Point by Round Combat[Fudge/Generic-Could work for 3.x]

[Knaight]

Point by Round Combat is something I have been giving a lot of thought to lately. The basic concept is that people get a certain amount of points per round, determined primarily by weapon, that they then get to use on different abilities. For instance lets say a sword gives you 8+agility points(this being built for fudge that would be +3 to -3) to spend per round. A quick strike might only take up 2 points, but it wouldn't deal heavy damage, a feint might be like a quick attack, taking up 4 points but it also gives a bonus to attack, a normal attack might be 4 points, a powerful attack might take 6 points with a bonus to damage, etc. Faster weapons have higher point values, but deal less damage. Moving would also take these points, stances would adjust point values, etc. So first thing first, the example melee weapon list:
{table] Weapon|Speed|Damage(Fudge)|Damage(D&D)|Reach
Dagger|12|1|1d4|0
Short Sword|10|2|1d6|1
Light Sword|8|3|1d8|1
Heavy Sword|6|4|1d10|1
Great Sword|6|4|1d10|2

Short Staff|9|2|1d6|1
Staff|8|2|1d6|2
Long Staff|7|2|1d6|3
Short Spear|7|3|1d8|2
Long Spear|5|4|1d10|3

Short Axe|8|2|1d6|1
Long Axe|6|3|1d8|1
Two Handed Axe|6|4|1d10|2

Light Mace|8|2|1d8|1
Heavy Mace|6|3|1d10|1[/table]
Ranged weapons would have different kinds of shots(covering fire, aiming at a body part, whatever). A second weapon can be used in the off hand, but it only gets half the points it would normally.

[Knaight]

There aren't necessarily a great many moves, and all of them can be used with any weapon. The example moves only adjust damage and range, but characters can always learn special moves. Note that +2 damage in fudge is equivalent to giving out a second die, much like 4e does with the W, although this system is a bad idea in regard to 4e. Damage and Range are always modifiers.

Moves
{table]Move|Cost|Damage|Range
Attack|4|0|0
Fast Attack|3|-1|0
Powerful Swing|6|+1|0
Back Step|2|N/A|Take 1 step back
Leap Back|5|N/A|Take 2 steps back
Forward Step|2|N/A|Take 1 step forward
Forward Leap|5|N/A|Take 2 steps forward
Thrust|5|0|1
Lunge|7|0|2
[/table]
Note that a forward leap against a lunge gives +2 ODF to the lunger, and a forward step against a lunge gives +1 ODF to the lunger. However if the person doing the lunge misses the person who leapt forward gets to attack once with no chance to parry, although there is still a dodge. For D&D this means -4 AC.
Stances
Aggressive +3 points per round, -1 to defense(-4 AC)
Defensive -3 points per round +1 to defense(+4 AC)
Balanced +4 points per round, -1 range
Unbalanced -4 points per round +1 range

This is intended for simultaneous combat, someone might use powerful attack when someone else uses leap back to get out of the way, or someone might take a forward leap to get in close when the other guy lunges(thats not going to be good). In a turn based game allow several parries on the part of the defender in addition to just normal default defense. In the case of a simultaneous game, make a reflexes roll at the beginning of combat, then everybody picks a few moves and a stance that they are putting themselves in a position to carry out, then people with higher reflexes choose the order later than those with lower reflexes. Shields themselves would probably also have a few special abilities that you can use with them.

Thoughts?

[Knaight]

Movement: For games where movement would work best handled by points, the easiest method is to use the same points given by the weapon for movement, along with a movement speed, then use percentage. So moving maximum distance costs all the points, half distance half the points, etc. As an example, if someone can move 40 feet in a round, and are using a short spear with a +1 bonus from either good agility(fudge, may also be any number of other attributes) or 12-13 dexterity(D&D), 5 feet of movement costs 1 point.

An example: Conan and Achilles(to use examples everyone is familiar with) are fighting a duel. Achilles has a spear, having lost his shield earlier, Conan a two handed sword. Both have Great strength, and Great agility, Achilles has great reflexes and good toughness, and Conan great toughness and good reflexes. That gives Conan 8 points, and Achilles 9.

Round 1. They roll reflexes, Achilles wins, giving him the advantage. Conan takes an aggressive stance, giving him 11 points, Achilles takes a normal stance, leaving him at 9. Conan, being Conan takes Powerful Swing(6) and attack(4) Achilles takes back step(2) forward step(2) and attack(4). Conan picks first using Powerful Swing, which Achilles negates by default using back step. Conan then waits, and Achilles uses forward step. Combat skills(Conan Superb, Achilles legendary) are rolled and Achilles gets a legendary, and Conan a superb, so Conan misses. Achilles then attacks, getting a legendary +1, and Conan rolls a -1, getting a great(offense)/good. This inflicts a very hurt wound on Conan, giving him a -2 penalty for next round.

Round 2. They roll reflexes, and Achilles wins again. Conan takes a balanced stance, giving him 12 points, and takes leap back twice, and back step once. Achilles takes an unbalanced step for the range, anticipating a retreat, as well as an aggressive stance, giving him 8 points. He then takes lunge. Achilles picks lunge, and Conan uses leap back, which almost gets him out of range. Dice are rolled, and Achilles gets a legendary+3, and Conan a mediocre(-2 wound penalty, rolled a -2, the dice hate him apparently.) Thats really bad for Conan, due to a 8 relative degree, that goes up to 11(spear), and he is now dying on the ground. Achilles ties him to his chariot, and drags him around until he dies.

[AstralFire]

Thoughts?

I dunno about Fudge, but far too many numbers for the already number-laden 3.x combat. A good idea, but I think better used in a video game.

[Pronounceable]

The main idea works. I have a similar action point system (shamelessly ripped from Jagged Alliance games) and it goes very well in playtest. Problem is, it's too unwieldy and as AstralFire said works much better in a computer game (like JA). Consequently, in a REAL game I tend to drop it.

And you got tables. Tables are always chaotic evil.

[Knaight]

Usually I agree, but in this case with Fudge its simple enough already that you could fit them on the character sheet, as for the weapon, just write it down. Thats why I built this for fudge, its combat is far simpler than 3.5 and this adds a level of crunchiness, which admittedly 3.5 could do without.