PDA

View Full Version : Chaos Combat System



Lord Raziere
2011-06-07, 11:54 PM
I've just came up with this a few seconds ago.

I was thinking about super-smash bros, and then I was thinking about making a combat system out of it, then I suddenly had this idea: instead of health, there would be super smash bros percentage, and basically like super smash bros, each hit would raise your percentage by a certain amount, this percentage being how likely you are to die and you have to keep rolling, until you hit a number in the percentage where you die....

but now I'm thinking its incredibly lethal and incredibly risky, but then again that would be the point of that combat system, to be a high-risk thing full of chaos and mayhem to get an adrenaline rush.

think anyone would play this combat system? or is it too dangerous and out of control for an RPG?

SamBurke
2011-06-07, 11:56 PM
Honestly sounds awesome. Getting to sit there and blow things up, with no casters? Kill people, destroy towns for fun? HOH YEAH.

Actually, I already think of HP as percentage, as it's the only logical way to explain how you can get more "hitability" at all: as your levels go up, the same blow takes away less percentage of your health.

Epsilon Rose
2011-06-08, 01:28 AM
That could actually be interesting to play, and probably not that hard to pull off.

Maybe have it so that every time you take damage you have to roll against you're percentage and if you roll bellow it you die (or drop to a staggered state or some other partial step perhaps based on how far bellow you were [that way if you just rolled poorly while at a low percentage it wouldn't be quite so bad as the expected outcome while at a high percentage {this also serves to make high level combat more risky while keeping low level combat safer since you're more likely to shoot straight past your buffer}]) and as you level you add more dice to your pool to roll allowing you to get to higher levels of damage before it becomes an issue.

Lord Raziere
2011-06-08, 08:35 AM
yea, let see:

I'm guessing at the start it would be 1d100 with everyone starting at 0%

below 50% instead of being killed, you instead have a chance of being knocked down for a turn where you can't take any action and vulnerable to more attacks.

Above 50% however then you are in danger of dying

at higher levels when your say...Percent Limit goes up to 200%, 50%-100% becomes the level at which you suffer knock-down, 0-50% suffer a temporary -1 to something, and you roll 2d100 instead of 1d100.

most attacks would just automatically work- the defender has to roll to dodge, block it, whatever.

also, I've got an idea for a different kind of battle grid, one that, instead of the tactical overhead view, it is a 2d side-scrolling view like that of super smash bros and the directions of course being forward, backwards, up and down instead of right and left, think it would change combat towards a hectic less tactical and more "lets smash stuff" atmosphere?

Runeward
2011-06-08, 10:35 AM
Obviously it would need a totally new combat system. To simplify things, I'd leave defense in and the attack roll but take out damage. Have the percentage increase be the amount by which the attack roll passes the defense. An attack that is less than defense is a "miss."

Weapons, then, would add variable amounts to the attack roll. So a dagger might be +2 and a greatsword +8 (or whatever). To balance weapons, you could either use a speed clock (so a dagger attacks more frequently but adds fewer percentages) or powers (so a hammer might knock back, a dagger cause bleeding or +1 percent/rnd, etc).

This way you can also balance characters by having their max percent tick up (the ceiling of what they can absorb) but also their defense (the floor of what they can absorb). It might also be neat to still maintain ideas like bloodied (half of max percent absorbable) and have different things trigger off of them. For instance, maybe the hammer power that knocks you back knocks you back a single square, but double when bloodied, and quadruple when in "death throes" (the last 10%). That way, there would be a natural increase in the cinema of combat.

Epsilon Rose
2011-06-08, 11:28 AM
yea, let see:

I'm guessing at the start it would be 1d100 with everyone starting at 0%

below 50% instead of being killed, you instead have a chance of being knocked down for a turn where you can't take any action and vulnerable to more attacks.

Above 50% however then you are in danger of dying

at higher levels when your say...Percent Limit goes up to 200%, 50%-100% becomes the level at which you suffer knock-down, 0-50% suffer a temporary -1 to something, and you roll 2d100 instead of 1d100.

most attacks would just automatically work- the defender has to roll to dodge, block it, whatever.

Actually I'd use much smaller dice (maybe even their current dice) so you don't start with such big numbers and the rng isn't that large. I'd also make the result based on what you failed by not what the number is. Larger numbers would naturally lead to larger margins of failure but it would also give the lower level characters a bit of a safety net. It would also require less changes to the rest of the system, which is good (though weapons probably should be reworked for completely different reasons).


also, I've got an idea for a different kind of battle grid, one that, instead of the tactical overhead view, it is a 2d side-scrolling view like that of super smash bros and the directions of course being forward, backwards, up and down instead of right and left, think it would change combat towards a hectic less tactical and more "lets smash stuff" atmosphere?

Meh I'm not particularly interested in losing a dimension. Plus this would probably mess with aoe spell and generally make spells more powerful do to lack of terrain features and easier pathing.

137ben
2011-06-08, 03:48 PM
Obviously it would need a totally new combat system. To simplify things, I'd leave defense in and the attack roll but take out damage. Have the percentage increase be the amount by which the attack roll passes the defense. An attack that is less than defense is a "miss."


I don't like that idea, because it takes away the possibility for builds focusing more on accuracy or more on damage. I say keep damage and accuracy separate. It fact, this would be closer to ssb, because some moves (like falcon punch) are harder to connect with (i.e. give your opponent more time to dodge), but deal more damage.

Overall, great idea!

Amechra
2011-06-08, 04:08 PM
I'm liking this. Why not use Ticks, like Exalted, rather than set rounds? allows for a more flowing pace in the battle.

Lord Raziere
2011-06-08, 06:22 PM
edit: post got a bit long, just a warning.

well what I'm thinking is people would have turns, but they also have these Energy Points to, they would start out with five and always have a total of five, and that you spend energy points for actions, and you regain and energy point every turn, the twist being that you can spend energy points on any turn not just your own, thus you can spend three energy points on your turn, then spend three energy points again your teammates turn when you regain one energy point to add to your remaining two.

as for attack and such, what I'd do is, people both roll 20's, plus the relevant skill for the attack and defense highest of the two wins and if the attacker wins, the percentage goes up from say, 0% to 8%, the defender then rolls a 1d100 and if he gets an 8 or lower, they would be knocked down and open to further attack which would automatically hit as an example. the attack's damage itself would be a static percent that adds to the foes percent, wouldn't be rolled at all.

also, I'm thinking that all attacks would in some way move the foe if successful, to prevent standing around and hacking and slashing, for example a single punch would move someone back one square, while more powerful attacks would move people even farther, kinetic energy and all that.

and furthermore, I'm thinking of adding an element of destruction to it, giving structures and items DC's for being destroyed, separate into Easy, (DC 5) Medium (Dc 10) and Hard (DC 15) so that when people crash into stuff, destruction is going on around them. most things of course would be medium or easy since hard would represents structures specifically designed against such destruction

for further chaos, I'm thinking the GM could have various hazards that suddenly pop up that people have to roll for, adding an element of risks from the surrounding environment.

overall, my idea for this system for the combat to be chaotic and full of destruction as possible, not to be too caught up in realism or anything, just making it a form of combat where you can punch the enemy into a house and destroy both or easily execute some other cool move you would want to try.


Obviously it would need a totally new combat system. To simplify things, I'd leave defense in and the attack roll but take out damage. Have the percentage increase be the amount by which the attack roll passes the defense. An attack that is less than defense is a "miss."

Weapons, then, would add variable amounts to the attack roll. So a dagger might be +2 and a greatsword +8 (or whatever). To balance weapons, you could either use a speed clock (so a dagger attacks more frequently but adds fewer percentages) or powers (so a hammer might knock back, a dagger cause bleeding or +1 percent/rnd, etc).

This way you can also balance characters by having their max percent tick up (the ceiling of what they can absorb) but also their defense (the floor of what they can absorb). It might also be neat to still maintain ideas like bloodied (half of max percent absorbable) and have different things trigger off of them. For instance, maybe the hammer power that knocks you back knocks you back a single square, but double when bloodied, and quadruple when in "death throes" (the last 10%). That way, there would be a natural increase in the cinema of combat.

1: might be an idea, but I'm more thinking of the percentage increase being static to the attack: a punch has a different static percentage than say an explosion

2. maybe, its an idea, will probably have to deal with that sooner or later...just can't think of anything right now.

3. good idea, I was thinking much the same thing.


Actually I'd use much smaller dice (maybe even their current dice) so you don't start with such big numbers and the rng isn't that large. I'd also make the result based on what you failed by not what the number is. Larger numbers would naturally lead to larger margins of failure but it would also give the lower level characters a bit of a safety net. It would also require less changes to the rest of the system, which is good (though weapons probably should be reworked for completely different reasons).


What, I don't get what your saying here.

Cheesy74
2011-06-08, 11:43 PM
I think the simplest way to do this, one that wouldn't require much modification to existing rules, is to just make your current hit points a modifier to the d% roll. 1-50 knocks you down, stuns you, or dazes you (depending on the variant) as you mentioned, 50-100 puts you in danger of dying (maybe 4E's 3 failed death saves idea?), but you subtract your HP from the percentage.

This works well for making sure that tougher, higher-HP characters get the benefit from their health, but makes low-levels ridiculously vulnerable. I'll think more about how to fix that in the morning.

Lord Raziere
2011-06-08, 11:58 PM
naaah....the point of the system is kinda to be risky....put too much defense and life support in it would slow it down.

besides, tougher characters get more health by adding more d100 dice, a 2d100 character is tougher and more likely to survive than a 1d100 character.

oh and this system will eventually need a name....Chaos Combat System maybe?

Lord Raziere
2011-06-10, 08:41 AM
ok, further thoughts:

I'm thinking of these things called Resistances which basically subtract percentages depending upon what type of damage you take, you can for example, take a Fire Resistance, gain 5% Resistance to Fire so whenever you are hit by a fire attack, 5% is subtracted from its damage. Resistances are of course stackable and heres the bonus: if the Resistance is higher than the attacks damage, the difference between the two are the percent you are healed! meaning if you have 20% resistance, get hit by a 15% attack, you get healed for 5%.

Next, are Improvements. They improve attacks and powers, with enough improvements you can turn a normal punch into a super weapon. they are also stackable.

what improves the character itself are Powers which cover y'know anything.

also on weapons: I'm thinking Light, Medium and Heavy weapons, Light Weapons which deal the least damage but allows you to make two/three attacks, medium which is the most accurate and heavy which deals the most damage.

Epsilon Rose
2011-06-10, 02:34 PM
My original assumption was that you meant this as a modification to 3.5 (I'm not entirely sure why I assumed that, but I did). Let me try arguing for a 3.5 mod and rewording my suggestion before you go to far.

If this system were designed to work on 3.5 (or any other established system) it would save trouble on the creation of classes, mechanics (especially the odd and out of combat ones), allow for a larger base of players who are familiar with the rules (resulting in easier transitions) and allow for much greater variety, in general, since you'd be able to take advantage of all the splat books, 3rd party material and homebrew that already exists.

With a 3.5 base in mind (though it would probably make sense for other systems too), I think rather than rolling a xd100 characters should roll the dice size they'd normally be getting for health (so a lvl 4 wizard would roll 4d4s while a lvl 4 fighter would roll 4d10). The advantage to this is that you don't need to drastically recalculate the damage done by weapons and spell, the different types of classes have different health values (if everyone's using d100s a wizard can take a hit as well as a fighter) and it results in less number inflation (how many d100s are they rolling at lvl 20?).

To complement this I would have the effects of failure based on how much you failed by, not what the number was when you failed, thus adding some danger (but also some hope) to the system since it would be possible to have a relatively bad effect at low damage (by rolling poorly) or to have a relatively light effect at high damage (by rolling well).
I'd suggest organizing the effects in tiers based on the characters con score (possibly modified for the type of dice they're rolling), so a character with a con of 10 would have to fail by at least 10 points in order to get to the second stage of consequences and by 20 points for the third. This particular scheme adds both variate and granularity to the failures since some characters will drop through the tiers faster than others and you can easily have more levels of effect with out worrying about making things to hard (in fact the more levels there are the harder it is to die).


Regardless of the system used I think it might be a bit silly to have resistance greater than damage heal you. Simply not doing enough damage to someone for them to notice doesn't result in them getting healthier, it results in them not noticing; by the same token if paper fires heal someone there's no reason a thermite fire wouldn't (baring over healing). Why not have immunity and affinity (healed by X) be stages that can be acquired beyond (and replacing) simple resistance.

zyborg
2011-06-10, 02:45 PM
A Smash Bros-style battle system? Awesome. I was thinking of something similar. Perhaps there could be a percentage system AND an HP system. For example, you have 30% damage. You roll a 25. That is less than 30, so you are knocked down and lose 1 HP. You now have 2 HP. Yes... your max was 3 HP. Does that make sense? Failed Knockdown Checks would do 1 damage, and you would have very few HP. Also, sense you are knocked down, you would have to spend an action to get up.

Lord Raziere
2011-06-10, 03:14 PM
My original assumption was that you meant this as a modification to 3.5 (I'm not entirely sure why I assumed that, but I did). Let me try arguing for a 3.5 mod and rewording my suggestion before you go to far.

If this system were designed to work on 3.5 (or any other established system) it would save trouble on the creation of classes, mechanics (especially the odd and out of combat ones), allow for a larger base of players who are familiar with the rules (resulting in easier transitions) and allow for much greater variety, in general, since you'd be able to take advantage of all the splat books, 3rd party material and homebrew that already exists.

With a 3.5 base in mind (though it would probably make sense for other systems too), I think rather than rolling a xd100 characters should roll the dice size they'd normally be getting for health (so a lvl 4 wizard would roll 4d4s while a lvl 4 fighter would roll 4d10). The advantage to this is that you don't need to drastically recalculate the damage done by weapons and spell, the different types of classes have different health values (if everyone's using d100s a wizard can take a hit as well as a fighter) and it results in less number inflation (how many d100s are they rolling at lvl 20?).

To complement this I would have the effects of failure based on how much you failed by, not what the number was when you failed, thus adding some danger (but also some hope) to the system since it would be possible to have a relatively bad effect at low damage (by rolling poorly) or to have a relatively light effect at high damage (by rolling well).
I'd suggest organizing the effects in tiers based on the characters con score (possibly modified for the type of dice they're rolling), so a character with a con of 10 would have to fail by at least 10 points in order to get to the second stage of consequences and by 20 points for the third. This particular scheme adds both variate and granularity to the failures since some characters will drop through the tiers faster than others and you can easily have more levels of effect with out worrying about making things to hard (in fact the more levels there are the harder it is to die).


Regardless of the system used I think it might be a bit silly to have resistance greater than damage heal you. Simply not doing enough damage to someone for them to notice doesn't result in them getting healthier, it results in them not noticing; by the same token if paper fires heal someone there's no reason a thermite fire wouldn't (baring over healing). Why not have immunity and affinity (healed by X) be stages that can be acquired beyond (and replacing) simple resistance.

You can feel free to start your own thread about a 3.5 mod, I'm not stopping you. If I don't say its a 3.5 mod, it isn't a 3.5 mod.

also, this system as I've said before isn't about being realistic or anything its about whats fun and whats awesome, but if you want you can easily separate the healing thing into a Defense Improvement. or something.

as for silliness...that depends on your explanation of it. its silly if a human can eat fire, gain health and then burp, its not silly if they hold up the tattoo on their palm that glows and sucks the fire into the tattoo in a weird magical vortex which then uses the energy to heal their world, which was given to them by some powerful dragon or something.

and as for health, I'm ever only going to go up to 5d100, I don't want the class wizard/fighter health thing, I'd rather prefer it if everyone starts with equal health and develop their own style, based on the powers and improvements they take and such. heck I'm not even one for classes, in all likelihood, my version of the Chaos Combat system might be the most suited to Exalted or something. I won't stop you from creating your own version for 3.5 as long as I'm credited for the original idea.

zyborg
2011-06-12, 09:29 PM
I for one look forward to this new system.

Lord Raziere
2011-06-12, 10:49 PM
yea well....the bare bones I think is all here....just remember: this system is for physical chaotic combat. Won't help one bit for anything else.

What has to be done now is set up some basic standard attacks, then all the improvements you can make to them- the idea being with the Improvement system, you can basically build your own powers and attacks from scratch.

that and some kind of experience system for buying Resistances, Improvements and other things.

but I can't help thinking I'm missing something....a movement system maybe?

Lord Raziere
2011-06-14, 12:07 PM
Here is what I'm thinking for the Basic Attack:

Name: Basic Punch
Range: Melee
Cost: 1 energy point
Type of Damage: Brawling
Damage Percentage: 5%
Movement damage: 1 square

This is basically the most basic attack in the system, when you attack with this, you roll a d20 to see whether it succeeds vs. the foes defense roll. You gain a bonus to the roll equal to your Brawling skill. movement damage means that you are you moved back one square due to the kinetic energy of the punch.

this is an attack everyone knows, the rest of the attacks are basically built off and modified from here.

Lord Raziere
2011-07-09, 12:27 PM
a great new idea for this system:

Archetypes

most systems either go with "skills and point buy" and "classes and levels"
one is too linear, the other too much of a headache.

so I've decided on something different than both.

Archetypes. instead of narrow classes, or complete access to everything, you have a broad selection of a certain kind of character you want to play.

say you want to play some kind of tough up front fighter, this means you have a broad range of what kind of up front fighter you want to be. lets call this the Warrior Archetype, in this archetype you can be:
a classic knight
a barbarian
a sci-fi super-soldier
a power suit pilot
a paladin
an earth magic using fighter
a martial artist who specializes in toughness and strong attacks
a golem
a robot
a small dragon
a giant
or anything else that is tough and a melee guy

there would be other archetypes of course, and within that archetype you'd have a broad range of customization of Improvements and such.
the point of Archetypes, is that they already exist everywhere, they just have slight differences between settings: the sci-fi sniper is not much different from the elven archer or the cowboy six shooter.

you can have more than one archetype BUT, it isn't like taking a level or anything. you have to train in that archetype until you achieve it, you have to learn the basic stuff of the archetype before you actually become it not the other way around. and even then you will never be as good at your secondary archetype as your primary archetype.