PDA

View Full Version : Grittyer combat system



Dairian
2009-01-08, 03:32 PM
Ive been working on a new combat system and I want your guys thoughts.

I was inspired by the vitality/wnds system formally used in starwars d20.

In my system, both attacker and defender roll and add bonuses. if the defender rolls higher, the attack is a miss. if the attacker hits by less then 10, then the defender takes vitality dmg equal to the amount he lost the roll by. if the attacker hits by 10 or more, then weapon dmg is rolled, and subtracted from wnds.

armor in my system provides DR for wnds dmg only.

I also have no, level based defense bonus, and give a +5 to hit at point blank.

im also thinking of allowing defenders in melee combat to make attack rolls instead of defense rolls, as long as they are properly armed, giving a decent incentive for disarm attempts.

Human Paragon 3
2009-01-08, 05:18 PM
A couple of questions:

1) If the defender makes an attack roll, does he wound his opponent or block the attacker's strike?

2) Why have both characters roll? Seems like doubleing the rolling for no particular reason when defense could just be at a flat +10

3) Is there a level-based defense bonus, or isn't there? It was a bit unclear from how you worded the sentance

4) What do you mean by point blank? And does it only work with crossbows, or what?

Satyr
2009-01-08, 06:39 PM
That is pretty much the way I run combats in the homebrew version of 3rd edition D&D; it's not necessarily grittier, but more suspenseful. Passive Defense is a terrible rule.


Why have both characters roll? Seems like doubleing the rolling for no particular reason when defense could just be at a flat +10
Because not roling for Defense is a good way to make combats less interesting, suspenseful and leaves out the feeling that you can defend yourself. At leasst player characters should always roll, not being forced to taken 10 on something crucial as defense. Besides, this gives the chance for Natural 20 Defense, adding a new level of cool maneuvers.

Neek
2009-01-08, 07:21 PM
I like opposed defense rolls. It's easy to fit in, as the system currently otherwise has you taking 10 on Defense checks. This gives the dynamic that you are actively avoiding a hit, and sometimes you just fall into them, while others you are spectacular at it.

The problem, as the 3.0 DMG states to this variant, is that it slows combat down. Every attack has two rolls: The attack and the defense. And every multiple attack requires a defense roll on every attack placed. This can become tedious.

There's an additional place: How do you rule defense rolls when the target isn't expecting it? That is, flat-footed? I'm a proponent of keeping it static.

As to your mechanic, it rewards higher rolls other than a hit. This is nice, but how do you handle critical hits?

Lawst
2009-01-08, 07:32 PM
If armor only provides DR, and there are no bonuses to your defense roll, doesn't that mean that at higher levels, pretty much every attack is going to hit? I mean, if the defender only has a chance of 1-20 for his defense bonus, then any attack roll above 20 will automatically hit. Or are you allowing magical defense upgrades to enhance your defense bonus?
I like the idea of opposed attack rolls in melee combat, where it shows ones ability to deflect blows with their weapon, but again, how do you deal with the multiple attacks? Does the defender gain the full attack bonus for each defense roll, or do you subtract from the roll after each defense roll is made?

cnsvnc
2009-01-09, 01:12 AM
I'm against opposed rolls for resolving attacks. The quite massive slow down doesn't really justify the added tension (which may not be welcome to some in any case), especially when there's also the damage roll. I can see it happening IFF damage roll is abolished as well.

And multiple attacks and attackers are a pain.

Satyr
2009-01-09, 04:50 AM
The problem, as the 3.0 DMG states to this variant, is that it slows combat down. Every attack has two rolls: The attack and the defense. And every multiple attack requires a defense roll on every attack placed. This can become tedious.

If this is a problem (I never found it to be), you can decide that only PCs and important NPCs roll at all while mook soldiers etc. always take 10 - on attacks as well as Defenses. Critical hits of the NPCs would then depend on the bad rolls of the players.
You can also reduce the number of Defensive Rolls to one per round or one per opponent instead of one per attack.


There's an additional place: How do you rule defense rolls when the target isn't expecting it? That is, flat-footed? I'm a proponent of keeping it static.

The rules already cover defense the flat-footedness and surprise attacks; you only replace the static +10 bonus with a D20 roll.


The quite massive slow down doesn't really justify the added tension (which may not be welcome to some in any case), especially when there's also the damage roll.

I would say that pretty much anything that increases the combat's suspense is completely justified and suspense is always more important than speed; I think it is vastly preferable to have only one ombat per session or even per adventure if this combat is unique, enthralling and make the player gnaw their fingernailsbecause of the tension instead of having two or thee per session which are bland and meaningless.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-09, 08:34 AM
Multiple defense rolls per round, meh don't really like that. One defense roll per round ... I really don't like that. The ability for your roll to virtually guarantee being hit by all attacks on a full attack from a TWF rogue isn't suspenseful ... it's a save or die.

A defense roll per opponent per encounter doesn't add any suspense, it merely defines strategy ... "hey guys I have -5 to -9 AC for all opponents, I will just be running around shooting my bow for a while ... be ready to put me in a resilient sphere while you guys finish them off okay?".

Knaight
2009-01-09, 08:48 AM
What would work to add tension is having a critical defense, which is when people get to counter attack. That said, you might just want to switch systems. GURPS works well for this, as does a few of the Fudge wound systems(and these do use opposed rolls for combat).

lesser_minion
2009-01-09, 09:57 AM
I think the easiest way to get an opposed attack roll system to work is to re-work multiple attacks per round. I think VP/WP and Defense Rolls would make for dice overload.

It might be easier to limit hitpoints and multiple attacks. Instead of damaging a character, a minor hit dazes* the character for the following round and leaves them shaken or winded for the remainder of the encounter (standard action to attempt to recover; no stacking with fear or fatigue effects). That removes the need for iterative attacks - a skilled fighter going up against a weak opponent will still cut them apart with a flurry of blows, but will take longer.

I haven't worked out how to limit the problem of multiple natural attacks, but apart from Snuggles the death kitty, I think it's probably reasonable for monsters of this stature to get multiple attacks. Possibly ruling that it can't use every attack against the same target, instead gaining a +2 bonus to hit for each attack it allocates to the same target. Otherwise, I guess one-hit all hit works...

*for some reason I had daze down as 'no standard actions' rather than 'no actions' - I can't remember which effect I actually mean though.

Dairian
2009-01-09, 10:50 PM
There's an additional place: How do you rule defense rolls when the target isn't expecting it? That is, flat-footed? I'm a proponent of keeping it static.

As to your mechanic, it rewards higher rolls other than a hit. This is nice, but how do you handle critical hits?[/QUOTE]

to answer your first question, if a defender is not aware of an attack, IE flat footed, they don't get to make a roll., this is brutal I know, but it forces players to be more aware of there surroundings, and makes things like sneak attacks make sense with out any additional rules.

as far as crital hits, a nat 20 does double damage, and all weapons crit on 20. Weapons that currently have a higher threat range, get a to hit bonus instead, making them more likely to do wound dmg.

Dairian
2009-01-09, 11:04 PM
Oh and as far as defense bonuses, im still workign out exactly how I want that to work. Im tempted not to have any at all, just just add dex + dice+ whatever feat bonuses you can get. That why I opted for opposed melee rolls when both players are armed with melee weapons, mean there isn't much you can do to avoid a arrow or a bullet shy of taking cover any way.

This system also adds a lot to the idea that at range, a archer will **** up a melee character, but once the melee character closes, that archer is toast.

In the test games ive run so far, most rage attacks "hit" for vitality dmg, but only 1 in 5 or so actually deal wnd dmg, which is about how I wanted it, as it forces players to develop tactics to deal with ranged attacks.

speaking of ranged, im also toying with the idea of using called shots to deal a small amount of ability dmg, IE reducign enemies dex by shooting them in the leg, etc.