and no bonuses, and found out how well it worked out? One character against multiple? Because it actually does sound rather interesting, but that depends on how well it plays in practice.

DMMike
2014-01-04, 07:57 PM
erikun - I hear you. There are a few details that complicate parrying a bit, but first things first.

The playtesting has not yet begun. I'm really wanting the rulebook, v1.1, to be mostly complete before starting. Right now, all that means is writing out the rules in outline/catalog form, and filling out the index to facilitate the playtests.

The first thing that makes combat different from 3d20 vs. 3d20 is offensive and defensive posture, or front and back rows. I mentioned these in my earlier post.

The next thing that makes a difference is number of combatants. Rarely should battle be a duel (but that does make things both simple and interesting). The 1-action-type system can boil down to mini-rounds that look like this:

Character with Turn - responding character - responding character - etc.

Every character that acts, and doesn't defend, is vulnerable to every character that could act after him. So a counter-attacking enemy can no longer defend - during that action - against your allies. Which brings us to your good point about a Parry being good against everyone, but for just one argument against that: backstabbing becomes a lot more interesting when you can defend against only one opponent each action.

The last thing (for now) that makes parrying more attractive: shields don't grant armor protection, they grant parry bonuses. You can only use a shield when you parry. Using a shield is a compromise: you have to give up a second weapon and extra attack when you use a shield.

Now, with that in mind, does parrying still fail to be an interesting option?

Quellian-dyrae
2014-01-04, 09:05 PM
Saving actions to defend, rather than actively taking a specific defensive action, does at least help deal with issues like the enemy then making an attack that circumvents your chosen defense (i.e. responding to a Total Defense with something that doesn't target AC, or going after an ally). I mean, assuming that there are actions to defend against various forms of attacks/defend your allies of course. If you can't defend for allies, defending is less useful even in a group, since enemies can go after your allies instead.

Even so, I'd probably say to make defending a reaction that uses up your actions next round - and institute a passive defense that might protect you even if you don't take the active action. Then when you see that you're actually about to be hit, you can decide to spend an action from your next turn defending (or multiple actions, if the first fails). You get an improved chance to avoid the attack, but it costs you momentum. An aggressive fighter might manage to keep an enemy so focused on defense that it doesn't have an opportunity to strike back.

DMMike
2014-01-06, 09:37 PM
Saving actions to defend, rather than actively taking a specific defensive action, does at least help deal with issues like the enemy then making an attack that circumvents your chosen defense (i.e. responding to a Total Defense with something that doesn't target AC, or going after an ally). I mean, assuming that there are actions to defend against various forms of attacks/defend your allies of course. If you can't defend for allies, defending is less useful even in a group, since enemies can go after your allies instead.

Even so, I'd probably say to make defending a reaction that uses up your actions next round - and institute a passive defense that might protect you even if you don't take the active action. Then when you see that you're actually about to be hit, you can decide to spend an action from your next turn defending (or multiple actions, if the first fails). You get an improved chance to avoid the attack, but it costs you momentum. An aggressive fighter might manage to keep an enemy so focused on defense that it doesn't have an opportunity to strike back.

Actions to defend against various attacks: yup, there are three skills that defend, together, against everything. Parry defends physical, concentration defends mental, and willpower defends metaphysical.

Defending allies: why not? I'd recommend a -4 penalty to parry contests for allies, since you're probably father from the attack than if the attacker is after you.

Passive defense: characters wearing armor always get to reduce damage if it's the right type. For example, an attacker swings a morningstar at a defender, who is out of actions for the round. The attacker rolls 1d8, and gets 4 for physical damage. The defender rolls 1d6+1 since he's wearing scale mail, and gets 5 physical protectioin. The protection is high enough to eliminate all the damage, but successful (or uncontested) attacks always deal at least 1 damage.

Aggressive fighter: if you beat your opponent in initiative, you can use all your actions to attack. It's up to the defender to choose to parry each attack. Avoiding damage obviously becomes more attractive when a character is low on health (or high on damage).

Momentum: currently, this is granted to the player taking his turn. During your turn, if you take several actions with the same skill, you apply the highest roll to all the actions. Also, once committed, you can't change any of the actions. So a player's main incentive to act during his turn is the chance to get a higher roll.