Combat reworked

[heretic]

I have always been slightly annoyed at the AC system for not taking into account parrying. The RAW currently seem to say that as a character gets more skilled at fighting, the only way for him to become better at defending himself is to either wear heavier armor or buy a bunch of magic items.

So to remedy the situation, here's my idea.

Apply a character's BAB to their AC. However, it only applies to the first melee attack against them each round. If their BAB allows for multiple attacks, then the secondary BAB values may be used against secondary attacks.

Armor as Damage Reduction would also be used.

Basically, in a one on one duel, the more skilled fighter will almost always win. However, that same skilled fighter can be outfought by multiple opponents.

I have a whole magic tweak that goes along with this, but just assume that these changes are for a low magic campaign setting.
[hr]

My only question is what to do about ranged weapons. The current system I specified above would make them insanely good. The only thing I can think of is to cut the range in half for everything, but that seems a bit draconian.

[brian c]

Well, if you just add BAB as a dodge bonus to AC and let it apply to ranged attacks too, that might work. This is probably going to make combat last a lot longer though; first attacks would almost never hit, and subsequent attacks have lower BAB anyway, so in general attacks will be less likely to hit unless it's combat against a bunch of opponents with good BAB.

Another consequence of this system would be that AC is more affected by level than by equipment; I wouldn't have a problem with that though, seems realistic.

I like it.

[Rift_Wolf]

I prefer the idea of damage reduction when wearing armour opposed to dodging blows when wearing none. Chain would be x/Piercing, for example. At the moment a bad roll can lead to the death of a rogue while fighting two wolves (And I wasn't even giving the wolves AOO or trip attempts), whereas damage reduction means it's not the end of the world if something gets hold of you.

[heretic]

Well, if you just add BAB as a dodge bonus to AC and let it apply to ranged attacks too, that might work. This is probably going to make combat last a lot longer though; first attacks would almost never hit, and subsequent attacks have lower BAB anyway, so in general attacks will be less likely to hit unless it's combat against a bunch of opponents with good BAB.

That's kinda what I'm trying to avoid. The point is that you're actively parrying, not dodging.

Balance wise, what you're saying makes perfect sense, but RP wise, I want a sword fight to involve the swords hitting each other instead of a whole lot of swooshing misses.


I prefer the idea of damage reduction when wearing armour opposed to dodging blows when wearing none. Chain would be x/Piercing, for example. At the moment a bad roll can lead to the death of a rogue while fighting two wolves (And I wasn't even giving the wolves AOO or trip attempts), whereas damage reduction means it's not the end of the world if something gets hold of you.

That's the next step. Although I would say that armor would have two values, like 5/Piercing and 2/-.

Because battleaxes do go through chainmail, although not all that easily

[brian c]

That's kinda what I'm trying to avoid. The point is that you're actively parrying, not dodging.

Balance wise, what you're saying makes perfect sense, but RP wise, I want a sword fight to involve the swords hitting each other instead of a whole lot of swooshing misses.

Okay, keep it as an untyped bonus, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that you can "parry" arrows too; maybe make that 1/2 BAB since it's a bit more difficult to do than just block a sword.




That's the next step. Although I would say that armor would have two values, like 5/Piercing and 2/-.

Because battleaxes do go through chainmail, although not all that easily

5/Piercing means that all piercing damage does normal, and other types do 5 less damage. 2/- means that any damage does 2 less. I think it's overkill to have two different types of DR on the same armor, if that's what you're saying. 5/Piercing does just fine for saying that battleaxes can go through chainmail: the "not easily" part is why the first 5 damage doesn't really count.

[heretic]

My example was bad. What I meant to say was that even chainmail is some protection against arrows, and no armor can be completely pierced by a certain type of weapon.

[brian c]

My example was bad. What I meant to say was that even chainmail is some protection against arrows, and no armor can be completely pierced by a certain type of weapon.

Well, normally the protection that chainmail gives against arrows is part of the AC value for chainmail... does the armor as DR get rid of armor AC bonus completely?

[cferejohn]

Well you could give each class an increasing AC modifier a la D20 modern, and then use the GURPS-style active/passive defense thing. That is: armor gives you an AC bonus (makes you harder to hit) and *also* has some kind of DR against physical weapons. You'd want to adjust the AC bonuses down a bit from where they are now. So like leather armor is +2 to AC, but also gives DR of 2/non-physical damage, or something like that.

If you wanted to, you could make the DRs more specific re: piercing/slashing/bludgeoning, but I'm prone to say it would get to be too much bookeeping.

Also probably want to have critical hits bypass armor, maybe give characters w/sneak attack ability some ability to bypass armor as well, and also add some feats allowing characters to bypass some or all of an armor's DR.

Any way you slice it, it probably is adding more bookeeping to combat, but if you think that it's worth it for the additional realism as far as armor is concerned, go for it...

[Ceiling009]

when you miss thier AC, it's not so much really whooshing by or anything, it's more like you hit and it doesn't do anything, or better they parry it... parrying is a wierd thing, which adds to book keeping, but there are some parry rules floating around these forums... and some classes that have enhanced parry like rules... techinically, when you attack anything and miss or hit, what i imagine for a more realistic combat would involve a lot of aoo's and ranges for how much you beat the ac... or miss... which would then incur aoo's...

[asqwasqw]

I would think you would actively have to parry, aka full defense option.

[brian c]

when you miss thier AC, it's not so much really whooshing by or anything, it's more like you hit and it doesn't do anything, or better they parry it... parrying is a wierd thing, which adds to book keeping, but there are some parry rules floating around these forums... and some classes that have enhanced parry like rules... techinically, when you attack anything and miss or hit, what i imagine for a more realistic combat would involve a lot of aoo's and ranges for how much you beat the ac... or miss... which would then incur aoo's...

That's a good point: a "realistic" combat system would involve a lot more Attacks of Opportunity. Of course, AoOs can be a lot of bookkeeping as they are already; I had a DM once who refused to use them at all.

I was particularly upset about that because I had a Half-Ogre and I wanted to take Large and in Charge- whenever you get an AoO form someone moving in your threatened area, you can push them back with an opposed Str check. When you have 10ft reach, and high enough Str (plus size bonus, plus a bonus for how much damage your AoO does) to assure you'll win the opposed check, that's a pretty good feat.

[Ceiling009]

Yeah, bookkeeping normally makes me have a sub gm for mechanics alone in larger groups... but yeah, to me AC, armor, dex, and whatever take into account when you're actively fighting, ie, not flat-footed, you would be actively parrying while trying to get your hits in... remember it's 6 seconds a round no matter how many people are actually in the round. A full defensive action means you give up your attacks in lieu for basically standing your ground and parrying/dodging/hoping they hit the armor the blows really. Sure the dice don't sound exciting really, but I would say it's more about the DM being imaginative about the fight... If you really want to add more to the Armor, cause it really doesn't scale... but your hp does, I'd agree with the DR and the base defense bonus from class... cause after all, after all your years of adventuring... you can't defend yourself at all? that's down-right wierd.

[heretic]

My other goal was to make it so that high level adventurers can still be brought down by force of numbers, hence the BAB to first, second, whatever.

The class bonus makes sense, except that it makes touch attacks much harder to land and high level characters nigh invincible.

[Matthew]

Adding your BAB to AC is a quick a dirty solution for 'low magic' campaigns. Have you looked at the alternate rules that already exist for this sort of thing, though? The SRD contains the Defence Bonus and Armour as Damage Reduction rules from Unearthed Arcana.

[heretic]

Yes, but those still make high level characters impossible to hit against low level opponents.

The goal is to eliminate the massive power rift between high and low levels by getting rid of most magic. Replacing it with a class bonus doesn't solve anything mechanically.

[Neek]

There's a few problems with this set-up, using the BAB as a defense bonus. This implies that you can, at any time, block an attack. Doesn't matter with what. A wolf parries. A gelatinous cube parries. The kobold sorcerer parries. The two-fisted monk, he's blocking attacks left and right. And they're always doing it--despite the amount of actual combat training they might receive it. As a Feat or a class feature, this is a great idea.

A better idea would be to apply three variant rules:
1). Defense Bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm). This provides a flat defense bonus in lieu of armor class providing defense bonus. This factors in combat training and tactics.
2). And since you're giving up AC from armor, it should provide damage reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm).
3). Lastly, add in a variant from the DMG, defense rolls. Take your dexterity, your class-based defense modifier, size modifier, and magical deflection bonuses from armor, and add that to the result of a d20 roll; that is, make an opposed defense check to their attack check. The DC being whatever you roll. You can apply this roll either for an entire combat round, or per strike. The latter requires more dice rolling, but can be more fun.

Back in the day of second edition, we had a variant rule where you could burn your extra attacks for the round and make opposed attacks to parry an attack. I wasn't sure how I felt about it, but it could be a definite possibility.

[Matthew]

Yep, those are the three rules I was thinking of as well. The old Block mechanic was always something that appealed to me. It gets resurrected here every few weeks. I think there's even a Thread on it here on the first page or two of this Forum...

[Neek]

Yes, but those still make high level characters impossible to hit against low level opponents.

The goal is to eliminate the massive power rift between high and low levels by getting rid of most magic. Replacing it with a class bonus doesn't solve anything mechanically.

I forgot to address this in my previous post, but allow me to now. If you feel that a class bonus doesn't solve anything mechanically when you throw away magic, consider this: Combat training. The Defense bonus provides a raw modifier based on the level of combat competency, along with their innate spryness. Same reason why a fighter can throw down a massive number of attacks per round. Same reason why an unskilled, unexperienced, snot-nosed combatant can't hit a battled-hardened, demon-slapping soldier. That soldier has a training edge.

Now, add in the factor of randomness; the defense roll. There's a chance, a 5% chance, that the soldier makes a mistake, keeps his guard down and a lucky swing goes in. There's also a chance, a 5% change, that the snot-nosed kid blocks a hit that should've killed him.

Matthew: You know, I hadn't notice anyone else bring it up. Might be because I'm not here too often. It's a nifty mechanic, expect for the whole slowing down combat bit.

[Matthew]

Here's the current Thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44108
I think I linked it back to the last one, which links to the one before that and so on. It's more like months than weeks, it just feels like that latter...

None of them are exactly the same, of course, just new incarnations following the same line of thought.