How tactical can melee combat get before players stop bothering?

[Avianmosquito]

I've got an original system with EXTREMELY tactical melee combat where, for example, you have five useful forms of melee attack, five combat stances with different effects, position and terrain effects, a wide variety of armour and weapons that are meaningfully different, some weapons have multiple use methods beyond just the attack options, weapon selection is hugely important and when mismatched you may have to use bizarre tactics to accommodate. The entirety of fighting revolves around how these things interact and you live or die less on the dice and more on gauging your opponent and environment, tailoring your strategy to them, and then gauging the flow of the fight as it's happening and changing your current tactics to fit the changing situation. This whole thing is then thrown for a loop with different enemy types that perform drastically differently when wounded due to their unique physiology.

So my question is: How tactical can a melee system get before most players say "**** it" and just try to brute force their way through everything? Does it sound like this system is already past that point, or still has some room? After all, I want the system to be realistic and deep, but I also don't want it to be inaccessible to new or unskilled players. (Keep in mind that when *I* run a campaign, I wholly intend to start off slow and teach the new player(s) the ropes. I also expect anybody else who later picks up this system to do the same, of course. So that does make more complexity tolerable.)

[rexx1888]

in both theory and practise you can give players many many options, and given enough time they will learn to both use them and utilise them effectively. Its not even specifically about their complexity either. Players that are interested will take the time to learn the system.

The problem is the interest part. You need both a game that garners interest and a system that garners interest. The first part is dm dependent. The other one is just plain hard. First, you need to accomodate the players when they first start. meaning that the system has to be playable with little effort. It has to be fast and fun at that point too, so players dont get bored. The first moments are really really important. Then obviously once they are enjoying it and used to it, they will start to learn the more nitty gritty parts of the system. There, the problem is that the system has to be complex enough to maintain interest while not being so complex that players get lost in it. Finally, beyond this point the system has to seem(or be) fair. To give that impression, it needs to be transparent so players can see all the moving parts.

alot of this stuff relies on presentation on the DM's part, but if as the designer you handicap them, then obviously the system probably wont take.
as to whether your system is too complicated or not, wed need to actually see it to be able to tell you.

sidenote: try to avoid niggling bonuses in a PnP game. stuff that last longer than a sword strike that players have to remember is more than anything else annoying and of little consequence, and often makjes them feel like theyr cheating if they forget its only momentary(or stupid because they forget it when it was actually relevant)

Edit: had a look at your sig, im assuming your talking about change, is that right?


continued edit: Theres alot there to look at, an im interested so ill go over it for a little while yet but what sticks out to me most atm is formatting. Honestly i dont have much experience on this side of things, but i think youll fair better on rule retention if you split each page into multiple columns, and better divide your sections. Obviously combat needs to be a full chapter, but could it be better divided. Basically, stuff is easier to read when it gives your eyes a break.

[Avianmosquito]

in both theory and practise you can give players many many options, and given enough time they will learn to both use them and utilise them effectively. Its not even specifically about their complexity either. Players that are interested will take the time to learn the system.

The problem is the interest part. You need both a game that garners interest and a system that garners interest. The first part is dm dependent. The other one is just plain hard. First, you need to accomodate the players when they first start. meaning that the system has to be playable with little effort. It has to be fast and fun at that point too, so players dont get bored. The first moments are really really important. Then obviously once they are enjoying it and used to it, they will start to learn the more nitty gritty parts of the system. There, the problem is that the system has to be complex enough to maintain interest while not being so complex that players get lost in it. Finally, beyond this point the system has to seem(or be) fair. To give that impression, it needs to be transparent so players can see all the moving parts.

alot of this stuff relies on presentation on the DM's part, but if as the designer you handicap them, then obviously the system probably wont take.
as to whether your system is too complicated or not, wed need to actually see it to be able to tell you.

sidenote: try to avoid niggling bonuses in a PnP game. stuff that last longer than a sword strike that players have to remember is more than anything else annoying and of little consequence, and often makjes them feel like theyr cheating if they forget its only momentary(or stupid because they forget it when it was actually relevant)

Yes, but most of these are simple. Say, you can use total defence to avoid injury while a wounded enemy bleeds to death. You can lure an enemy up a hill so you'll always have the high ground. Full offence kills enemies that can't retaliate effectively before they have the chance to fight back. Blunt weapons generally perform better against armour, blades generally perform better against flesh. Thrusting doesn't do as much damage, but slashing sucks against armour. Zombies don't bleed and don't have health, so you need to use body damage to kill them. That kind of thing. The complicated part is how all these actually very simple mechanics interact.

Also, *I* am the GM for now. The one and only. I doubt anybody, other than maybe my real-life friends and family, will try and run a campaign in my system for quite a while. So in the mean time, doesn't that mean I set the precedent? So doesn't my ability as a GM have a huge effect on how the system is received and what kind of player investment I see?


Edit: had a look at your sig, im assuming your talking about change, is that right?

Right. Although the version in the sig is WAY behind. It doesn't even list combat stances yet. Give me a couple minutes to get the current version uploaded.

[rexx1888]

on the gm side of things, im really just laying out a basic guide. Obviously while play testing it youll prolly be the only person running it, but i generally try to avoid designing in a vacuum as we often(people in general) get used to things certain ways an miss that other folks wont be such a fan of it. equally, you cant fault a good sound mechanical system if its major failing is some random terrible person running it, which is always an important thing to remember :)

[Avianmosquito]

on the gm side of things, im really just laying out a basic guide. Obviously while play testing it youll prolly be the only person running it, but i generally try to avoid designing in a vacuum as we often(people in general) get used to things certain ways an miss that other folks wont be such a fan of it. equally, you cant fault a good sound mechanical system if its major failing is some random terrible person running it, which is always an important thing to remember :)

I'm aware of this. But a new and unique system probably needs unique methods on the GM's part, especially in teaching new players. I'm hoping I can get away with a more complex system by setting a good precedent in teaching new players how to use it. In particular, I think that introducing new elements one at a time is a good idea, as is starting players against enemies that are of no real threat to them, and spreading out lessons over the campaign so they don't get bored with a front-loaded tutorial that just goes on forever.

Also, new version of the rulebook is now in my signature. It's much sleeker (all the way down to 27 pages, much easier to flip through when you need to), doesn't have any content in it (just core rules) and is (more or less) up to date. I've got changes in queue that I'm currently working on, but I'll be adding those over the next few days. Like moving the big block of content I missed to the other book. (Whoops. Corrected now.) And it's not finished, no.

EDIT:
All the changes I had written down are done, didn't take as long as I thought. Not even close. Now to get back to the unfinished sections.

[bekeleven]

A friend of mine developed a role-playing system based on cards. Each player had a custom deck, and would play cards to cast spells. For instance, I might have one spell that requires [Red] [Red] [4] and another that requires [7] [Hearts]. If I play a six of diamonds turn one, followed by a seven of hearts turn two, then I can theoretically finish either spell on my third turn depending on what's in my hand. If I play a 4 of hearts I can finish either. If I have no 4 and no hearts, then I can't finish either. You can't pass the turn, so if I play a 2 of spades and those are my only spells, I know I won't complete a spell for at least 2 more turns.

I built a deck that used every spell that didn't require black cards, then basically halved my deck and was always able to pull something off. Another friend built a small deck based around a handful of spells - a hearts healing spell, and spades fire spell, etc. A third friend grabbed mostly clubs, because the system's few nonmagical maneuvers were in that suit (you know, swing a sword, or what have you).

One of the (few) physical maneuvers was where you held your axe above your head and powered up, then swung. After a bit of analysis we found that the dominant strategy was to build an all-clubs deck, because you could place any clubs to keep holding your axe above your head. Then, once you got into range of someone, you played the 10 of clubs, chopped, and killed them.

Anyway, complexity can be iffy at best when your system has dominant strategies. It was a fun system, besides game balance.

[Avianmosquito]

I'm sorry, but what exactly does that have to do with the system or the questions?

[bekeleven]

I'm sorry, but what exactly does that have to do with the system or the questions?

That if there's a dominant strategy, it doesn't matter how complicated your system is. In fact, complication hurts in many ways:


Complication makes it harder to balance every move against every other, so you might let unbalanced options slip by you.
With complication, a player can spend time to get more system mastery and give himself significant advantages against other players (less of a deal in pve games).
Players may feel cheated, as I did, when they spend a ton of time developing some original or unique take on a system to find that a simple, brute force, overwhelming power strategy is the best option. It basically means your additional mechanics exist on the periphery of problem-solving rather than being used in it. To rephrase, it means you wasted a ton of time coming up with the useless 90% of your game.


It's pretty much impossible to judge your system because all you've said about it is "there are five options here, five options there, and charts and graphs to combine them." So I didn't try to say anything about your system.* Instead I said something about making mechanics with a ton of rules and options.

That being: Don't make one mechanic better. Don't be "mash heaviest attack until out of stamina, then mash your heaviest stamina-neutral attack." Don't be "A parry automatically hits." Don't be two-handed axe guy.

*If each of your five stances just gives a different number to attack and defense (Assault is +5 attack, aggression is +4 attack/+1 defense... Cower is +5 defense) and each of your attacks is a simple difference too (+5 attack +0 damage to +0 attack +5 damage) then no, your system isn't overcomplicated at all.

[Avianmosquito]

No need to worry about that. Doing one thing over and over WILL get you killed, and brute force is seldom useful by itself. The closest thing to a dominant strategy is switching in and out of total defence, because you'll do that a lot... If you fight melee enemies directly a lot, not really useful against anybody else. Maybe total offence... but that gets you killed really quickly against other melee enemies, so it's only useful against ranged attackers. Swinging? Nope, armour works too well against it. Thrusting? Not very accurate, doesn't do as much damage later on. Jabbing or swiping? Just isn't strong enough. Bashing? Only good as an interrupt. Power attack? Useful only if there's no other way to do damage, liable to get you killed. Take the high ground and defend it? Can't always do that. Stick to a good terrain type? Benefits them the same way as you, though you might find that more useful it also can't always be done. Blades? Not as good against armour and some enemies resist it especially well. Blunt? Not as good against flesh and some enemies resist it especially well. Chest shots only? Runs into armour the most often and takes a LOT to kill by body damage. Head shots only? Not worth the loss in accuracy. Anything else? Something else common makes it not work as well.

Pretty sure that every strategy more specific than "use your weapons, they are designed to inflict damage" is going to run into something it can't handle, or at the very least something it can't handle as well as your other tools, the moment you start relying on it. At least, if your GM is awake.

[silphael]

Why is thrusting dealing that few damage? Thrusting attacks are the highest damaging attacks usually. For balance sake you may just say "damage going through armor is doubled, but armor is increased against those".

You may want to shot an eye at gurps, though.

[Avianmosquito]

Why is thrusting dealing that few damage? Thrusting attacks are the highest damaging attacks usually.

Because thrusts really are less damaging. MUCH less damaging. At least, later on. See, thrusts suffer from diminishing returns. There's only so much damage they can do, thrusting harder or better won't seriously increase their damage once they're perforating a target, and they end up doing that pretty quickly. In-game, thrusts actually deal really good damage compared to a low-skill swing, if you don't take strength into account. The problem is there's less benefit (in damage, at least) from strength and skill only increases penetration. A late-game thrust basically ignores armour, and a late-game slash deals extremely high damage. The thrust is better against armour, but the slash does more damage if there isn't any armour in the way.

EDIT:
And I know you didn't ask, but jabs are basically really light thrusts, so it makes sense they'd do the least damage. They actually don't get any bonus from strength to their damage, they deal the same (starting) damage as swings which without a strength bonus leaves them competing only with the bash for least damaging attack, and like a thrust only get more penetration as time goes on. They're accurate, though, and can be used in attacks of opportunity and flurries.

EDIT 2:
Actually, if your strength and skill are low enough and your weapon big enough, a jab might do more damage than a swipe for the same reason a thrust might do more damage than a swing. Not unexpected, jabs are extremely light thrusts and swipes are extremely light swings. But swipes are the single most accurate melee attack in the game, so they're still useful despite crap damage that won't even be felt most of the time through armour.


For balance sake you may just say "damage going through armor is doubled, but armor is increased against those".

...Yeah, we have a better system for that. A more realistic one, too. We use a score called "penetration". Penetration allows you to ignore a number of points of damage reduction equal to its value. So if your attack presently has 10 penetration and the enemy has 12 DR, only 2 points of DR has any effect on the attack. It has no effect beyond reducing penetration, so if the enemy's DR is less than penetration the extra points are meaningless. Thrusts get penetration from your strength, swings only get penetration if the weapon has some inherent amount of it. (Projectiles also get penetration, of course. It's even more important to them since they lose power as they go on and penetration goes first so that's a factor in their range.)


You may want to shot an eye at gurps, though.

I don't like GURPS. It's the kind of system clearly made by a group of guys who really don't know what they're talking about. It's also got too many relic mechanics from its early years that just aren't as efficient as something newer.

[silphael]

Neither do i like gurps, yet it still gives interresting ways to go with some weapons.

But actually, refering to penetration i was going the other way, with thrusts being LESS effective on armours but highly damaging otherwise. If you want to go at health instead of the fictive HP of D&D, consider that :

-most piercing weapons are purely deadly : land a hit and like half the body, and your opponent will die for sure. He probably won't know it before he stops moving though, and will have to bash you before he dies.

-slashing weapons, however, have hard time slashing through bones, therefore have a far harder time dealing lethal wounds. Yet when you cut someone's arm off, he'll most probably stop fighting, even if he may survive the swing.

That's even why the edge of late middle age sword are round : you don't want to kill the other noble, the one that's worth around 3 new horses and as many good armours, or at least you want to be able to try to keep him alive.

Basically, in wars, slashing (or bashing weapons) are better, just because they makes "morale kills" before making real kills, while piercing are far better in duels : you usually want to take your opponent down, and so on.

But piercing weapons are really easy to deflect. Coat of plates (not sure of the word in english) are just small bands of metal stitched together. It's cheap, relatively easy and quick to do, and, while it won't stop a coucheed lance (but that more like bashing anyway), it can reliably stop arrows and some bolts. Spears and lances used in melee have globally no chance going through, at least for the first three hits : but if you stay long enough for three hits to land, you're already dead...

[Avianmosquito]

Neither do i like gurps, yet it still gives interresting ways to go with some weapons.

But actually, refering to penetration i was going the other way, with thrusts being LESS effective on armours but highly damaging otherwise. If you want to go at health instead of the fictive HP of D&D, consider that :

-most piercing weapons are purely deadly : land a hit and like half the body, and your opponent will die for sure. He probably won't know it before he stops moving though, and will have to bash you before he dies.

-slashing weapons, however, have hard time slashing through bones, therefore have a far harder time dealing lethal wounds. Yet when you cut someone's arm off, he'll most probably stop fighting, even if he may survive the swing.

That's even why the edge of late middle age sword are round : you don't want to kill the other noble, the one that's worth around 3 new horses and as many good armours, or at least you want to be able to try to keep him alive.

Basically, in wars, slashing (or bashing weapons) are better, just because they makes "morale kills" before making real kills, while piercing are far better in duels : you usually want to take your opponent down, and so on.

But piercing weapons are really easy to deflect. Coat of plates (not sure of the word in english) are just small bands of metal stitched together. It's cheap, relatively easy and quick to do, and, while it won't stop a coucheed lance (but that more like bashing anyway), it can reliably stop arrows and some bolts. Spears and lances used in melee have globally no chance going through, at least for the first three hits : but if you stay long enough for three hits to land, you're already dead...

This whole thing is completely ass-backwards.

1. Being stabbed is not an incapacitating injury. At all. It only damages the one body part struck, the human body is multiple-redundant, its organs can keep working even when severely damaged. The body is EXTREMELY tolerant of EXTREMELY massive wounds so putting a hole, even a very big one, in most organs just isn't going to stop it until blood loss kicks in. Somebody can be repeatedly perforated and still be a serious threat in the short term. We see it ALL THE TIME with gunshot wounds, and while a sword leaves a wound that's rather a lot bigger it's still not enough by itself to take somebody down right away.

2. Thrusts are effective because they focus the force of the attack on a small point, which makes them EXTREMELY effective at penetrating armour. If you even notice a layer of chainmail, you're doing something wrong. The only problem with armour is with plate, and the problem is not stabbing through it. You can totally stab through it and might even go all the way through the target, but the problem comes afterwards when you're trying to get the weapon back out.

3. Slashes can cut bone pretty easily. In fact, they can cut bone REALLY easily. Slashing all the way down through somebody's rib cage and into their abdomen is not unheard of, completely destroying all the organs and blood vessels along the path of the blade and putting an opponent down more or less instantly. While it's harder to hit an enemy higher up, especially if they can defend against it with their weapon, so most injuries in melee are abdominal injuries, a slashing wound across the abdomen with a sword is very lethal in very short order anyway due to the massive blood loss associated with a massive jagged wound through the intestines and the severing of the common iliac artery. (Depending on the height of the slash, you may hit the liver, stomach, spleen and descending aorta instead.) This may not immediately stop a target either, but it's more likely to do the job than a thrust and a slashed enemy will bleed out faster so they'll be less dangerous for less time.

4. Middle age swords are not round. They're also not blunt, which they'd have to be to suck as bad as you're saying.

5. Plate armour is NOT cheap. It cost enough money to buy a HOUSE. It also wasn't easy to make, and was more than just plates stiched together. It was articulated to reduce its restriction, the plates were multi-layered, thicker above vital organs and sloped to increase the chance of deflection, and underneath the armour would be a thin layer of chainmail and a thick layer of padding to protect the wearer from attacks that penetrated it. It had to be custom made for the wearer, took weeks to make, and was almost exclusively restricted to nobles because of the sheer time and effort that went into it. It was also almost absurdly effective against slashing weapons, could only be defeated by piercing and blunt weapons, of which blunt weapons performed better, wasn't too restrictive on the user and the typical suit weighed between twenty and thirty kilos, which isn't very much when distributed across the wearer's body and could be easily handled by the knight wearing it.

6. Historically, swords saw very little use in actual warfare. They're not very good against multiple opponents or in formation. The weapons of war for the common man were usually spears, axes, bows and crossbows. Guess what ALL these weapons have in common? They're PIERCING. Yes, even the axe is a piercing weapon. The blade comes straight at a target, and penetrates directly into it rather than slicing across it, that is the very definition of a piercing weapon. This, like how many hands you use to wield a longsword and whether a longsword or a bastard sword is bigger, is something D&D inexplicably gets ass-backwards. Axes are piercing, longswords are primarily two-handed and bastard swords are smaller than longswords.

7. Duelling weapons were NOT primarily piercing, not even rennaisance blades like the rapier and smallsword. Those weapons left very small wounds compared to other swords and were not especially effective no matter how you used them, they were NOT used because they were offensively powerful. Nobles carried their swords all the time, a lighter weapon was preferable. A lighter blade was also easier to defend with and to defend against so fewer duels would end with both nobles dead than would happen if a larger sword was used instead.

8. An enemy in battle is more dangerous than an enemy in a duel. If anything, you want the guy in battle down faster before somebody else comes to help him, which will not happen in a duel so you're free to take your time. That's another reason why duelling weapons were smaller and more defensive, while battle weapons were larger and more offensive.

[qazzquimby]

Would it be possible to port your combat system to replace 3.5's rather shallow system? And if it won't derail the thread, could someone elaborate an the grups hate?

[Avianmosquito]

Would it be possible to port your combat system to replace 3.5's rather shallow system?

Somebody else could if they wanted, but I'm not a big fan of D&D myself and I have a HUGE amount of work to do creating all the content for this system so I'm not taking time away from my system to port anything out of it.


And if it won't derail the thread, could someone elaborate an the grups hate?

No, not really. I'd be here too long talking about a system I can't stand. Suffice to say that people getting things completely ass-backwards is pretty much the entirety of GURPS and that's why I don't like it.

[silphael]

Thing is, I was definitely not talking about plate armors... but about something using a word relatively similar in my language that i had issues translating in english.

Being stabbed being not incapaciting was exactly my point. Yet it goes far easier past bones. In a clear fight, how often can you get a big enough opening to land a blow that cut your opponent in two? Which conditions do you need? With a stabbing weapon (i'm more talking about rapier like weapons than spears here)the likeliness of hitting a big enough arterie is far bigger. Yet dying of an hemorragy won't incapacitate the wounded.

Get me right, I totally agree that someone stabbed to death will stop far later than someone slashed to death... because the wound will be more impressive.

About duel : I wasn't at start talking about later duels in renaissance sense, but basically about a 1 vs 1 case, which derailled to that. But those duelling weapons, while not piercing by design, are by construction : in fencing if you learn how to lunge quickly, it isn't only to use your reach, or because it is highly defensive : it's because if it lands it's very likely it will kill.

Edit : searching a corresponding word in english for the armor i'm talking about, pretty sure it's something like coat of *.

[Avianmosquito]

Thing is, I was definitely not talking about plate armors... but about something using a word relatively similar in my language that i had issues translating in english.

Being stabbed being not incapaciting was exactly my point. Yet it goes far easier past bones. In a clear fight, how often can you get a big enough opening to land a blow that cut your opponent in two? Which conditions do you need? With a stabbing weapon (i'm more talking about rapier like weapons than spears here)the likeliness of hitting a big enough arterie is far bigger. Yet dying of an hemorragy won't incapacitate the wounded.

Get me right, I totally agree that someone stabbed to death will stop far later than someone slashed to death... because the wound will be more impressive.

About duel : I wasn't at start talking about later duels in renaissance sense, but basically about a 1 vs 1 case, which derailled to that. But those duelling weapons, while not piercing by design, are by construction : in fencing if you learn how to lunge quickly, it isn't only to use your reach, or because it is highly defensive : it's because if it lands it's very likely it will kill.

Edit : searching a corresponding word in english for the armor i'm talking about, pretty sure it's something like coat of *.

You're wrong here again. And again. And again.

1. Piercing into organs would be easy if thrusts weren't linear as hell and easy to avoid. It's hard to actually connect if a thrust is made up high at the target's chest so most wounds are STILL going to be abdominal wounds where piercing injuries do almost nothing to slow a target in the short term.

2. You don't NEED to bisect somebody, you just need to cut into vitals, which is NOT hard. Even a light swipe entirely in the attacker's wrists can cut through the collar bone and into the upper reaches of the lung, which will significantly impair the target due to damage to the collar bone, shoulder and lung, and results in death fairly quickly due to blood loss from the loss of the subclavian artery. A full swing with the arms and trunk involved can disembowel the target, or sever an arm. If brought down on the chest it'll cut deep into the lungs, likely taking the aorta with it, and if horizontal across the chest will destroy both lungs, the heart and the aorta. A thrust has a hard time hitting more than one organ and doesn't damage the one it hits as much as a thrust.

3. Bones provide little protection against steel. Especially not with a two-handed blade, which is barely slowed by the target's ribs and can easily cut through the entire rib cage (at least the front half, deep enough to cut into vitals) without needing a monstrously powerful swing. Even very thick bones like the vertebrae aren't enough to stop a sword. The simple truth is that even as tough as the human body is, steel really is just THAT much stronger. The human body only survives by being able to withstand damage. That's our way of living through an attack: Our body isn't tough enough to stop it from doing damage, so we're just built to direct the attack away from the heart so we can take the damage and keep going anyway.

4. Again, duelling weapons were NOT piercing. The only reason thrusts were used in duels was because light jabs are so easy to land and more likely than swipes, the only easier attack to land, to reach into vitals with a smaller weapon. The thrusts used were light jabs, almost exclusively. Thrusting is also NOT defensive AT ALL. It's hard not to telegraph a strong thrust, and very easy to counter, while it leaves the attacker entirely open. It's a TERRIBLE attack from a defensive standpoint. And with a weapon as small as a rapier, a jab just doesn't do enough damage and even a full thrust isn't that much better.

5. Why do we think of rapiers and smallswords as piercing weapons, then? Because in fencing all you have to do in make contact, which is easiest to do with a surprise jab after an opponent parries, so most of the time the "win" comes from a jab. This was then carried into movies by Errol Flynn, whose experience was with fencing and not HEMA and didn't know any better. He then further ruined common perception of sword fighting further by inventing "flynning", where the two combatants aim exclusively at each other's weapons while bantering instead of actually trying to kill eachother like real fighters would, then the fight is over when one of them pulls a magical instant-death thrust through the chest that wouldn't be immediately fatal and with the weapons used likely wouldn't be fatal at all by itself as even the doctors back then could treat such a small wound fairly easily and the main risk would have been infection.

6. Fencing is a sport, not a martial art. In fencing all you need is to make contact. It absolutely does not prepare you for a real fight where your opponent will tank a rapier through the chest and stab you right back. Fencing in a REAL sword fight WILL get you killed EVERY time. Sport is NOT combat, and using sports techniques in an actual fight is stupid. Using fencing techniques in a sword fight is like using football techniques in a fist fight. And actually, if anything, it's worse.

[silphael]

Indeed, fencing is just a sport, with kevlar-woven armors...

A lunge IS a defensive move, or at the very least (depending on your reach, if you're short it's less true) greatly reduce the possibilities of attack.

Have you really watched fencing matchs? I mean, you see every weapon bow when they land. It's a martial art as well.

Too tired to keep talking about anything right now (3 AM here...), and I'm not gonna keep talking about your design choices, but I kinda think you're using the scientific raw measures without taking parries into account. Anyway, that was some interresting talking ^^

[Avianmosquito]

Indeed, fencing is just a sport, with kevlar-woven armors...

Kevlar does NOTHING to stop a sword. AT ALL. Kevlar is THE example of crippling overspecialisation. It is extremely strong, sure, but it's softer than leather. Or cotton. Or human flesh. It won't even slow an edged weapon down. Meanwhile, it's also too stiff and lacks any elasticity or thickness to cushion blows. All the kevlar shows is that the fencing foils are edgeless, have basically no mass, and aren't really a danger to the fencers. The only thing they really need is eye and neck protection, the rest is for SHOW.


A lunge IS a defensive move, or at the very least (depending on your reach, if you're short it's less true) greatly reduce the possibilities of attack.

Says somebody who clearly doesn't understand sword fighting at all. Lunges are telegraphed and linear, they can be easily sidestepped and leave the attacker open to a counter attack. They are SUICIDE in real combat.


Have you really watched fencing matchs? I mean, you see every weapon bow when they land. It's a martial art as well.

It is not. Fencing's goal is only to make contact, and that's all the techniques are useful for. REAL sword fighting takes speed and power that simply isn't possible in a fencing match due to the nature of the foils, and fencing techniques are not useful for landing an actual killing blow. Fencing in a sword fight WILL get you killed. Not just by a REAL martial artist, but by any common layman off the street. Or a small child. Or a chimpanzee with a rusty knife.


Too tired to keep talking about anything right now (3 AM here...), and I'm not gonna keep talking about your design choices, but I kinda think you're using the scientific raw measures without taking parries into account. Anyway, that was some interresting talking ^^

Parrying isn't harder with a thrust than a swing. The force of a thrust goes straight forward and it's easy to redirect because there's no force pushing against the parry. If anything, it's easier to deflect than a swing is. A swing is harder to deflect, easier to land, does more damage and has no issue reaching vitals. The ONLY weakness of a swing is armour. That's the ONLY weakness it has, at all.

[qazzquimby]

You should remember that he's only trying to help, and try to sound less argumentative no matter how confident you are of your position. I read the new pdf and I really liked the depth. Are you interested in peaching?

[Avianmosquito]

You should remember that he's only trying to help, and try to sound less argumentative no matter how confident you are of your position.

It's hard not to sound argumentative when you're having an argument, you know. And no matter the source, that was an argument. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and it didn't get nasty, so I don't see the problem.


I read the new pdf and I really liked the depth.

Thanks. Although I still need to finish the skills and get some more content. (Right now, all I have are the world names and overviews, player classes and species, a baker's dozen non-player species, a couple dozen templates, a couple dozen weapons, a dozen spells and half a dozen feats. Not exactly enough to work with.)


Are you interested in peaching?

I'm sorry, what?

[Carl]

Avianmosquito:

Piece of advice, do some research.

It's widely agreed by various experts that the choice of most dangerous melee weapon in military history falls down to two choices. The Late Medieval Pike. Or the Roman Gladius. (Occasionally the Halberd slips in too). Both are stabbing weapons and neither is regularly noted as having issues getting stuck in things or as especially easy to dodge.

Admittedly some of that comes down to how they where used. short jabs over very short distances, no one can react fast enough to get out of a jab coming from a foot or two away at the most. There simply isn't time to dodge a blow like that, Fencing is a really awful example to use of dodg-ability because it involves two opponents a fair ways apart who have to make major movements to get a touch on each other. Most military melee stabbing weapons would be used from much closer in where the other guy didn't have enough time to react, much less get out of the way.

Likewise neither weapon was known for getting stuck in people. Mostly because of how they where used. The Pike just had so much momentum it would punch through any bone matter in it's path leaving nothing for it to get stuck on on the way out, and the gladius was stabbed forward and upward going into the chest cavity through the stomach, (it could and was used for slashing where the preferred opening was not available however, it just wasn't it's primary employment method). Both where also more than capable of killing someone very quickly and easily. Don't let hollywood's depiction of knives fool you, or even what you've heard of knives in general. They often don't have the penetration depth, or wound width to cause a quick death unless you know where to strike with them because the only really quick way to kill is an injury so massive it causes fatal blood loss very fast, a serious internal head injury, a severing of a major artery, (very rapid), or a hit to the heart, (fastest), things the greater width and penetration depth of the Pike and Gladius where well equipped to do.

[Avianmosquito]

Avianmosquito:

Piece of advice, do some research.

Projection much? Because you didn't even bother to read the comment you're replying to, and that's as bad as a lack of research gets.


It's widely agreed by various experts that the choice of most dangerous melee weapon in military history falls down to two choices. The Late Medieval Pike. Or the Roman Gladius. (Occasionally the Halberd slips in too). Both are stabbing weapons and neither is regularly noted as having issues getting stuck in things or as especially easy to dodge.

And that's because neither weapon was used outside of packed formations or against plate armour on a regular basis. Outside of a packed formation, it's easier to avoid a thrust than a slash and it's definitely not harder to counter. And the reason you want a thrusting weapon in formation is because it's hard for formations to all swing en masse without your own men hitting eachother or getting in eachother's ways.


Admittedly some of that comes down to how they where used.

No. ALL of that comes down to how they were used. If you remove how they were used and put them into a small group or one on one fight, their performance flips right around.


short jabs over very short distances, no one can react fast enough to get out of a jab coming from a foot or two away at the most. There simply isn't time to dodge a blow like that, Fencing is a really awful example to use of dodg-ability because it involves two opponents a fair ways apart who have to make major movements to get a touch on each other. Most military melee stabbing weapons would be used from much closer in where the other guy didn't have enough time to react, much less get out of the way.

No, they had time to react. They just can't move because they're packed together in a formation. And HE was the idiot trying to use fencing as an example, NOT me.


Likewise neither weapon was known for getting stuck in people. Mostly because of how they where used. The Pike just had so much momentum it would punch through any bone matter in it's path leaving nothing for it to get stuck on on the way out, and the gladius was stabbed forward and upward going into the chest cavity through the stomach, (it could and was used for slashing where the preferred opening was not available however, it just wasn't it's primary employment method).

Oh, excuse me, did I say ANYTHING about these weapons getting stuck in people? No, no I didn't. I said they got stuck in PLATE MAIL. Which they DID. Because, see, the previous guy was trying to claim that thrusts not only did the most damage (which is incorrect) but also that they performed worse against armour (which is even more incorrect). What *I* said was that getting through plate with a thrust was not the issue, it was getting the weapon back out.


Both where also more than capable of killing someone very quickly and easily. Don't let hollywood's depiction of knives fool you, or even what you've heard of knives in general. They often don't have the penetration depth, or wound width to cause a quick death unless you know where to strike with them because the only really quick way to kill is an injury so massive it causes fatal blood loss very fast, a serious internal head injury, a severing of a major artery, (very rapid), or a hit to the heart, (fastest), things the greater width and penetration depth of the Pike and Gladius where well equipped to do.

1. I never said a thrust didn't kill quickly, stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was that a slash did more damage, and thus killed faster. If I say a thrust is less damaging than a swing with most weapons, it does NOT mean that a thrust does no damage or even that it does very little, just LESS. If I were to say nine was less than ten, would that mean nine is nothing, or very little? NO. What's with the all or nothing mentality the moment we get to weapons?

2. Knives work just fine if they're meant to. A common steak knife isn't a good killing tool, of course, for the reasons listed, but any knife built to kill can kill just fine, as can most not built for it. A good combat knife can easily pierce into vitals and leave a fatal wound that way, as can a dagger or even a nice big chef's knife. They're not ideal, but they work.

3. Just because a thrust can kill quickly, and not as quickly as you think by the way as the human body is extremely resilient, doesn't mean that slashing doesn't kill faster. Take a longsword, and run it through somebody's lung. They should take about three or four minutes to die, most of that time they'll be unconscious on the ground but for a minute or two they're still standing, and that's pretty damned fast as far as a real person is concerned. Certainly a faster death than a gunshot wound, I can tell you that much. But slash down the guy's chest instead, and you'll see the difference. If you're even trying, you've cut down through his collar, ribs, subclavian artery and lungs. The massive drop in blood pressure just put that guy out cold. He'll be dead in a minute or two, and he's out cold right now. That's a considerably faster kill. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the thrust, but the swing just kills faster if you aren't dealing with armour.

Now can everyone stop derailing my threads? This happens every time I make a thread, and I'm getting sick of it. I make ONE comment about ONE thing in my game, and we get a hail of strawman arguments within a day. I came here to talk about a game, and asked very specific questions. It shouldn't be so hard to keep a thread that specific from derailing, should it? Can we get back on topic? Please? Oh, who am I kidding? Nobody ever stops.

[CombatOwl]

I've got an original system with EXTREMELY tactical melee combat where, for example, you have five useful forms of melee attack, five combat stances with different effects, position and terrain effects, a wide variety of armour and weapons that are meaningfully different, some weapons have multiple use methods beyond just the attack options, weapon selection is hugely important and when mismatched you may have to use bizarre tactics to accommodate.

Without a computer-assisted map and bonus tracker, complex terrain effects and piles of passive modifiers is usually a bad idea. D&D 3.5 is pretty much at the feasibility limit of that sort of stuff. Think about how many times people forget to add the bonus for being on high ground--then ask yourself if even more modifiers are a good idea.


The entirety of fighting revolves around how these things interact and you live or die less on the dice and more on gauging your opponent and environment, tailoring your strategy to them, and then gauging the flow of the fight as it's happening and changing your current tactics to fit the changing situation. This whole thing is then thrown for a loop with different enemy types that perform drastically differently when wounded due to their unique physiology.

I'm not kidding when I say this: I have only ever encountered one system that handles this sort of play well. That's Fate Core. And you have to run it in a very particular way to make that happen (piles and piles of aspects on scenes and zones, using notecards and different colored poker chips to indicate whether they're applicable and whether you have an invocation on it).


So my question is: How tactical can a melee system get before most players say "**** it" and just try to brute force their way through everything?

Personally? 3.5 seems like it's at the far edges of this.


Does it sound like this system is already past that point,

Yes.


After all, I want the system to be realistic and deep, but I also don't want it to be inaccessible to new or unskilled players. (Keep in mind that when *I* run a campaign, I wholly intend to start off slow and teach the new player(s) the ropes. I also expect anybody else who later picks up this system to do the same, of course. So that does make more complexity tolerable.)

Realism and depth is how you get rolemaster. Think about how often that gets played vs. D&D.

[Avianmosquito]

Let me start off by saying "thank you" for being on-topic.


Without a computer-assisted map and bonus tracker, complex terrain effects and piles of passive modifiers is usually a bad idea. D&D 3.5 is pretty much at the feasibility limit of that sort of stuff. Think about how many times people forget to add the bonus for being on high ground--then ask yourself if even more modifiers are a good idea.

For the most part, high ground is the only terrain advantage you need concern yourself with, if you can be bothered. Bigger elevation differences cause attack penalties, and they're larger for the combatant that's lower. The rest of the rules aren't there yet but will be listed as "optional", which translates to "if you can remember it and feel like the effort, go ahead". Right alongside disease and needs rules, they don't have to be paid any attention to if you don't want to and they say so.


I'm not kidding when I say this: I have only ever encountered one system that handles this sort of play well. That's Fate Core. And you have to run it in a very particular way to make that happen (piles and piles of aspects on scenes and zones, using notecards and different colored poker chips to indicate whether they're applicable and whether you have an invocation on it).

And have you read the rulebook as it is now? It's only missing the skills, and nothing in there is wrong as far as I know (might need to read through it again, and some sections need to be edited for clarity and readability, but I'm going to assume you're smart enough that's not a problem) and it's pretty good at providing you a lot of options. The mechanics themselves are actually very simple. Take the stances as an example. Offensive and defensive just trade some defence for attack or vice versa, full offence and full defence do the same while also trading saving throws for a higher attack rate or vice versa.

There's a very simple first order optimal strategy that forms from these most players will likely start off using in melee until they build up their character for some new strategy (or possibly never abandon and choose to buff, if the GM chooses not to shake them up with an enemy it won't work well on). That's simply to start each round in total defence, come up to defensive stance (takes one second), make one attack (time varies, but for a typical npc that's three seconds), drop back into total defence (one more second) and move back from the target (for the last second). Repeat until you're confident they're too damaged to fight back, then switch to a more aggressive stance and finish them off. Or just keep doing it until they collapse entirely and be completely safe. Your choice.

This means that when the enemy gets their chance to attack, they're behind total defence so their defence and guard save are much stronger, but they still get to make one attack each turn with only an attack penalty. Them moving back at the end isn't required, but there's not much one second is useful for and they can lure enemies to a position where they have the advantage. You could also use that second to shout for help or communicate with party members, of course, and some skill checks only take one second, instead of moving. This strategy also helps when the enemy has lost too much health to perform six seconds of actions per round and now has to pile on another penalty to keep up. Whether they stop switching stances, attack while moving, resort to flurry to get off one attack or some combination thereof, they'll be at a disadvantage and moving back away from them makes that disadvantage worse by forcing them to keep coming to you. This strategy is great when you can afford to take your time. (And frequently, these encounters allow for that.) This strategy also helps when fighting multiple opponents, or powerful boss monsters.


Personally? 3.5 seems like it's at the far edges of this.

3.5 is incredibly shallow and unsatisfactory, in my opinion. And in the opinions of one other poster here, my entire family and circle of friends.


Yes.

Have you read the system? It doesn't sound like you have if your above comments are any indication. Until you've read it, I can't take this seriously. Actually, if you think 3.5 is as complex as people can handle, I can't take this seriously at all. There are systems substantially more complex than D&D that get a lot of play. GURPS, for instance. And unlike GURPS, this system here is better balanced, more realistic, and has simpler individual mechanics that make it easier to get into without being so ungodly shallow due to the blatant balance issues that plague GURPS.

EDIT:
Actually, there's more wrong there than I thought, and there's also a set of damage types missing. (Negative energy damage, missing from the nonlethal section.) I just fixed the errors, but for now the missing damage types are still missing.


Realism and depth is how you get rolemaster. Think about how often that gets played vs. D&D.

I am not familiar with rolemaster, and D&D only gets the play it does because it's the oldest and most publicised, even if it is a really shallow system and the fights basically amount to just rolling dice at eachother until the fight is over.

[GGambrel]

It seems like combat is quite math intensive. I think it will result in slower combat than in other systems. Each time a character is hit, they need to worry about Pain, Bleeding, Health Loss, Shock, and Body Part Integrity, right? That seems like quite a bit to update to me, and is likely too crunchy for my taste.

I think a short combat example and a character sheet may make the system clearer overall.

[CombatOwl]

And have you read the rulebook as it is now?

You didn't explicitly link to it in the OP, so no. I don't make a habit of clicking on people's sigs.


it's pretty good at providing you a lot of options. The mechanics themselves are actually very simple.

Let me grab an example from your shot mechanics and put it into simple instructions.

"Roll a die with a maximum equal to the number of projectiles fired (1d10 for 10 projectiles, 1d4 for 4 projectiles) and add the difference to the result to determine the number of hits. The maximum is equal to the number of pellets, the minimum is zero. For example, if you roll 19 attack against 20 defence, you would land 1d10-1 hits. If you rolled 14, it would be 1d10-6. If you rolled 25, it would be 1d10+5. Armour rating is a percentage, with each point of armour rating deflecting 5% of the projectiles that hit. So 10 armour rating would deflect half the hits, and 20 all of the hits."

count(# projectiles) = $numproj
roll(die($numproj)) = $value1
find(Defense) = $tn
roll(die(20)) = $value2
subtract($tn, $value2) = $value3
subtract($value3, $value1) = $numhits
find(Armor) = $armor
$kvalue = $armor * .05
#numhits = $numhits * $kvalue
floor($numhits) = $actualhits

It's pretty complex. Humans do visual comparisons of a number of objects four or less far faster than they do any sort of mathematical operation. Your system has them referencing two numbers off the target's sheet, referencing a number off their own sheet, performing two subtraction operations, two multiplication operations, and a rounding operation. That's a lot of steps involved in firing some arrows--and I'm not even counting criticals which is another item to reference, two more multiplication operations, and another--separate--rounding operation.

It's pretty easy for people do do 10% and 25% in their head, but it's a lot harder for them to do 35% or 15% or 5% off the top of their head for numbers that aren't multiples of ten. Your automatic weapon rule adds additional complexity to this and isn't particularly intuitive. It's also not reflective of the actual tactical function of automatic fire. I'm not even considering your health penalties or encumbrance penalties either, which is yet another reference option and subtraction operation for each of them.

Each of these is a ready opportunity for people to forget a modifier or step.


Take the stances as an example. Offensive and defensive just trade some defence for attack or vice versa, full offence and full defence do the same while also trading saving throws for a higher attack rate or vice versa.

Right, those tradeoffs have to be referenced each an every time your defense or attack gets referenced. To put it in program terms, it's an additional operation that has to be performed every time you perform a reference operation.


There's a very simple first order optimal strategy that forms from these most players will likely start off using in melee until they build up their character for some new strategy (or possibly never abandon and choose to buff, if the GM chooses not to shake them up with an enemy it won't work well on). That's simply to start each round in total defence, come up to defensive stance (takes one second), make one attack (time varies, but for a typical npc that's three seconds), drop back into total defence (one more second) and move back from the target (for the last second). Repeat until you're confident they're too damaged to fight back, then switch to a more aggressive stance and finish them off. Or just keep doing it until they collapse entirely and be completely safe. Your choice.

That's another excessive layer of complexity. Either do one action per second (ala GURPS) or split the time into a simpler array of fixed units (like D&D). If most actions are one, three, or six seconds, just let people do a "full round action" or a "swift and standard" in the same round.


This means that when the enemy gets their chance to attack, they're behind total defence so their defence and guard save are much stronger, but they still get to make one attack each turn with only an attack penalty. Them moving back at the end isn't required, but there's not much one second is useful for and they can lure enemies to a position where they have the advantage. You could also use that second to shout for help or communicate with party members, of course, and some skill checks only take one second, instead of moving. This strategy also helps when the enemy has lost too much health to perform six seconds of actions per round and now has to pile on another penalty to keep up. Whether they stop switching stances, attack while moving, resort to flurry to get off one attack or some combination thereof, they'll be at a disadvantage and moving back away from them makes that disadvantage worse by forcing them to keep coming to you. This strategy is great when you can afford to take your time. (And frequently, these encounters allow for that.) This strategy also helps when fighting multiple opponents, or powerful boss monsters.

I don't see any mention of this as a recommended tactic anywhere, and assuming that players will recognize it as an optimal tactic (and that seems like a questionable assumption) strikes me as poor planning.


3.5 is incredibly shallow and unsatisfactory, in my opinion.

It's also about the limit of what's feasible in any but a very niche group of players.


Actually, if you think 3.5 is as complex as people can handle, I can't take this seriously at all. There are systems substantially more complex than D&D that get a lot of play. GURPS, for instance.

GURPS isn't nearly as complex to play once the character is actually built. Doing something is almost always "roll 3d6 and aim for less than (my own target number plus the aggregate situational modifier assessed by the GM on the spot)." You don't have to reference other people's sheets in GURPS, you don't have to perform lots of mathematical operations during play. Moreover, people don't have to juggle multiple actions in a turn--they only have to do one thing per turn rather than having to count out seconds.

Note: the basic combat system of GURPS is adequately summarized on one side of one sheet of paper. GURPS Lite puts a nearly complete rules reference into 10 pages out of a 32 page PDF. You've never actually played GURPS, have you? Like eighty percent of it is character creation rules and GM reference material.


And unlike GURPS, this system here is better balanced, more realistic, and has simpler individual mechanics that make it easier to get into without being so ungodly shallow due to the blatant balance issues that plague GURPS.

I do believe that you are absolutely wrong about both aspects of that statement. As universal systems go, GURPS is very well balanced. Because it's a universal system, obviously there are rules for how to make superman in a game where superman doesn't belong, but that's a matter of GM insanity for allowing an out of place character--not a flaw in the rules. I'm also quite certain that your system is not nearly so well playtested--unless your system is somehow a widely published and played system for going on thirty years now?


I am not familiar with rolemaster,

A game that famously takes the realism so far you're more likely to die from an accident travelling to a battlefield than you are in combat on the battlefield.


and D&D only gets the play it does because it's the oldest and most publicised,

GURPS is almost as old and here you are taking unfounded ****s all over it--with somewhat laughable claims that it lacks sufficient dedication to simulationism.


even if it is a really shallow system and the fights basically amount to just rolling dice at eachother until the fight is over.

Again, the only system I've ever encountered that didn't amount to rolling dice at each other until someone wins is Fate. And that's only for a very particular style of Fate. Note; I have also encountered and read your system now.

[ngilop]

so I read the PDF reference and this thread as a whole

and I got these thoughts

a) this game's combat mechani literally need you to have a calculator that can do scientific notation, you are going to need to do several complex mathematical operatikns to see if you hit and if you did any damage etc etc

b) the OP has a sub standard knowledge of real world weapons (understatement) and is basin weapon rules on that glaring lack of knowledge

c) has a hate-on for D&D and Gurps for no reason at all

d) dislikes games where you throw dice until you win, which is weird because her game is all about throwing dice then doing differential equations until you win

E) is very very demeaning and argumentative to those who do not think her ideas are perfect

f) realy has ZERO idea on the mechanics of the games she is deriding

[Avianmosquito]

so I read the PDF reference and this thread as a whole

and I got these thoughts blatant lies

Fixed that for you.


a) this game's combat mechani literally need you to have a calculator that can do scientific notation, you are going to need to do several complex mathematical operatikns to see if you hit and if you did any damage etc etc

Lie. You don't need a calculator for anything in this system, ever. Much less a scientific calculator.


b) the OP has a sub standard knowledge of real world weapons (understatement) and is basin weapon rules on that glaring lack of knowledge

And here we get another blatant lie from an ignorant troll who can't even be bothered to come up with an argument.


c) has a hate-on for D&D and Gurps for no reason at all

I gave my reason, and you ignored it entirely.


d) dislikes games where you throw dice until you win, which is weird because her game is all about throwing dice then doing differential equations until you win

If you can't get the difference between a game involving no strategy and a game involving strategy, you're beyond hope. D&D's entire block of strategy is "I make an attack roll" over and over again, with no variation or difference AT ALL, for six hours.


E) is very very demeaning and argumentative to those who do not think her ideas are perfect

When it comes to somebody like you, I have to be.


f) realy has ZERO idea on the mechanics of the games she is deriding

Another lie. Tied directly to lie C. I already explained why I hated those systems.

Also, only my avatar is female. My sex is marked immediately below it, I just have the avatar because I like Touhou.

[Avianmosquito]

It seems like combat is quite math intensive. I think it will result in slower combat than in other systems. Each time a character is hit, they need to worry about Pain, Bleeding, Health Loss, Shock, and Body Part Integrity, right? That seems like quite a bit to update to me, and is likely too crunchy for my taste.

Pain isn't tied to most damage types anymore, shock and body part integrity only matter when below a certain point (and have clear-cut penalties) and bleeding happens at the end of rounds so it's cleaner.


I think a short combat example and a character sheet may make the system clearer overall.

Alright. Two people, both human adult males, common grade. Level 1 nobles, longswords, no stat tweaks. (So, basically your bog-standard NPCs having a duel. So I'll also assume they don't have any relevant feats, as is usually assumed with NPCs.) Otherwise unarmed and unarmoured, so I don't have to choose secondary weapon and armour combinations.

Combatant 1
Human adult male
Medium Humanoid
Height: 180cm
Mass: 80kg
Character grade: Commoner
Experience: 0
Experience rate: 110%
Experience value: 100
Level: Noble 1
STR: 12
AGL: 10
CON: 10
PER: 10
CHA: 10
RES: 10
Guard: +12
Reflex: +11
Fortitude: +7
Logic: +7
Negate: +7
Will: +7
Base move rate: 2m/s
Skill points: 54
Skill rate: 8
Skills: (Irrelevant, most NPCs don't invest in combat skills, the grapple system isn't finished, there's no armour and they're not going to get their weapon skills up to 25 now.)
Feats: (NPCs don't have to have feats. Technically, everybody is supposed to have them, but the NPCs can be assumed not to have any relevant ones if you don't want to bother.)
Traits: None
Soul barrier: 1
HP: 200/200
Head integrity: 36/36
Torso integrity: 60/60
Arm integrity: 12/12
Leg integrity: 24/24
Natural armour: 1 medium
Defence: 2 innate, 7 active, 1 armour
Damage reduction: 1/--
Immunity: 5% (mental)
Attack: Melee +11, offhand melee +5, ranged +10, offhand ranged +4
Base reach: 100cm
Encumbrance: 82kg, unburdened
Inventory: Longsword
Status: None

Combatant 2
Ditto mark

For the record, I'm rolling dice. This is not pre-prepared.

Initiative:
Combatant 1 17, combatant 2 9. Combatant 1 wins initiative.

Round 1:

Combatant 1:
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 2, 2+6 vs swinging defence 9, miss.
Defensive to total defence.
2m back.

Combatant 2:
2m forward.
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 1, 18+6 vs swinging defence 9, critical hit.
Combatant 1 guards, longsword, 16+18, success+9. Critical negated.
Damage 9+6 slashing 6 bludgeon vs DR 20+9, 0.

Round 2:

Combatant 1:
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 2, 11+6, hit.
Combatant 2 guards, longsword, 18+18, success+18. Critical negated.
Damage 10+6 slashing 6 bludgeon vs DR 20+18, 0.
Total defence to defensive.
2m back.

Combatant 2:
2m forward.
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 1, 19+6, critical hit.
Combatant 1 guards, 3+18, fail. (Well, he's ****ed.)
Damage 6+9 slashing 9 bludgeon vs DR 1, slashing 14, bludgeon 9. Strength 1/12, agility -1/10, constitution -1/10. Health 67/90, shock 75%, torso 21/50, crippled. Slashing bleed 14/90 rounds, bludgeon bleed 9/90 rounds. Mostly dead.
Total defence to defensive.

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 53/90.

Round 3:

Combatant 1 is mostly dead.

Combatant 2 ends combat and walks away.

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 39/90, shock 50%.

Round 4:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 25/90, shock 50%.

Round 5:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 11/90, shock 25%.

Round 6:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -3/90, shock 0%. Unconscious.

Round 7:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 bludgeon 9 to combatant 1, health -26/90, shock -25%.

Round 8:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -40/90.

Round 9:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -54/90, shock -50%.

Round 10:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -68/90, shock -75%.

Round 11:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -82/90.

Round 12:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 bludgeon 9 to combatant 1, health -105/90. Dead.

Well, normally that takes longer, but there was that random unblocked crit with a solid damage roll in round 2, and longswords do kill unarmoured combatants really, really fast and these guys didn't even have clothes, much less armour. That fight took ten minutes, most of which was just writing out progress on dude #1 bleeding to death. Most GMs wouldn't even track that, that would have been a two minute fight in an actual game. Of course, most fights don't get a random crit followed by a fumbled guard roll, and take longer. And have more strategy than "luck out, win fight" because most people can change tactics as the circumstances change or the other combatant is weakened, and usually have both armour and additional items. But this example... Well, it's terrible, but it's what it is. Want another one, maybe without the random fight-ending critical hit?

[ngilop]

Pain isn't tied to most damage types anymore, shock and body part integrity only matter when below a certain point (and have clear-cut penalties) and bleeding happens at the end of rounds so it's cleaner.



Alright. Two people, both human adult males, common grade. Level 1 nobles, longswords, no stat tweaks. (So, basically your bog-standard NPCs having a duel. So I'll also assume they don't have any relevant feats, as is usually assumed with NPCs.) Otherwise unarmed and unarmoured, so I don't have to choose secondary weapon and armour combinations.

Combatant 1
Human adult male
Medium Humanoid
Height: 180cm
Mass: 80kg
Character grade: Commoner
Experience: 0
Experience rate: 110%
Experience value: 100
Level: Noble 1
STR: 12
AGL: 10
CON: 10
PER: 10
CHA: 10
RES: 10
Guard: +12
Reflex: +11
Fortitude: +7
Logic: +7
Negate: +7
Will: +7
Base move rate: 2m/s
Skill points: 54
Skill rate: 8
Skills: (Irrelevant, most NPCs don't invest in combat skills, the grapple system isn't finished, there's no armour and they're not going to get their weapon skills up to 25 now.)
Feats: (NPCs don't have to have feats. Technically, everybody is supposed to have them, but the NPCs can be assumed not to have any relevant ones if you don't want to bother.)
Traits: None
Soul barrier: 1
HP: 200/200
Head integrity: 36/36
Torso integrity: 60/60
Arm integrity: 12/12
Leg integrity: 24/24
Natural armour: 1 medium
Defence: 2 innate, 7 active, 1 armour
Damage reduction: 1/--
Immunity: 5% (mental)
Attack: Melee +11, offhand melee +5, ranged +10, offhand ranged +4
Base reach: 100cm
Encumbrance: 82kg, unburdened
Inventory: Longsword
Status: None

Combatant 2
Ditto mark

For the record, I'm rolling dice. This is not pre-prepared.

Initiative:
Combatant 1 17, combatant 2 9. Combatant 1 wins initiative.

Round 1:

Combatant 1:
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 2, 2+6 vs swinging defence 9, miss.
Defensive to total defence.
2m back.

Combatant 2:
2m forward.
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 1, 18+6 vs swinging defence 9, critical hit.
Combatant 1 guards, longsword, 16+18, success+9. Critical negated.
Damage 9+6 slashing 6 bludgeon vs DR 20+9, 0.

Round 2:

Combatant 1:
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 2, 11+6, hit.
Combatant 2 guards, longsword, 18+18, success+18. Critical negated.
Damage 10+6 slashing 6 bludgeon vs DR 20+18, 0.
Total defence to defensive.
2m back.

Combatant 2:
2m forward.
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 1, 19+6, critical hit.
Combatant 1 guards, 3+18, fail. (Well, he's ****ed.)
Damage 6+9 slashing 9 bludgeon vs DR 1, slashing 14, bludgeon 9. Strength 1/12, agility -1/10, constitution -1/10. Health 67/90, shock 75%, torso 21/50, crippled. Slashing bleed 14/90 rounds, bludgeon bleed 9/90 rounds. Mostly dead.
Total defence to defensive.

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 53/90.

Round 3:

Combatant 1 is mostly dead.

Combatant 2 ends combat and walks away.

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 39/90, shock 50%.

Round 4:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 25/90, shock 50%.

Round 5:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 11/90, shock 25%.

Round 6:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -3/90, shock 0%. Unconscious.

Round 7:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 bludgeon 9 to combatant 1, health -26/90, shock -25%.

Round 8:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -40/90.

Round 9:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -54/90, shock -50%.

Round 10:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -68/90, shock -75%.

Round 11:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -82/90.

Round 12:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 bludgeon 9 to combatant 1, health -105/90. Dead.

Well, normally that takes longer, but there was that random unblocked crit with a solid damage roll in round 2, and longswords do kill unarmoured combatants really, really fast and these guys didn't even have clothes, much less armour. That fight took ten minutes, most of which was just writing out progress on dude #1 bleeding to death. Most GMs wouldn't even track that, that would have been a two minute fight in an actual game. Of course, most fights don't get a random crit followed by a fumbled guard roll, and take longer. And have more strategy than "luck out, win fight" because most people can change tactics as the circumstances change or the other combatant is weakened, and usually have both armour and additional items. But this example... Well, it's terrible, but it's what it is. Want another one, maybe without the random fight-ending critical hit?

Hmm I see what you mean there.


100% pure tactical combat and absolutely no throwing dice until you win at all.

[Avianmosquito]

Excuse me, troll, I already said it only went down that way because of a random crit. It was pure luck it went down that way, there were no items and no armour and it was only in the second round so there was no time for ANYTHING else to happen. Normally fights don't go that way, but I'm actually using dice and every once in a while something crazy happens. Normally there would have been more than that. One combatant might have decided to aim for different parts, like the other combatant's arms or legs, one combatant might end up badly wounded so the other fighter would have switched to something more aggressive, and since most fights include items, armour and secondary weapons those would have become important as well. But a one on one with no items, no armour, no secondary weapons, and a random crit with a fumbled guard in round 2 tends to be pretty short and simple.

[CombatOwl]

Excuse me, troll, I already said it only went down that way because of a random crit.

The comment was sarcastic but on-point. Your claim is that your system is about more than rolling dice till you win, but your example demonstrates that it's still mostly about rolling dice till you win.


It was pure luck it went down that way, there were no items and no armour and it was only in the second round so there was no time for ANYTHING else to happen.

I'm not even sure I would call your example tactical. It was pretty much just getting lucky on dice with a lot of extra book-keeping. Why don't you provide a more complete example that details what you actually want to illustrate?


Normally fights don't go that way, but I'm actually using dice and every once in a while something crazy happens.

Illustrative examples are done with contrived numbers, not random numbers. Use the numbers that illustrate what you want to show happening.


One combatant might have decided to aim for different parts, like the other combatant's arms or legs, one combatant might end up badly wounded so the other fighter would have switched to something more aggressive, and since most fights include items, armour and secondary weapons those would have become important as well.

Optimal combat in your system: Go in heavy and aggressive in the first round, try like hell to inflict wound modifiers and bleed damage on the defender. Switch to defense in the subsequent rounds and let your enemy bleed to death. Going aggressive once the enemy is bleeding is pretty stupid in your system.

That said, nothing you've discussed or have written into your system requires the heavy rules and math fetish that you've established.

Let me put this another way: give me a specific example of a situation you feel is handled better by your system than by GURPS (since you seem to think it so poorly designed) or Fate Core (since I'm holding that up as an example of a tactical game). Don't roll dice for it, use contrived numbers to get your point across.


But a one on one with no items, no armour, no secondary weapons, and a random crit with a fumbled guard in round 2 tends to be pretty short and simple.

You're trying to illustrate how your system works, that was a poor example.

[Avianmosquito]

The comment was sarcastic but on-point. Your claim is that your system is about more than rolling dice till you win, but your example demonstrates that it's still mostly about rolling dice till you win.

I realise it was a bad example of tactical combat, that's because it wasn't meant as one. All the example was meant to show was how the damage was handled, as it was a response to GGambrel's question and NOT to yours. GGambrel asked for an example to see how much math was required. And that's what I gave. An example of how much math was required.


I'm not even sure I would call your example tactical. It was pretty much just getting lucky on dice with a lot of extra book-keeping. Why don't you provide a more complete example that details what you actually want to illustrate?

Oh, it isn't that much extra book-keeping and it wasn't meant to show the combat being tactical it was meant to show how much math is required in the system, which really isn't that much. Now, I get that I'm a lot better at math than most people, and I know it comes naturally to me, but I did that in my head and I'm not Stephen Hawking. If I did that in my head with no issues, all a typical person could possibly need is a piece of scrap paper or a calculator and they won't even have to use their brains very much. Not even a scientific calculator, any calculator should do.


Illustrative examples are done with contrived numbers, not random numbers. Use the numbers that illustrate what you want to show happening.

I did the random numbers because it didn't matter what came up for that purpose. I just needed to show that the math wasn't really a big problem with the system.


Optimal combat in your system: Go in heavy and aggressive in the first round, try like hell to inflict wound modifiers and bleed damage on the defender. Switch to defense in the subsequent rounds and let your enemy bleed to death. Going aggressive once the enemy is bleeding is pretty stupid in your system.

So you think it's smarter to go in with no defence while your opponent is still extremely dangerous? Your idea of an optimal strategy kills BOTH combatants, and if you have any items to help out you're making the fight end with both guys dead too fast for the items to stop it. If the combatants start aggressive, they'll *both* hit and *both* die. This is suicidally stupid. This is why, in real life, most people rushing into a knife fight end up killing themselves and their opponents, because if they don't focus on their defence they're both getting stabbed and both bleeding to death. The ONLY hope is that you're so far superior to your opponent you can end the threat they present, to a *total offence* player no less, before their turn comes up, and good luck with that. I'm assuming the player cares more about surviving the encounter than killing their opponent, like that NPC certainly does, so I'm going with a more defensive strategy.

Also, for the record, total defence usually beats total offence. All things being equal, the chance of a successful unblocked hit on somebody with total defence is pretty low, more so with stronger characters. In particular, a strong PC using total defence is basically invincible as far as a single common NPC is concerned, so the player can kill them with the established strategy fairly easily and the NPC can't touch them.

The point of my strategy is to play it safe until the opponent is too badly wounded to fight back effectively, then increase your offence as much as you can without endangering yourself as the fight continues. You can *afford* to increase your offence later on because your enemy's offence is pretty pathetic once blood loss kicks in, so why wouldn't you?


That said, nothing you've discussed or have written into your system requires the heavy rules and math fetish that you've established.

Let me put this another way: give me a specific example of a situation you feel is handled better by your system than by GURPS (since you seem to think it so poorly designed) or Fate Core (since I'm holding that up as an example of a tactical game). Don't roll dice for it, use contrived numbers to get your point across.

Well, in that case, why bother using numbers at all if the result is the important part? At least, for the all or nothing rolls like attacks.


You're trying to illustrate how your system works, that was a poor example.

I was just demonstrating, to GGambrel, the amount of math attacks and damage take.

If you want a better example of tactical combat, I'll do.

Here's the PC I'm using for all of these:

PC
Human adult male
Medium Humanoid
Height: 180cm
Mass: 80kg
Character grade: Messiah
Experience: 10000
Experience rate: 116%
Experience value: 160
Level: Warrior 5
STR: 20
AGL: 16
CON: 16
PER: 16
CHA: 16
RES: 16
Guard: +16
Reflex: +14
Fortitude: +10
Logic: +10
Negate: +10
Will: +10
Base move rate: 3m/s
Skill points: 54
Skill rate: 8
Skills: (I'm going to change this to whatever loadout they need, it's not all one guy after all.)
Feats: (Ditto.)
Traits: None.
Soul barrier: 5
HP: 260/260
Head integrity: 39/39
Torso integrity: 65/65
Arm integrity: 13/13
Leg integrity: 26/26
Natural armour: 1 medium
Defence: 2 innate, 12 active, 1 armour
Damage reduction: 1/--
Immunity: 8% (mental)
Attack: Melee +22, offhand melee +13, ranged +21, offhand ranged +13
Initiative: +13
Base reach: 100cm
Encumbrance: (Dependent on scenario)
Inventory: (Dependent on scenario)
Status: None

Let's start off with an example of when raw aggression is perfectly fine: Against an animal too weak to fight back. Let's assume the PC doesn't have a natural weapon skill of 25. (Weapon skills are different from regular skills where class skills are concerned. They are always capped at 100, regardless of level, but you can *only* put skill points into weapon skills the class you're taking a level in has as a class skill. Same for armour and shields.)

Just to keep this from being a one-hit "fight", I'll leave the human with no more material assets than the wolf. Granted, that just means the "fight" will amount to a man kicking a dog to death. Then possibly eating it and turning its skin into a coat or something.

The wolf's sheet looks like this:
Lone wolf
Wolf adult male
Small animal
Height: 80cm
Mass: 35kg
Character grade: Subhuman
Experience: 0
Experience rate: 58%
Experience value: 15 (This thing is extremely weak, even for its grade, so they have to be worth basically nothing to avoid players specifically going out looking for them. Yes, I've had players decide to stay out in the woods to farm XP in the few tries I've done, so I had to do this.)
Level: Warrior 1
STR: 8
AGL: 8
CON: 4
PER: 8
CHA: 4
RES: 8
Guard: N/A
Reflex: 6
Fortitude: 4
Logic: 4
Negate: 2
Will: 4
Base move rate: 3m/s (At least it can haul ass once it realises this fight is suicide, and the human will never catch it.)
Skill points: 36
Skill rate: 2
Skills: (Not bothering. It could only possibly be relevant if it invested in natural weapon or grapple skill, and it just isn't very likely it has much of either.)
Feats: (It's an NPC, you only bother if they're important enough to get custom tailored.)
Traits: None.
Soul barrier: 1
HP: 60/60
Head integrity: 15/15
Torso integrity: 25/25
Arm integrity: 5/5
Leg integrity: 10/10
Natural armour: 0
Defence: 2 innate, 4 active
Damage reduction: 0
Immunity: 4% (Mental)
Attack: Melee +9, offhand melee +5, bite -9
Initiative: +5
Base reach: +50cm
Encumbrance: 35kg, unburdened
Inventory: None
Status: None

Human wins initiative.

Round 1:

Human:
Starts in full offence.
Power kick (swing) at wolf's torso, hit. (There's no missing here, and the wolf can't make attacks of opportunity. So why not?)
Damage 32 bludgeon vs DR 0. Soul barrier skipped. Health 28/60, shock 50%. Torso -7/25, maimed. Soul break. Bludgeon bleed 32/90 rounds. (Well, that went well.)
Power kick (swing) at wolf's torso, hit.
Damage 32 bludgeon vs DR 0. Health -4/60, shock -0%. Torso -39/25, destroyed. Bludgeon bleed 32/90 rounds. (Houston, we have a broken spine. And possibly a flying wolf.)

Wolf is unconscious and paralysed.

Round 2:

Human:
Power kick (swing) at wolf's torso, hit.
Damage 32 bludgeon vs DR 0. Health -36/60, shock -50%. Torso -71/25, gibbed. Bludgeon bleed 32/90 rounds. Death by body damage. (There's not much that doesn't stop right away when its entire torso is crushed.)

Now, see, THAT is when you can just throw out power straight out the gate. If your opponent can't retaliate, go for it. But if this way anything but an animal, this would be a recipe for two dead combatants instead of one.

Alright, so let's try something that's actually a threat. Let's go ahead and try the warrior PC vs the noble NPC with swords, but do your idea of full offence from the outset. (Note: Nobles don't have a soul barrier until level 2. That was an error in the sheet I forgot to correct.)

PC wins initiative.
Power attack swing.
Oh, ****, what do you know. NPC makes an attack of opportunity jab, and just to rub salt in the sucking chest wound it's a crit.
Damage 6 piercing vs DR 6-10, 6. Strength 17/20, agility 13/16, constitution 13/16. Health 224/230. Torso 59/65. Soul break. Exit wounds bleed, 6/10 rounds. Piercing bleed 6/87 rounds.
PC hits.
Damage 31 slashing 25 bludgeon vs DR 1, 30 slashing 25 bludgeon. Health 115/200, shock 25%. Torso 5/60, crippled. Slashing bleed 30/90 rounds, bludgeon bleed 25/90 rounds. (Hope you're happy. You've disembowelled him but gotten stabbed in the chest in the process.)
Power attack swing. Hit. (Good thing for the PC this guy only has the agility for one AoO per turn.)
Damage 31 slashing 25 bludgeon vs DR 1, 30 slashing 25 bludgeon. Health 30/200, shock 25%. Torso -50/60, destroyed. Slashing bleed 30/90 rounds, bludgeon bleed 25/90 rounds. (Well, he's ****ed.)

NPC makes a flurry swipe and misses because he's disembowelled and so light headed he can't see. Shock damage 110, health -40/200. And that's it.

Bleed:
NPC takes 60 slashing bleed. Health -90/200, shock -25%.
PC takes 6 exit wounds bleed. Health 218/230.

Round 2:

PC makes another power attack swing.
PC hits. Damage 31 slashing 25 bludgeon vs DR 1, 30 slashing 25 bludgeon. Health -175/200, shock -75%. Torso -115/60, destroyed. (And he's been bisected. Which is not a requirement to kill somebody, so you know.)
PC makes another power attack swing.
PC hits. Same damage as all these other times, I'm sticking with the rounded average. Health -260/200, shock -75%. Torso -160/60, gibbed. Death by health loss. And body damage. (And he's now had his bisected torso bisected again. Because why the **** not, I guess.)

Bleed:
PC takes 6 piercing bleed, 6 exit wounds bleed. Health 206/230.

Bleed will continue on merrily for over eight minutes, and the PC will collapse. They'll eventually sink to -94 health, where they're now taking 6/hour shock damage, perfectly cancelling out their heal rate of 6 and leaving them unconscious until they either get medical attention or their needs progress far enough for their heal rate to slip below 6 and they start losing health faster than they gain. If the latter, which WILL happen if nobody comes along to help, they'll eventually die. And that's assuming nothing kills them while they're lying unconscious on the ground in a pool of their own blood.

Okay. Let's try that with a PC that's not suicidally overconfident.

Round 1.

PC:
Total defence to defensive.
Longsword swing at NPC's left leg. Hit.
NPC attempts guard and fails because he's not strong or fast enough to keep up with the PC.
Damage 21 slashing 15 bludgeon vs DR 1, 20 slashing 15 bludgeon. Health 145/200, shock 25%. Left leg -11/24. Slashing bleed 20/90 rounds, bludgeon bleed 15/90 rounds.
Defensive to total defence.
3m back. (Oh, that NPC is crying right now. About the movement alone, now that he has a maimed leg three metres is a long ways.)

NPC:
There's not much the NPC can actually do. He doesn't have enough time to reach his opponent without hurting himself more, and even making that an attack move requires he first drop total defence, which he can't do while moving. He drops total defence, then moves all the way up to total offence as an act of desperation, but can't do anything else.

Bleed:
NPC takes 20 slashing bleed. Health 125/200.

Round 2:
Total defence to defensive.
3m forward.
Flurry swipe at right leg, hit.
Damage 16 slashing vs DR 1, 15 slashing. Health 95/200, 50% shock. Right leg 9/24, crippled. Slashing bleed 15/90 rounds.
3m back.
Defensive to total defence.

NPC:
NPC can no longer reach the PC at all due to his level of shock. He can barely stand. Literally. He drops his weapon and begs for mercy.

Bleed:
NPC takes 35 slashing bleed. Health 60/200.

Round 3:

PC isn't a total bastard and accepts his surrender. Combat ends. He steps in, kicking away his opponent's weapon. He tries to treat the wounds he just inflicted, and as a solo warrior he has a decent heal skill. (Solo warriors have to, or they'll die.) However, these wounds are too large to be treated without items unless the PC is really lucky. The PC chooses to seek a medical professional to treat his wounded opponent... And get some nice bonus XP in the process.

Ah, wishful thinking. Okay, now for what really happens.

The PC ignores his opponent's cries for mercy, changes over to defensive stance and makes a power attack move, swing, at his surrendering opponent's head. He critically hits his helpless target.
Damage 36 slashing 30 bludgeon vs DR 1, 35 slashing 30 bludgeon. Strength -20, agility -22, constitution -22, perception -22, charisma -22, resolve -22. Health 0/0, dead. Head -29/36, maimed. Death through constitution loss as the NPC's brains splatter across the ground and the man is killed needlessly for no real reason other than the PC is a monster. The GM shakes his head and decides on a nice punch in the gut for the player in retaliation. Probably meeting the NPC's family or something.

And let's try a situation where full aggression really is the best option because the enemy is legitimately dangerous. A ranged weapon user. This time... I don't know, we need a female character, haven't had one yet. So let's make the rest of the opponents female. And for this archer, let's assume she's got a backup weapon, a hatchet, and she's got some distance on the PC. Two hundred metres sounds like enough, PCs are REALLY fast. No cover, but she's not inaccessible.

NPC
Human adult female
Medium Humanoid
Height: 180cm
Mass: 80kg
Character grade: Commoner
Experience: 0
Experience rate: 110%
Experience value: 100
Level: Warrior 1
STR: 10
AGL: 12
CON: 10
PER: 10
CHA: 10
RES: 10
Guard: +11
Reflex: +12
Fortitude: +7
Logic: +7
Negate: +7
Will: +7
Base move rate: 2m/s
Skill points: 42
Skill rate: 4
Skills: (As irrelevant as ever.)
Feats: (Ditto.)
Traits: None
Soul barrier: 1
HP: 200/200
Head integrity: 36/36
Torso integrity: 60/60
Arm integrity: 12/12
Leg integrity: 24/24
Natural armour: 1 medium
Defence: 2 innate, 8 active, 1 armour
Damage reduction: 1/--
Immunity: 5% (mental)
Attack: Melee +12, offhand melee +6, ranged +12, offhand ranged +6
Base reach: 100cm
Encumbrance: 83.5kg, unburdened
Inventory: Longbow, 20 broadhead arrows, hatchet.
Status: None

Round 1.
PC wins initiative.

PC:
Starts in total defence.
Sprint 72m forward.

NPC:
Starts in balanced.
Ready arrow.
Draw bow.

Round 2.

PC:
Sprint 72m forward.

NPC:
Shoots arrow from 56m, misses.
Drops bow.

PC:
Switch to defensive.
Sprint 56m forward, attack move, power swing to the torso. Hit.
36 slashing 30 bludgeon vs DR 1, 35 slashing 30 bludgeon. Health 100/200, shock 50%. Torso -5/60, maimed. Slashing bleed 35/90 rounds, bludgeon bleed 30/90 rounds.

Bleed:
Slashing bleed 35 to NPC, health 65/200.

Round 3.
Switches to defensive stance.
Draws hatchet.
PC makes attack of opportunity, swipe to the head, critical hit.
16 slashing damage vs DR 1, 15 slashing. Strength 3/10, agility 5/12, constitution 3/10, perception 3/10, charisma 3/10, resolve 3/10. Health -35/130, shock 0%. Torso -20/60. Jagged wounds bleed 15d3/10 rounds. Slashing bleed 15/90 rounds.

Bleed:
Jagged wounds bleed 30. Slashing bleed 50. -115/130, -75% shock.

Round 4.

PC:
Ends combat. Takes NPC's bow and arrows. Walks away.

Bleed:
Jagged wounds bleed 30. Slashing bleed 50. -195/130, dead.

Alright, how about an opponent where bleeding doesn't work? Should you still be defensive? Well, let's try a zombie. Say, zombify the woman from before, assume she's undamaged, and give her just the axe instead of the axe and bow. (I bet you the PC's wishing she was wearing something now. Or... Maybe not. Who knows. PCs can be weird sometimes.)

NPC
Zombie human adult female
Medium Humanoid
Height: 180cm
Mass: 80kg
Character grade: Commoner
Experience: 0
Experience rate: 70%
Experience value: 60
Level: Warrior 1
STR: 10
AGL: 10
CON: 8
PER: 8
CHA: 10
RES: 8
Guard: +11
Reflex: +11
Fortitude: +6
Logic: +6
Negate: +7
Will: +6
Base move rate: 1m/s
Skill points: 39
Skill rate: 3
Skills: (Who cares?)
Feats: (″)
Traits: None
Soul barrier: 1 (Seems weird that this setting's zombies have soul barriers, doesn't it? Bet you can't guess why.)
Health: Non-applicable.
Head integrity: 33/33
Torso integrity: 55/55
Arm integrity: 11/11
Leg integrity: 22/22
Natural armour: 0
Defence: 2 innate, 7 active
Damage reduction: 3/Slashing, Piercing
Immunity: 4% (mental), 100% poison, disease, bleed, nonlethal
Attack: Melee +11, offhand melee +5, ranged +10, offhand ranged +5
Base reach: 100cm
Encumbrance: 81kg, unburdened
Inventory: Hatchet.
Status: None

PC wins initiative, no ****.

PC:
Goes full retard once again, total offence.
Power attack swing at NPC's head.
Zombie makes an attack an opportunity swipe, zombie or not. She hits. (Nope. Still not a good idea.)
Damage 4 piercing vs DR 6-5, 3 piercing. Health 257/260. Torso 62/65. Soul break. Piercing bleed 3/84 rounds. (Oh, lovely. Now you're bleeding from a hatchet wound to the abdomen. At least this wound isn't fatal. I did the math, if you don't get hurt more you'll survive with 131/260hp. You won't be able to move very well for a while, but you'll live.)
PC hits, 36 slashing 30 bludgeon vs DR 3/Slashing, Piercing, 36 slashing 27 bludgeon. Head -30/33, maimed.
Same attack, now that she's going down already.
PC critically hits, 36 slashing 30 bludgeon vs DR 3/Slashing, Piercing, 36 slashing 27 bludgeon. Strength -21, agility -21, constitution -23, perception -23, charisma -21, resolve -23. Head -102/24, gibbed. Death by body damage.

Alright. Now let's have the PC not be suicidal.

PC wins initiative.
Swing at NPC's head, hit.
Damage 21 slashing 15 bludgeon vs DR 3/Slashing, Piercing, 21 slashing 12 bludgeon. Head 0/33, maimed. (See? Works great.)
Swing at NPC's head, critical hit.
Ditto on the damage. Strength -6, agility -6, constitution -8, perception -8, charisma -6, resolve -8. Head -36/30, destroyed. Death by body damage.

See how much better than works? He's not even using total defence, he's in balanced stance, and he's killing her easy in relative safety. Imagine if he was in total defence, how safe he'd be then. Almost all the time total defence is better than total offence, you ONLY use total offence if the enemy can't fight back effectively.

Alright. That's what I've got for now. I can do more later if you're unsatisfied, in fact I can do this all day, but for right now I'm stopping because I think this is sufficient and I really need to eat something.

Edit:
Hey guys! Guess what PISSES ME OFF? When my partner adds a feature to a weapon and doesn't TELL ME. Apparently the longsword now gets +2 penetration, +4 when wielded with both hands. Well, I didn't forget it. I just didn't KNOW. So... **** it. I'm not fixing it. It doesn't change anything here.

[GGambrel]

I realise it was a bad example of tactical combat, that's because it wasn't meant as one. All the example was meant to show was how the damage was handled, as it was a response to GGambrel's question and NOT to yours. GGambrel asked for an example to see how much math was required. And that's what I gave. An example of how much math was required.

Sorry, I should have been clearer in my post. I meant to suggest that a character sheet and illustrative examples be added to the PDF so that readers have an easier time seeing how attributes and skills affect combat. Though I did ask about the number of variables to keep track of during combat, I didn't mean to request a combat example specifically for that purpose.

The examples you gave helped me understand what combat might look like quite a bit. However when writing examples for the PDF, I think you should go into even more detail than your first example. You should emphasize what modifiers are added to rolls, what tables to check to see if a body part's integrity has fallen below a specified level, what the events taking place might look to the characters, etc. Even D&D can bewilder intelligent people if they are presented with more material before they have had time to grasp the more fundamental mechanics.

I'm not advocating an entire combat sequence, but more of a "spotlight" on how each of the elements of combat (Weapon Type, Stance, Attack, Attributes, Integrity, Bleeding, Shock, Health, Soul Break, Status Effects, etc) comes into play.

Also, in regards to whether anyone here knows about medieval combat, I think it would be helpful if people explained (in brief) how they came to know what they share. I'm guessing most of us haven't taken part in a medieval battle, but we may have had other experiences which inform what seems reasonable to us. For instance, my ninja powers allow me to rip people's brains out with relative ease (I've practiced on bodies donated to science), so I have a pretty good idea of how durable skulls are. :smallwink:

[Avianmosquito]

Sorry, I should have been clearer in my post. I meant to suggest that a character sheet and illustrative examples be added to the PDF so that readers have an easier time seeing how attributes and skills affect combat. Though I did ask about the number of variables to keep track of during combat, I didn't mean to request a combat example specifically for that purpose.

Oh. Okay. I can do that. Not right away, but I can do that.


The examples you gave helped me understand what combat might look like quite a bit. However when writing examples for the PDF, I think you should go into even more detail than your first example. You should emphasize what modifiers are added to rolls, what tables to check to see if a body part's integrity has fallen below a specified level, what the events taking place might look to the characters, etc. Even D&D can bewilder intelligent people if they are presented with more material before they have had time to grasp the more fundamental mechanics.

This is intended to be in later, of course. For right now we're focused on getting enough for a campaign in, then putting in the examples. But if examples are more important to do first than getting a campaign ready, we can switch to that.


I'm not advocating an entire combat sequence, but more of a "spotlight" on how each of the elements of combat (Weapon Type, Stance, Attack, Attributes, Integrity, Bleeding, Shock, Health, Soul Break, Status Effects, etc) comes into play.

Alright. Although most are at least simple. Like soul break just means that the soul barrier has fallen. Which occurs if any damage is done to the subject, or if a counter effect hits 100. All that is meant to tell you is that soul barrier is no longer providing protection, and the target is more vulnerable. (Pretty negligible at low levels, but when somebody is at, say, level 20 it can be the difference between no damage and full damage.)


Also, in regards to whether anyone here knows about medieval combat, I think it would be helpful if people explained (in brief) how they came to know what they share. I'm guessing most of us haven't taken part in a medieval battle, but we may have had other experiences which inform what seems reasonable to us. For instance, my ninja powers allow me to rip people's brains out with relative ease (I've practiced on bodies donated to science), so I have a pretty good idea of how durable skulls are. :smallwink:

Martial arts. I'm a practitioner of HEMA most recently. I've also been a kendo practitioner since I was a child, although I haven't practiced in a few months since my last shinai broke and I never got around to replacing it, and at one time I was practitioner of kyudo but I lost my bow when i moved. And it's HEMA and Kendo that taught me what I know about historical weaponry, western and eastern respectively. You learn a lot from them. Their techniques, their reasoning and information, their historical knowledge. It's all fascinating. I did fencing briefly then walked away because it was obviously bull****. I also understand hand to hand combat pretty well. I have received instruction in mixed martial arts including elements of systema, judo, boxing, kick boxing, wrestling, taekwondo and karate. I'm not going to claim to be especially good or talented because I'm not in especially good physical condition, but I'm well taught, read and studied, and according to my various instructors I am better at martial arts than I should be in my shape, and if only my endurance was better I could be a very strong competitor. (And I'm willing to admit that even that might just be my instructors being nice, except that I do win considerably more than I lose, and they usually follow it by trying to push me to exercise more.) That, my study of military history and my interaction with the rest of the martial arts community is my entire resume, really.

EDIT:
I would like to quickly mention something associated with this. If I seem short-tempered, that's because I have a broken rib, it hurts, and I refuse to take painkillers. And I think the doctor telling me the other two are just "cracked" is full of ****, that guy definitely hit hard enough to break three of them. I'm just glad that it was a practice blade that idiot hit me with or I'd be dead.

[GGambrel]

This is intended to be in later, of course. For right now we're focused on getting enough for a campaign in, then putting in the examples. But if examples are more important to do first than getting a campaign ready, we can switch to that.

Good to hear. I suppose getting the material itself around for play-testing and whatnot is a bigger priority.


Martial arts. I'm a practitioner of HEMA most recently. I've also been a kendo practitioner since I was a child...

Interesting. Have you looked at The Riddle of Steel? My understanding is that the author is a member of the Association of Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA). I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it, as I plan on referring to it when working out thresholds for injury for my game. (The combat mechanics are VERY different from what I have in mind though.)


...I have a broken rib, it hurts, and I refuse to take painkillers...

I hope your ribs heal quickly. :smallsmile:

[Avianmosquito]

Good to hear. I suppose getting the material itself around for play-testing and whatnot is a bigger priority.

Alright then. Continuing the way we were, then.


Interesting. Have you looked at The Riddle of Steel? My understanding is that the author is a member of the Association of Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA). I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it, as I plan on referring to it when working out thresholds for injury for my game. (The combat mechanics are VERY different from what I have in mind though.)

I've never heard of it, and money's rather tight so I suspect I won't be paying for anything, but if I can for free I'll give it a look.

EDIT:
Sorry. I know, I'm cheap, but I'm not paying $35 for an RPG I know basically nothing about, and all I have established so far is that is uses a die pool system, which is something I generally don't like but is a matter strictly of personal preference. Sure, it looks more or less fine and the ARMA approval means something, but I'm definitely not dropping that much money on it. All the RPG books I have I managed to get for free, (presently just the core books for D&D 2e, 3.5e, Pathfinder and 4e, the core book to GURPS which I think my ex-wife presently has and frankly she can ****ing keep it, and Shadowrun which my daughter took to a friend's house before I got a chance to actually play it and it never came back, and countless paper printouts of small, homebrewed RPG systems my friends and I used to make for all sorts of occasions) and unless that happens for The Riddle of Steel, I'm not going to get it.


I hope your ribs heal quickly. :smallsmile:

I always heal quickly, but thanks.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review.