PDA

View Full Version : G&G Combat Thread v2: A working draft!



Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-27, 10:02 AM
Note: At this point, we're planning on reducing ability scores to just modifiers, in the interest of simplicity. This is an official draft.


Combat

Offense

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the targetís Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Your attack roll with a melee weapon is your Base Attack Bonus + Strength. Your attack roll with a ranged weapon is you Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity.


Automatic Misses and Hits
As in 3.5

Damage
When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.

Damage reduces a targetís current hit points.


Minimum Damage
If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.

Strength Bonus
When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength score to the damage result.

Dexterity Bonus
When you hit with a non-thrown ranged weapon, such as a bow or crossbow, add your Dexterity score to the damage result. You may also chose to add your Dexterity score to the damage result in place of your Strength when wielding a light melee weapon.

Special Weapon Rules


Light Weapons
When wielding a light weapon, you may use your Dexterity in place of Strength when calculating your attack bonus and damage results.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed
When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, instead add one and a half times your Strength to damage. However, you donít get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands.

Reach Weapons
A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that arenít adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons double the wielderís natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Two-Weapon Fighting
When wielding two light weapons, or a one-handed weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the other, you may take a -2 penalty to attack with both your primary and secondary weapons as a standard action. When using the full attack option, you may make one additional attack for every ten points of BAB. You may chose whether each attack uses your main hand or off-hand, if there are differences.

Shield Bashes
You may bash an opponent with a shield, using it as a weapon. You always use your Strength score when calculating attack and damage during a shield bash. If you only attack with your shield, you may retain your shield bonus to armor class. Alternately, you may choose to use your shield as an off-hand weapon when two-weapon fighting. If you do so, you gain the usual benefits of two-weapon fighting, but you lose your shield bonus to armor class on any turn where you do so.


Defenses

Armor Class
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. Itís the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:

5 + Base Attack Bonus* + Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + Dexterity + Size modifier.

Armor Bonus + Max Dexterity will cap out at 8. Shields will cap out at 4.

*When adding your base attack bonus to your AC, use the next lowest progression. So a fighter would treat his BAB as medium when adding it to AC, a rogue would treat her BAB as poor, and so on.

Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if youíre wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC. Sometimes you canít use your Dexterity score (if you have one). If you canít react to a blow, you canít add your Dexterity to AC.


Touch Attacks
Some attacks disregard armor, including natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesnít include any armor bonus or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your shield modifier, size modifier, Dexterity, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.

Hit Points
When your hit point total reaches 0, youíre disabled. When it reaches -1, youíre dying. When it gets to -(level+Constitution score), youíre dead.

Speed
Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round and still do something, such as attack or cast a spell. Your speed depends mostly on your race and what armor youíre wearing.

If you use two move actions in a round (sometimes called a "double move" action), you can move up to double your speed. If you spend the entire round to run all out, you can move up to quadruple your speed (or triple if you are in heavy armor).

Saving Throws
Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. Like an attack roll, a saving throw is a d20 roll plus a bonus based on your class, level, and an ability score. Your saving throw modifier is:

Base save bonus + ability


Base Save Bonus
A saving throw modifier derived from character class and level. Base save bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes. Base save bonuses gained from different classes, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.

Saving Throw Types
The three different kinds of saving throws are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will:

Fortitude
These saves measure your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health. Apply your Constitution score to your Fortitude saving throws.

Reflex
These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks. Apply your Dexterity score to your Reflex saving throws.

Will
These saves reflect your resistance to mental influence as well as many magical effects. Apply your Wisdom to your Will saving throws.

Saving Throw Difficulty Class
The DC for a save is determined by the attack itself.

Automatic Failures and Successes
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.

Initiative
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).

If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other.

The modifier to an initiative check is equal to 1/2 your Base Attack Bonus + Wisdom + Dexterity.

Attacks of Opportunity
Rules unchanged from 3.5

Actions in Combat: Summary
{table]Free Actions|
|Drop an Item
|Speak
Swift Actions|
|Drop Prone
|Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
|Five-Foot Step
|Ready or Loose a Shield
|Stand Up
Move Actions|
|Aim
|Manipulate an Item
|Mount/Dismount a Steed
|Move
|Stand Up
Standard Actions|
|Attack
|Bull Rush
|Charge
|Defend
|Dirty Trick
|Disarm
|Feint
|Grapple
|Interrupt
|Snatch
|Sunder
|Trip
Full-Round Actions|
|Covering Fire
|Full Attack
|Run
|Overrun
|Withdraw[/table]

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-27, 10:03 AM
Actions in Combat

Combat Maneuver Bonus
Most combat maneuvers rely on both skill and physical power. To represent this combination, characters have a Combat Maneuver Bonus, or CMB, equal to their Base Attack Bonus plus their Strength or Dexterity plus their size modifier (see below). Most maneuvers require opposed CMB checks; this is generally referred to as "rolling CMB."

Size Modifiers
{table]Size|Fine|Diminuative|Tiny|Small|Medium|Large|Huge |Gargantuan|Colossal
Modifier|-8|-4|-2|-1|0|+1|+2|+4|+8[/table]


Free Actions
Free actions donít take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.

Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.

Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isnít your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.


Swift Actions
Swift actions take a measureable amount of time, more than a free action but less than a move action. You may take one Swift action per turn.

Drop Prone
Dropping to a prone position in your space is a swift action.

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a swift action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Five-Foot Step
As a swift action, you may attempt to back away from an opponent without provoking an attack of opportunity. You and the creature or creatures threatening you roll opposed CMB checks. If your check is higher, you do not provoke an AoO from that creature. If their check is higher, you provoke an AoO for the movement as normal.

Stand Up
You may attempt to stand up from a prone position requires as a swift action. Doing so requires a DC 15 Acrobatics check and provokes attacks of opportunity. You still provoke an attack of opportunity on a failed check.


Move Actions

Aim
You may take a move action to take aim at a target. Treat the target as being one range increment closer to you (if using a ranged weapon), and halve the effects of the target's damage reduction against attacks you make this turn.

Manipulate an Item
In most cases, moving or manipulating an item is a move action.

This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door.

Mount/Dismount a Steed
Mounting or dismounting from a steed requires a move action.


Fast Mount or Dismount
You can mount or dismount as a swift action with a DC 20 Ride check (your armor check penalty, if any, applies to this check). If you fail the check, mounting or dismounting is a move action instead. (You canít attempt a fast mount or fast dismount unless you can perform the mount or dismount as a move action in the current round.)

Move
The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you canít also take a 5-foot step.

Many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category, including climbing (up to one-quarter of your speed) and swimming (up to one-quarter of your speed).


Crawling
You can crawl one-quarter your speed as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl.

Ready or Loose a Shield
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action.

Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action.

Stand Up
You may stand up from a prone position without provoking attacks of opportunity as a move action.


Standard Actions

Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.


Changes from 3.5
Unarmed attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity if your base attack bonus is at least +1
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you must shoot through an allied character's square, any ranged attacks that miss the target have a 20% chance of striking the target. Otherwise, there is no penalty.
Critical hits: No confirmation rolls are required-- if you roll a natural 20, or within your weapon's threat range, it's a critical hit.

Bull Rush
A bull rush is an attempt to push a foe backwards, using a combination of brute force and cunning footwork. As a standard action, the attacker and defender make opposed CMB checks. If the attacker's check is higher, he moves his foe backwards one foot for every point that his check beats the defender's, although the defender always moves at least five feet on a failed check. The attacker must move with his foe to push him the full distance. Both characters provoke attacks of opportunity for movement, although not from each other. If using a battle grid, round distance moved to the nearest five feet.

Charge
You may move up to your speed in a straight line and make a single melee attack. You suffer a -2 penalty to AC until the beginning of your next turn. If you also use your move action to follow the line of the charge (essentially making this a full-round action), you deal bonus damage equal to your Strength.

Defend
You may choose to abandon offense and fight defensively for a round. Until the beginning of your next turn, you gain a +4 bonus to reflex saves, and whenever you are attacked in ranged or melee combat, you may roll 1d20 + your armor class bonuses, instead of the attack being opposed by your armor class bonuses +5. You canít combine total defense with fighting defensively* or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat (since both of those require you to declare an attack or full attack). You canít make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

*Functions as in 3.5

Dirty Trick
The "Dirty Trick" option is a broad category, covering things like throwing dirt in an opponent's eyes or throwing a cape at them to hamper their movement. As a general rule, attacker and defender make opposed CMB checks. If the attacker is successful, he may impose one of the following conditions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257689)for one round, plus one additional round for every 5 points by which the attacker's roll is higher than the defender's. The attacker should be able to plausibly explain how his attack is inflicting a condition.

Dazzled
Deafened
Flat-Footed
Impaired
Hindered
Stymied


When wielding a ranged weapon, you may attempt a dirty trick against a foe within one ranged increment, but you take a -5 penalty to your CMB for doing so.

Disarm
To attempt to disarm an opponent's weapon or shield, attacker and defender make opposed CMB checks. The defender gets a +5 bonus to his roll if a shield disarm is being attempted. If he is wielding a weapon in two hands, he can add his Strength to his defensive CMB roll a second time. If the attacker's roll is higher, the disarm is successful, and the weapon falls to the ground in the defender's square. If the attacker wins by 5 or more, he can toss his opponent's weapon into an adjacent square.

You may attempt a ranged disarm attempt against a foe within one range increment, but you take a -5 penalty for doing so.

Feint
As part of a standard action when making a melee attack, the attacker can roll a Bluff of Sleight of Hand check instead of his normal attack bonus, opposed by his opponent's Sense Motive check or normal Armor Class, whichever is higher. If the attacker succeeds, he strikes his foe, and that foe is considered flat-footed against the attack. You may not make iterative attacks while feinting.

You may feint with a ranged attack as long as you are within 30ft of a foe, although you may not use Sleight of Hand for a ranged feint.

Grapple
You may attempt to imitate a grapple as a standard action. The attacker and defender make opposed CMB checks. The defender may substitute and Escape Artist check to avoid the grapple. If the attacker wins, or the defender chooses to allow the grapple to begin unopposed, the grapple begins. If the defender wins, he successfully resists the grapple attempt. Once the grapple is initiated, both characters have the same options, all standard actions, and all based on opposed CMB rolls.

Escape from the grapple. (Only a standard action if the other character attempts to prevent the escape; if unopposed, it's a swift action.) You may substitute an Escape Artist check in place of the CMB roll.
Deal unarmed damage or attack with a light weapon.
Attempt to use an opponent's light weapon against them. You take a -2 penalty to CMB when attempting this action. If you succeed, use your opponent's weapon's base damage and your own Strength score.
Drag your foe, as if making a Bull Rush attempt.
Cast a spell or use a spell-like ability. A DC 20 Concentration check is also required, and the caster takes a -5 penalty to both rolls if the spell has somatic components.
Attempt to pin a foe

Pinned foes take a -2 penalty to CMB rolls while pinned.
Pinned foes cannot take any physical actions except to attempt to escape the pin with an opposed CMB roll, or an Escape Artist check.
Characters pinning a foe can deal unarmed damage or attack with a light weapon without making an opposed roll.

Interrupt
As a standard action, you may ready an attempt to interrupt a foe's next action. As long as that foe remains within range of your weapon, every move, standard, and full-round action he makes provokes an attack of opportunity. If your attack hits, the foe must roll a Fortitude save, with a DC equal to the damage dealt. If they fail, they cannot complete the action, and the action is wasted. Only one attack of opportunity per round can be an interrupt attempt, even if you could normally make multiple attacks of opportunity per round

Snatch
When attempting to grab an crown, amulet, or other item not actively being wielded by a foe, the attacker and defender roll opposed CMB checks. The attacker may roll Sleight of Hand instead of CMB. If the attacker's roll is higher, he successfully grabs the item. You must have at least one hand free to make a Snatch attempt.

Sunder
When attempting to damage a foe's weapon, both parties make opposed CMB checks. If the attacker wins, he deals damage directly to his foe's weapon. Attempting to sunder armor is a standard attack roll, dealing damage directly to the armor.

Characters may make ranged Sunder attempts, but suffer a -5 penalty for doing so.

Trip
When attempting to make a trip attempt, both parties make opposed CMB checks. The attacker gets a +2 bonus if his weapon is described as being able to make Trip attempts, such as a flail. If the attacker wins, the defender is knocked prone.


Full-Round Actions

Covering Fire
When wielding a ranged weapon, you may designate a cone area, starting at your square and extending out to one-half the first range increment of your weapon. Until the beginning of your next turn, any foes who move in the designated area provoke attacks of opportunity from you. Foes with an Intelligence of at least -3 are aware of this threatened area.

When taking the Covering Fire action, you may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to one-fourth your base attack bonus.

Full Attack
As a full-round action, you may make one extra attack for every 5 points of base attack bonus you possess. All extra attacks are at a -5 penalty.

Overrun
An overrun attempt is an attempt to plow past or over an opponent. As a full-round action, you may move up to twice your speed and attempt to overrun any creatures in the way. To attempt to overrun a foe, the attacker must be at least the same size as his opponent or larger.

You must roll opposed CMB checks against each opponent. If the attacker wins, he moves through the opponent's square and continues the movement. If he wins by 5 or more, he knocks them prone. If the defender wins the check, the attacker's movement is stopped at that point, and the action is over.

If you make mounted overrun attempts, instead of rolling CMB, you roll your ranks in Ride plus your mount's Strength plus his size modifier. Your mount's size determines how large a creature you may overrun.


Run
You can run as a full-round action. (If you do, you do not also get a 5-foot step.) When you run, you can move up to four times your speed in a straight line (or three times your speed if youíre in heavy armor). You lose any Dexterity bonus to AC unless you have the Run feat.

You can run for a number of rounds equal to five times your Constitution score, but after that you must make a DC 10 Constitution check to continue running. You must check again each round in which you continue to run, and the DC of this check increases by 1 for each check you have made. When you fail this check, you must stop running. A character who has run to his limit must rest for 1 minute (10 rounds) before running again. During a rest period, a character can move no faster than a normal move action.

You canít run across difficult terrain.

Withdraw
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. (Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you canít withdraw from combat if youíre blinded.) You canít take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw.

If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), you and the enemy or enemies threatening that square may roll opposed CMB checks. If you succeed, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity.

You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you donít have a listed speed.

Note that despite the name of this action, you donít actually have to leave combat entirely.


Restricted Withdraw
If you are limited to taking only a standard action each round you can withdraw as a standard action. In this case, you may move up to your speed (rather than up to double your speed).

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-27, 10:04 AM
Reserved just in case they're catching up to me.

EDIT: Everything I've got is up. Post away!

Djinn_in_Tonic
2012-09-27, 11:28 AM
Alright...let's run some numbers. We'll assume a +3 bonus in the primary offense/defense statistics

Avg. Attack Bonus: X + 3
Avg. Defense Bonus: 5 + X + Armor + Shield + 3.


Now let's assume that I'm attacking a weaker foe: I have a +20 BaB, he is a wizard with +10. He's got +6 AC from Magical Armor.

Avg. Attack: 20 + 3 = +23
Avg. Defense: 5 + 10 + 6 + 3 = 24

Now I score an average hit: 11 on the die, for a 34. Also note that I only miss on a roll of 1.

I hit twice with a two-handed weapon for, say, 2d6+12 each time, making a total of 4d6+24 damage.

However, I'd hit SIX times with two light weapons, which, even at a pitiful 1d6+3 per hit, totals 6d6+18 damage.

I think that, under this system, two-weapon fighting will ALWAYS get more reliable damage, provided you can hit the target on, say, 15-16+. Two hits seems to be a reliable break-even point, assuming the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and anything more than that is icing on the cake. Since the number disparity is so large (ranging from 15 base AC to 25 base AC at level 20, and +10 BaB to +20 BaB, not counting modifiers), there will always be targets that a 2-handed wielder can virtually shred to pieces. Is this intentional?

I think the "hit over" system is getting mixed results due to the wide gap in offense and defenses. Do you want auto-hits put into the system? 'cause my numbers didn't account for a maximized attack roll, and it still hit the relatively lightly defended mage on a roll of 1. Intentional?

Seerow
2012-09-27, 11:38 AM
Honestly the get multiple hits for beating their AC by X seems way too swingy, especially with a d20 as your resolution mechanic. Just figure, against the same target you could get anywhere between 1 and 10 hits, depending on how well you rolled, while two weapon fighting with light weapons. It's not quite so bad with the default or two handed weapons, but even there the swing is 3-4 attacks difference. With that kind of swing there is basically no way you can set up defenses meaningfully and accurately judge what kind of damage per round a character is doing. You can look at averages, but your standard deviation is going to be so high that it's meaningless.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-27, 12:53 PM
I think the "hit over" system is getting mixed results due to the wide gap in offense and defenses. Do you want auto-hits put into the system? 'cause my numbers didn't account for a maximized attack roll, and it still hit the relatively lightly defended mage on a roll of 1. Intentional?

I was thinking of the auto-hits to simplify and speed up combat, replacing rolling for iterative attacks. With your numbers, the two-handed weapon deals an average of 38, and the two light weapons deal an average of 39-- hardly an unfair advantage, especially if you take DR into account.

I can get behind a full-BAB character auto-hitting a half-BAB character if he gets a good swing at him. If we take your numbers and run them for a pair of full-BAB characters, the average defense becomes 34, meaning that an average attack against a well-matched defender will tie. A good situation, if you ask me.

On the subject of swing... is it that much more uneven than 3.5 full attacks? 1-10 attacks when TWF is pretty close to what you'd get at max level with all the TWF feats...

Siosilvar
2012-09-27, 01:10 PM
On the subject of swing... is it that much more uneven than 3.5 full attacks? 1-10 attacks when TWF is pretty close to what you'd get at max level with all the TWF feats...

Multiple rolls give you reduced standard deviation. A TWFer making a full attack is likely to hit with, say, four attacks, and less so with any other number, but this roll over system means it's equally likely to get any amount of attacks from 1 to 10. Unless you made attack rolls with 6d4-4 or something like that (I didn't do the math), it's swingier.

EDIT: Plus I think the fewer different variables you have, the easier it'll be to remember. "+15, then subtract and divide by five, except when it's seven, three, two, or not at all" is much harder to remember than "three attacks at +15, +10, and +5" is harder than "three attacks at +11 each" (with a Rapid Shot-style multiple attack system, which I think I'm going to use the next time I run a game).

Knaight
2012-09-27, 01:59 PM
Iterative Attacks
If your attack roll is high enough, you are considered to have struck your target multiple times. For every 5 points by which your attack roll exceeds your target's armor class, you strike your target an additional time, inflicting standard weapon damage each time.
When wielding a light weapon, you only need to exceed your target's armor class by 3 points.
When wielding a two-handed or reach weapon, you need to exceed your target's armor class by 7 points.
When wielding a weapon in each hand, you only need to exceed your target's armor class by 3 points.
If wielding a light weapon in each hand, you only need to exceed your target's armor class by 2 points.
Non-repeating crossbows and similar weapons with reload times cannot make iterative attacks.
Given the linear distribution of a d20, I'd be concerned about some of these. Take the light weapon in each hand - if you need to roll a 10 to succeed, and you roll a twenty you get five extra attacks. Similarly, you get over three times as many extra attacks as someone with a reach weapon or two handed weapon regardless, which also seems potentially excessive.

I like the core idea of going over AC for extra attacks and such - for that matter, my Combat Shifts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107753) homebrew* from a few years ago was largely centered on the concept. The current numbers just seem off.


Defenses

Armor Class
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. Itís the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:

5 + Base Attack Bonus + Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + Dexterity + Size modifier.

Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if youíre wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC. Sometimes you canít use your Dexterity score (if you have one). If you canít react to a blow, you canít add your Dexterity to AC.

As long as we are rewriting this - a defense bonus due to having a weapon would also be nice to have. That you aren't harder to hit when armed is a real oddity in 3.x, and getting a bit of a boost from a weapon both helps this and provides another way to differentiate weapons.

*It occurs to me that it could work as a core mechanic decently in a redesign.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2012-09-27, 02:10 PM
I was thinking of the auto-hits to simplify and speed up combat, replacing rolling for iterative attacks. With your numbers, the two-handed weapon deals an average of 38, and the two light weapons deal an average of 39-- hardly an unfair advantage, especially if you take DR into account.

True...but that was dealing 1d6+3 vs. 2d6+6 damage. That's with no feats, no magic, and no damage enhancers. Each of those added tips the damage further in favor of multi-weapon fighting. Every +1 you add means +2 for the 2-handed weapon wielder, and +6 for the two-weapon fighter.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-27, 03:17 PM
Given the linear distribution of a d20, I'd be concerned about some of these. Take the light weapon in each hand - if you need to roll a 10 to succeed, and you roll a twenty you get five extra attacks. Similarly, you get over three times as many extra attacks as someone with a reach weapon or two handed weapon regardless, which also seems potentially excessive.

I like the core idea of going over AC for extra attacks and such - for that matter, my Combat Shifts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107753) homebrew* from a few years ago was largely centered on the concept. The current numbers just seem off.
Crap, you're right. Numbers are hard to get right when we've got different parts of the system under construction at the same time...


As long as we are rewriting this - a defense bonus due to having a weapon would also be nice to have. That you aren't harder to hit when armed is a real oddity in 3.x, and getting a bit of a boost from a weapon both helps this and provides another way to differentiate weapons.
Ooh, good call.


True...but that was dealing 1d6+3 vs. 2d6+6 damage. That's with no feats, no magic, and no damage enhancers. Each of those added tips the damage further in favor of multi-weapon fighting. Every +1 you add means +2 for the 2-handed weapon wielder, and +6 for the two-weapon fighter.
Dang. Yes, you're right.


Multiple rolls give you reduced standard deviation. A TWFer making a full attack is likely to hit with, say, four attacks, and less so with any other number, but this roll over system means it's equally likely to get any amount of attacks from 1 to 10. Unless you made attack rolls with 6d4-4 or something like that (I didn't do the math), it's swingier.
Yes, that's right... <facepalm>


EDIT: Plus I think the fewer different variables you have, the easier it'll be to remember. "+15, then subtract and divide by five, except when it's seven, three, two, or not at all" is much harder to remember than "three attacks at +15, +10, and +5" is harder than "three attacks at +11 each" (with a Rapid Shot-style multiple attack system, which I think I'm going to use the next time I run a game).
Eh. It's based on what weapon you're wielding, so after you calculate your attack and damage bonus, you just put a little note: "iteratives at 3." (Also, the swing is +- 2)

Basically... I like the idea of extra-attacks-for-beating-AC replacing extra-attacks-for-a-high-BAB, but a d20 system is too random to support it?

Seerow
2012-09-27, 03:26 PM
Basically... I like the idea of extra-attacks-for-beating-AC replacing extra-attacks-for-a-high-BAB, but a d20 system is too random to support it?


Basically. You could pull it off with a resolution system that has an inherent bell curve, but given you guys are going for 3.5+ I don't see that as an option. And not really sure I'd want it to be regardless.

Eldan
2012-09-27, 03:41 PM
Two other problems with dropping Iteratives in favour of hitting over for more damage:
First, Power Attack. What does it do, now? does it even still exist?
Second, with several attacks, you can attack more than one target, or do several combat maneuvers in one round.

Also, with your system, it doesn't seem unlikely that for the same attack roll, a light weapon would deal more damage than a heavy one. Does that seem right to you?

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-09-27, 05:25 PM
The 3e standard for extra attacks seems to be "get one extra attack with X limitations, all attacks this round take a -2 penalty," whether it's Flurry of Blows, Rapid Shot, Snap Kick, or something else. Maybe instead of adding iterative attacks by rolling high, you can use that system (-2 for each extra attack) with different styles interacting with it slightly differently.

Something like the following: Instead of getting two attacks at +6/+1 at BAB +6, you can get two attacks at +4/+4. One-handed is the accurate-against-one-guy style, so maybe you reduce the penalties by -1 if you attack only a single opponent on your turn. TWF is the roll-lots-and-hope-some-hit style, so maybe instead of making two separate attacks at +4 each you roll twice and take the better roll; if it hits you deal damage as if you hit with both weapons, if it misses you miss cleanly. THF is the high-damage-low-accuracy style, so make it like Decisive Strike: roll one attack at -2 that deals double damage if it hits (and on a side note, I'd suggest putting a lower cap on Power Attack to prevent PAing for full with the reduced penalties, unless you're sure that tighter control of bonuses will mean accuracy won't outstrip AC by a lot anymore). Light weapons reduce the penalty by -1 and two-handed weapons increase it by -1.

Then, instead of making lots of other abilities that let you add additional attacks (which would defeat the purpose of limiting numbers of attacks), you make the other abilities add situational benefits. Flurry of Blows doesn't let you make a third attack, it just lets you use all of your attacks on a standard action--or, if you're already making full attacks standard actions, lets you make your second attack as a swift action if you spent your standard action doing a combat maneuver or another martial thing that's not an attack. Snap Kick lets you "save up" your second attack (take the penalties on your turn, add the second attack to an AoO). Cleave doesn't make you roll again, you just apply the same attack roll and damage roll, effects, etc. against the new target. Rapid Shot just adds together the damage of both attacks before applying DR. And so on and so forth.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-27, 05:31 PM
Two other problems with dropping Iteratives in favour of hitting over for more damage:
First, Power Attack. What does it do, now? does it even still exist?
Second, with several attacks, you can attack more than one target, or do several combat maneuvers in one round.

Also, with your system, it doesn't seem unlikely that for the same attack roll, a light weapon would deal more damage than a heavy one. Does that seem right to you?

Power Attack: Take the penalty to the attack roll, get the bonus to damage to all attacks you hit with.
Multiple attacks: See the new Full Attack option: take attack penalties to attack extra foes, with iterative attacks still functioning normally.

I hadn't really crunched numbers, since their final form will probably depend on things like weapon and armor stats and modifier stacking, which we haven't dealt with. I'm also thinking about DR, where even a little bit is going to hurt rapid-fire light weapons.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-27, 07:05 PM
Ok, how 'bout this for multiple attacks:

For every 5 points of BAB, you may make one additional weapon attack per turn. Each extra attack is at your full BAB, with a penalty based on the weapon you are wielding:

-4 for a two-handed weapon.
-2 for a one-handed weapon.
-1 for a light weapon.


When wielding a weapon in your off-hand, you gain a new set of attacks, but all are taken at a -1 or -2 penalty, as if they were iterative attacks. Thus, a character with a +10 BAB and a pair of shortswords could make 3 attacks with his primary hand (one at full BAB and two at BAB -1) and 3 attacks with his off hand (all at BAB -1)

(Numbers are pure guesswork at the moment)

Knaight
2012-09-27, 11:00 PM
Ok, how 'bout this for multiple attacks:

For every 5 points of BAB, you may make one additional weapon attack per turn. Each extra attack is at your full BAB, with a penalty based on the weapon you are wielding:

-4 for a two-handed weapon.
-2 for a one-handed weapon.
-1 for a light weapon.

This could work, but it's still questionable. Take a look at how SAGA does it, and for that matter read the Shifts system I linked earlier - it might actually be pertinent to your original idea, and while it does generally avoid multiple attacks it still provides a bonus to clearing AC well.

Eldan
2012-09-28, 05:56 AM
Currently, I'm mainly wondering: what is the benefit of two weapons, in real life? Is it really more attacks in the same time? Most styles I can remember with two weapons mainly seem to use the second weapon for parrying, with the occasional stab if there's an opportunity with it.

How about changing TWF, so that it doesn't give more attacks, but instead gives you an AC bonus similar to a shield, depending on weapon size, and a bonus on feints, or something like that?

The shifts system is also a pretty good idea. If I may make a suggestion:

Advantages*
Advantages in combat are everything that gives you an advantage and the opponent a disadvantage. Every situation that benefits one fighter more than the other gives one advantage, which can be spent on several things.

Example situations that give advantages:
-One fighter being invisible
-Surprise attack
-Feint
-Flanking
-One fighter being prone
-Beating the opponents AC by X or more with an attack roll
-One fighter being unarmed
-Etc.

As a swift action (or so), one or more advantages can be spent on:
-More damage per advantage spent
-A dirty trick (see above)
-Initiating a combat maneuver with a bonus per advantage spent
-Preventing an AoO an opponent could make
-Negating an enemy advantage
-Lowering enemy AC
-Other things Knaight suggested in his shift system

*I like that name more for a general system.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2012-09-28, 07:05 AM
Currently, I'm mainly wondering: what is the benefit of two weapons, in real life? Is it really more attacks in the same time? Most styles I can remember with two weapons mainly seem to use the second weapon for parrying, with the occasional stab if there's an opportunity with it.


Depends entirely on the fighting style. Some styles focus on fluidity of strikes, some on parrying, some on any number of other things. It's really more weapon and style dependent than it is one or two weapon dependent.

Eldan
2012-09-28, 07:08 AM
Hm. Drop TWF, include [Style] feats?

Djinn_in_Tonic
2012-09-28, 07:15 AM
Hm. Drop TWF, include [Style] feats?

Potentially a better suggestion. One that makes *me* feel a little better, anyway. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2012-09-28, 07:53 AM
Okay. Just throwing some ideas out there.

Two-weapon fighting:
Normally, you may attack with either your main or off-hand weapon in any given turn. Holding a weapon in your off-hand gives you no benefits or penalties whatsoever.

Main Gauche: [Style]

Requirement: You must wield any weapon in your main hand and a light blade in your off-hand.
Benefit: This style offers four benefits.
First, your off-hand weapon gives you a bonus to armour class just as a light shield.
Second, once per turn, you may feint as a swift action instead of a standard action.
Third, you are treated as being one size category larger for purposes of your CMB on any disarm attempt.
Fourth: you may make an additional attack of opportunity per round.

Two swords as one

Requirement: you must wield a one-handed weapon in your main hand, and a light weapon in your off-hand.
Benefit: this style offers four benefits:
First, your off-hand weapon gives you a benefit to armour class just as a buckler.
Second, you gain add your off-hand weapon's base damage as a bonus on your main weapon's damage.
Third, if your off-hand weapon is made of any special material, your main weapon is treated as being made of the same material.
Fourth: if you are flanked by three or fewer opponents, they receive no advantage for flanking you.

Seerow
2012-09-28, 08:30 AM
I actually do like that Shifts system. Looking at Eldan's suggestion for expanding it, it looks like something I've been playing with, where AoOs get replaced with a opportunity system. So a character who moves through a Fighter's threatened area rather than automatically provoking an AoO, incurs opportunity. Any opponent can choose to use that opportunity for something. So a Fighter might be able to use the Opportunity to make a free attack against the enemy, or a Rogue might use it to make an attack into a sneak attack. You can also have spells that require certain amount of opportunity on the target to work, and most status effects would probably generate opportunity on the target.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-28, 10:27 AM
Mmm, I think I maybe will do something with the advantage system. Bonus damage instead of extra attacks will speed things up, for sure...

Eldan, those feats are pretty solid, although:


Second, once per turn, you may feint as a swift action instead of a standard action.

The new feint is substituting Bluff or Sleight of Hand for attack, and Insight for AC. The attack is part of the standard action. Not saying that a second attack as a swift action is bad, per se, but it may be better than you intended.

Eldan
2012-09-28, 10:28 AM
Just vague ideas to throw out there. The important thing is the advantage system.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-28, 10:31 AM
I'll get to work on it later today, probably. Got to do some homework/prep for an IRL game first.

Eldan
2012-09-28, 10:35 AM
Another thing: I'm reading over all of it again ,now, so comments as I get there.

Armour class: by your formula, AC will be four or five points lower at level 1. Is that intended?

Seerow
2012-09-28, 10:39 AM
Another thing: I'm reading over all of it again ,now, so comments as I get there.

Armour class: by your formula, AC will be four or five points lower at level 1. Is that intended?

I'm not Grod, but I would assume yes. In 3.5, you start with a high AC and low attack bonuses, and at higher levels have a lower AC and higher attack bonuses. With the change to making AC scale with BAB, the result would be having a >50% miss chance for the entire span of the game. Dropping base AC to 5 is the quick and dirty easy fix to that problem. The other option is the one 4e/5e take of giving everyone a +2-3 to hit for free.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-28, 12:40 PM
I did notice that, but I didn't see a better way to take armor into account. We might want to compensate with a first-level health boost like 4e did.

Eldan
2012-09-28, 12:44 PM
I think that should be a thing anyway. First level characters are a bit too fragile. Wizards shouldn't die to goblins with shortswords in one round. Double Hit points at first level? You get quadruple skill points at first level, so getting more of something isn't unprecedented.

Seerow
2012-09-28, 12:52 PM
I think that should be a thing anyway. First level characters are a bit too fragile. Wizards shouldn't die to goblins with shortswords in one round. Double Hit points at first level? You get quadruple skill points at first level, so getting more of something isn't unprecedented.

You already get effectively double hp at first level by virtue of max HD.

Why not take a tip from 4e and say get con score instead of con mod at level 1? That gives you between 9 and 14 extra hp (assuming a range of 8-18), Or is that more HP than what you're looking for?

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-28, 01:18 PM
You already get effectively double hp at first level by virtue of max HD.

Why not take a tip from 4e and say get con score instead of con mod at level 1? That gives you between 9 and 14 extra hp (assuming a range of 8-18), Or is that more HP than what you're looking for?

Not a bad idea, 'cept that we were replacing scores and modifiers with just modifiers. We could probably just say "Gain 4 times your Constitution score bonus HP at first level, minimum 4," though.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-28, 03:43 PM
OK, advantage rules posted!



Advantage
For two points by which you beat your opponent's armor class, you gain one point of advantage, rounded down. Characters may spend advantage in the following ways. Spending advantage is an swift action, unless otherwise mentioned.

Expend any number of points to gain an equal bonus to damage on one attack.
Expend any number of points to gain an equal bonus to one CMB check.
Expend 5 points to make an additional melee or ranged attack this round.
Expend 5 points as an immediate action to gain an additional attack of opportunity.
Expend 10 points to attempt a combat maneuver as a move action.

Every round, you lose 1d6 points of accumulated advantage. You lose all accumulated advantage upon the end of combat.

Pretty sparse-looking list at the moment, but Eldan and I were discussing giving individual classes their own special ways to spend advantage.

Knaight
2012-09-28, 10:42 PM
Why not take a tip from 4e and say get con score instead of con mod at level 1? That gives you between 9 and 14 extra hp (assuming a range of 8-18), Or is that more HP than what you're looking for?
Weren't we consolidating scores and modifiers into one thing? This would essentially prevent that option, and bringing scores back for something like this seems clunky. Doubling HP on top of max hit dice for both could work quite well, and would generally be less drastic. That said, if weapon blocking is being added in it might not be such a concern to begin with. 5, +1 for BAB, +3 or so for weapon blocking gets you almost up to standard, and with shields being more viable that really isn't a problem.

Another option would be damage reduction of some kind, maybe based entirely on armor, maybe connected to BAB or level or similar.

Eldan
2012-09-29, 08:05 AM
I was thinking: there was one thing where scores instead of modifiers might help: ability damage. It's a bit more granular that way, and saying "reach 0 you die/are paralysed/comatose" is just a bit more intuitive than "if your modifier reaches -6 you are etc.

Eldan
2012-09-29, 08:37 AM
Let's go over this again in detail:

Minimum damage: does the 1 minimum include damage reduction?

Advantage: one per two points exceeding AC may be too much, seeing as how flanking or surprise would also give only one point. Either those would have to give more, or this would have to give less, otherwise I think hitting high would be too good in comparison.
Spending advantage for more attacks: if your attack bonus is high enough, isn't that potentially infinite attacks? (Edit: stupid me, swift action to activate).

Special weapon rules: Eldan approves. You don't mention reach weapons at all, though.

Hit points: should we change it to a variable number for when you die, like something dependent on constitution score?

Speed: is running still straight line only? You don't mention it.

Five-foot step: I think I like that change. It ends with an "if yoU" in mid sentence. Anything else coming there?

Stand up: Should this be a swift action? I think move is just fine. Same for readying shields. Should take quite a bit more time to strap on a shield than draw a sword.

SHooting into melee: are we really doing this?

Critical hits auto-comfirming... are we doing that? There might be scores of problems from that, further down the line.

Charge: what exactly is a "relatively straight line"?

Dirty trick: sounds really good. Might involve a save. Specify that the trick against foes within one range increment is with ranged weapons only?

Disarm: no longer any modifiers for weapon size?

Grapple: no longer any attack rolls? That severely hampers dexterous characters who otherwise would choose to evade the grapple. Spellcasting: what is the DC of the concentration check?

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-29, 09:58 AM
Let's go over this again in detail:

Minimum damage: does the 1 minimum include damage reduction?
I'd say yes.


Advantage: one per two points exceeding AC may be too much, seeing as how flanking or surprise would also give only one point. Either those would have to give more, or this would have to give less, otherwise I think hitting high would be too good in comparison.
Flanking and surprise giving advantage were only ideas you threw out. I decided that they didn't quite fit with the roll-over-AC system.


Spending advantage for more attacks: if your attack bonus is high enough, isn't that potentially infinite attacks? (Edit: stupid me, swift action to activate).
:smallwink:


Special weapon rules: Eldan approves. You don't mention reach weapons at all, though.
Yeah, guess I should probably copy the paragraph from weapons to here.


Hit points: should we change it to a variable number for when you die, like something dependent on constitution score?
Mmm. I'm fine with -10, but... maybe -5-Con score?


Speed: is running still straight line only? You don't mention it.
Pretty sure I just copy-pasted run from the SRD, so... yes?


Five-foot step: I think I like that change. It ends with an "if yoU" in mid sentence. Anything else coming there?
It does? <checks> Whoops, lost a line or two there.


Stand up: Should this be a swift action? I think move is just fine. Same for readying shields. Should take quite a bit more time to strap on a shield than draw a sword.
Standing up as a swift provokes AoO; standing up as a move does not. I'd leave the shield where it is for the sake of simplicity; it's hardly a rule that comes up often.


SHooting into melee: are we really doing this?
Doing what?


Critical hits auto-comfirming... are we doing that? There might be scores of problems from that, further down the line.
It's the houserule my friends and I have always used.


Charge: what exactly is a "relatively straight line"?
What it sounds like? I was copying the Charge maneuver from M&M; it should probably go back to being a straight line, yeah.


Dirty trick: sounds really good. Might involve a save. Specify that the trick against foes within one range increment is with ranged weapons only?
Opposed CMB checks and a very short duration should be ok in the end. I'll making a note about having to wield a ranged weapon for ranged Dirty Tricks, though.


Disarm: no longer any modifiers for weapon size?
Nope. Might add something about a two-handed weapon giving you a bonus to resisting disarms, but... nope. Simplicity.


Grapple: no longer any attack rolls? That severely hampers dexterous characters who otherwise would choose to evade the grapple. Spellcasting: what is the DC of the concentration check?
CMB is BAB+Size+Strength or Dexterity. I'll add it something about using escape artist to get out of grapples, though. The Concentration DC in 3.5 is set at 20, but it's mentioned under skills, not grapple. Think I should add it here?

Eldan
2012-09-29, 11:04 AM
Add the concentraction DC here, yes. That's the section someone will have open in case of combat, it saves on turning pages.

tarkisflux
2012-09-29, 12:20 PM
Ok, I haven't read things in too much depth yet, but I had a few questions. Apologies if I missed stuff that's in the thread (or in another thread entirely :-/).

Are iterative attacks still in?

Did you consider a version of your defense roll where armor bonus does not stack with BAB defense bonus? It allows for low level guys to need plate and whatnot to get by, but higher level guys aren't hosed if they get ambushed out of plate in the middle of the night. They might want to wear it anyway for a magic property or side benefit, depending on the gear system, but their numbers aren't killed by its absence. Not sure if that fits in with your theme goals or not though.

Do you have a clear idea of what you want TWF, 2HF, SnB, and Off Hand Free styles of weapon fighting to be and do? Should they be all roughly the same in attack and damage out the gate, with minor benefits via the [Style] feats? Should they have strengths and weaknesses and diverge more with the addition of feats? Should any be actually inferior until feats are applies? I ask because some of the concerns on page 1 seem more a result of no well defined vision for these things than anything that's bad on its own. TWF dealing damage more reliably than 2HF isn't a big deal, for example, if TWF requires one more feat than 2HF (so you see an actual benefit from taking the feat instead of just breaking even) and that's the goal for the style.

On advantage, how many you get per round or per roll-over should probably depend on how many attacks you expect people to make in a round and how often you want them to spend those points. And maybe how long you want combat to last, since combat should probably last long enough for you to build up to an option.

I assume that you can build advantage up on a bag of rats (or mooks if you prefer) and then spend it on a big target, since there's nothing here about it not transferring and multiple advantage pools would be annoying. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but advantage not transferring and being entirely lost if you attacked a different foe might be something to consider. A fixed decay rate might also be worth looking at (say, 3) since rolling a die for it at the start of each round could slow things down slightly.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-09-29, 03:50 PM
Regarding auto-confirming crits, the critical confirmation roll exists for two purposes: to make expanded threat range weapons balanced with improved crit multiplier weapons, and to make creatures who basically only hit on a 20 and therefore crit on every hit less dangerous and swingy. If you change "a 20 is automatically a crit" to "a 20 is a crit if rolling a 20 would hit normally, otherwise it's a normal hit if it wouldn't," that solves the tons-of-mooks issue, so needing confirmation roll comes down to whether you're still using threat range and crit multiplier. If the only way to get better ranges and multipliers is class features or the like, and all of the base weapons are 20/x2, you can get rid of confirmation rolls without any problem.

Knaight
2012-09-29, 04:04 PM
Pretty sparse-looking list at the moment, but Eldan and I were discussing giving individual classes their own special ways to spend advantage.

I'd also consider something along the lines of spending advantage to add effects, with weapons determining the cost. Say it costs 3 advantage to do an effect, +1 per size category smaller you are. Weapons might have bonuses to certain types of attacks, taking only 2 + 1/size category for them (e.g. tripping with a staff, sundering with an ax, bull rushing with a shield, whatever), and penalties to other attacks, taking 4 + 1/size category for them (e.g. tripping with a dagger, sundering with a rapier, disarming with a hammer). Then you could add in options via feats, such as the ability damage possibilities I outlined in the Shifts thread, or concealment removal, or whatever else.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-09-30, 01:42 PM
Are iterative attacks still in?
Yes, under the Full Attack option. +1 iterative/5 BAB, all at a -5 penalty.


Did you consider a version of your defense roll where armor bonus does not stack with BAB defense bonus? It allows for low level guys to need plate and whatnot to get by, but higher level guys aren't hosed if they get ambushed out of plate in the middle of the night. They might want to wear it anyway for a magic property or side benefit, depending on the gear system, but their numbers aren't killed by its absence. Not sure if that fits in with your theme goals or not though.
Oooh, that's... a really good idea, actually.


Do you have a clear idea of what you want TWF, 2HF, SnB, and Off Hand Free styles of weapon fighting to be and do? Should they be all roughly the same in attack and damage out the gate, with minor benefits via the [Style] feats? Should they have strengths and weaknesses and diverge more with the addition of feats? Should any be actually inferior until feats are applies? I ask because some of the concerns on page 1 seem more a result of no well defined vision for these things than anything that's bad on its own. TWF dealing damage more reliably than 2HF isn't a big deal, for example, if TWF requires one more feat than 2HF (so you see an actual benefit from taking the feat instead of just breaking even) and that's the goal for the style.
Mmm. Yeah, that needs thinking. I'd say:

TWF- counterattacks.
THF- damage.
Sword & Board- defense.
One Sword- mobility

But I'm not sure how best to go about working those. They should probably all start about equal and grow with feats, though.


On advantage, how many you get per round or per roll-over should probably depend on how many attacks you expect people to make in a round and how often you want them to spend those points. And maybe how long you want combat to last, since combat should probably last long enough for you to build up to an option.
True. Numbers will probably need to be tweaked through playtesting.


I assume that you can build advantage up on a bag of rats (or mooks if you prefer) and then spend it on a big target, since there's nothing here about it not transferring and multiple advantage pools would be annoying. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but advantage not transferring and being entirely lost if you attacked a different foe might be something to consider. A fixed decay rate might also be worth looking at (say, 3) since rolling a die for it at the start of each round could slow things down slightly.
You're right about making it a fixed rate. (Maybe based on your BAB?) I considered it being lost when you switch targets, but that seemed likely to get too complex. I might drop a line about foes needing to be a "legitimate challenge," but to be honest, I can't see any halfway-competent DM allowing the "bag of rats" thing to fly.


Regarding auto-confirming crits, the critical confirmation roll exists for two purposes: to make expanded threat range weapons balanced with improved crit multiplier weapons, and to make creatures who basically only hit on a 20 and therefore crit on every hit less dangerous and swingy. If you change "a 20 is automatically a crit" to "a 20 is a crit if rolling a 20 would hit normally, otherwise it's a normal hit if it wouldn't," that solves the tons-of-mooks issue, so needing confirmation roll comes down to whether you're still using threat range and crit multiplier. If the only way to get better ranges and multipliers is class features or the like, and all of the base weapons are 20/x2, you can get rid of confirmation rolls without any problem.
... all right, all right, I'll put them back in, but don't expect me to play with them.


I'd also consider something along the lines of spending advantage to add effects, with weapons determining the cost. Say it costs 3 advantage to do an effect, +1 per size category smaller you are. Weapons might have bonuses to certain types of attacks, taking only 2 + 1/size category for them (e.g. tripping with a staff, sundering with an ax, bull rushing with a shield, whatever), and penalties to other attacks, taking 4 + 1/size category for them (e.g. tripping with a dagger, sundering with a rapier, disarming with a hammer). Then you could add in options via feats, such as the ability damage possibilities I outlined in the Shifts thread, or concealment removal, or whatever else.
All that is adding complexity, though. Making mundane combat more interesting and simple is a delicate balance, and, well... the more individual rules in the general combat section, the worse things get. Some of those things might come back in as feats of class abilities, though.

tarkisflux
2012-09-30, 09:14 PM
Yes, under the Full Attack option. +1 iterative/5 BAB, all at a -5 penalty.

Ok. You're likely to generate much more advantage at higher level than you are at lower levels. While you could increase the decay rate as you leveled, I think leaving it as is and expecting people to pull more tricks out when they're higher level is probably fine. It's a boost to BAB that way, and It'll probably help keep combat time from growing large too.



Oooh, that's... a really good idea, actually.

You are welcome to steal it. It works much better when you don't have enhancement bonuses to armor (and thus not to weapons either) since you'll grow out of them eventually anyway, and that may or may not be what you want. Me? I want to get away from "mandatory" feeling bonuses as much as possible.



Mmm. Yeah, that needs thinking. I'd say:

TWF- counterattacks.
THF- damage.
Sword & Board- defense.
One Sword- mobility

But I'm not sure how best to go about working those. They should probably all start about equal and grow with feats, though.

2HF is probably going to start off dealing more damage than the rest as a result of weapon die sizes and the two-handed strength damage bonus. You could strip that out and make it roughly equivalent to OHF and SnB maybe, but then SnB is an arguably better feat free style because you don't sacrifice much damage and get a bonus to AC. You may want to go with minor differentiation to start without feat investment and grow from there, or just make OHF the default and charge a feat for everything else. Either starting position is followed with feats, feats, and more feats to differentiate further.

TWF could be brought into line by not granting off hand attacks at all, just allowing you to make your regular attacks with either the primary or off hand without penalty. And then drop a counter or whatever on as the default (if there is a default, feat free investment position for the style) and grow with feats from there.



You're right about making it a fixed rate. (Maybe based on your BAB?) I considered it being lost when you switch targets, but that seemed likely to get too complex. I might drop a line about foes needing to be a "legitimate challenge," but to be honest, I can't see any halfway-competent DM allowing the "bag of rats" thing to fly.

I don't think losing it when you switch targets is too complex (you have one pool, and it resets to 0 when you swap targets), but that might be me. What it does do is encourage you to whack on the same guy for a while to the exclusion of others. It also means that you are likely to have smaller levels of advantage, since it would get wiped regularly, and it would encourage using what you build up on an enemy before you lose it (sort of a finisher mechanic). Whether that sort of behavior is desired or not is a question of taste and goals. But those things would also allow you to just drop the decay rate entirely, which might be an okay simplification trade off.



[Stuff about crit ranges and non auto-confirmed crits]
... all right, all right, I'll put them back in, but don't expect me to play with them.

Alternately, embrace the "20, x2" weapon paradigm and rely on combat maneuver bonuses, damage types, or other action tweaks to provide differentiation to different weapon groups.

Knaight
2012-09-30, 10:05 PM
Mmm. Yeah, that needs thinking. I'd say:

TWF- counterattacks.
THF- damage.
Sword & Board- defense.
One Sword- mobility

But I'm not sure how best to go about working those. They should probably all start about equal and grow with feats, though.

Growing with feats seems viable, though class features also fit in here. You might also want to work in reach weapons, thrown weapons, and projectiles to make a core 7 styles, rather than having them be sidelined.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-10, 01:47 PM
7 core styles sounds about right, aye.

On reflection, I don't think I like the BAB-or-Armor split. Eldan's right; I'd like the armored archetype to be relevant throughout. There should be a penalty to wearing the heavier armors, so that light- and unarmed styles are still valid, but...

While on the subject of AC-- and I just mentioned this idea on the main thread-- what if we dump Dex to AC, at least as a default option? Instead, to balance heavy-verses-light armor, we replace the "max Dex bonus" with a "BAB-to-AC penalty?" So, like, a chain shirt reduces the BAB you can add by 1, and full plate reduces it by 4?

Also: advantage is now only against a single target. Classes/feats may change that, but for now, yeah.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-13, 06:11 PM
'k. So, as decided on the main thread, all forms of armor will have the Armor+Dex capped at... something. Between 5 and 8. That way, the relevant numbers, stripped of will be

5+ (5-8) armor and Dex + (0-2 shield) vs d20 + Str/Dex.
= 10-15 vs d20 + Str/Dex.

Armor will probably also provide DR.

Knaight
2012-10-14, 03:58 AM
'k. So, as decided on the main thread, all forms of armor will have the Armor+Dex capped at... something. Between 5 and 8. That way, the relevant numbers, stripped of will be

5+ (5-8) armor and Dex + (0-2 shield) vs d20 + Str/Dex.
= 10-15 vs d20 + Str/Dex.

Armor will probably also provide AC.

If we are keeping weapon bonuses to offense and defense, we should probably take them into account here.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-14, 09:19 AM
If we are keeping weapon bonuses to offense and defense, we should probably take them into account here.

I don't think so. Light weapons will let you use Dex instead of Strength for things, but that's about it.

Eldan
2012-10-23, 03:47 AM
Would it be fine if I took this and made a third draft from it, later? It looks like I'll have a lot of free time totday.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-23, 10:09 AM
Would it be fine if I took this and made a third draft from it, later? It looks like I'll have a lot of free time totday.

What were you planning on changing?

Eldan
2012-10-23, 10:52 AM
Consolidate what we have. Weren't there changes?

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-23, 11:00 AM
I've been keeping the original post updated...

Eldan
2012-10-23, 11:18 AM
Oh. Nevermind, then. I'll have a stab at magic.

Vadskye
2012-10-24, 12:33 AM
5 + Base Attack Bonus + Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + Dexterity + Size modifier.

The reason Armor Class starts at 10 is because that gives a 50% chance to hit between equally matched opponents. The "50% chance between equally matched opponents" mechanic is core to D&D; why change it here? This scales oddly with level, because there are far more ways to magically (and otherwise) improve AC than to improve attack bonus; 10 + 1/2 BAB is a much better mechanic, if tying BAB into AC is your goal.


For two points by which you beat your opponent's armor class, you gain one point of advantage, rounded down.
One of the things that makes D&D combat faster than other game systems is that threshold successes don't matter. Doing math between attack bonus results and AC is time-consuming, and I guarantee you will regret the decision to track every hit precisely against every AC once you start playtesting this system. Combat doesn't need to be made more complicated; I think this mechanic can be safely dropped. D&D functions just fine without it.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-24, 12:44 AM
The reason Armor Class starts at 10 is because that gives a 50% chance to hit between equally matched opponents. The "50% chance between equally matched opponents" mechanic is core to D&D; why change it here? This scales oddly with level, because there are far more ways to magically (and otherwise) improve AC than to improve attack bonus; 10 + 1/2 BAB is a much better mechanic, if tying BAB into AC is your goal.

AC as written doesn't have anything to do with a 50% chance. 5+Armor+shield+BAB does give a pretty even chance against an equal-leveled opponent. (5 base + 8 armor/dex + 2 shield = 15, vs d20+Strength). Make it based on half BAB, and the two start drifting apart again. Part of the rewrite is taking out as many of the little assorted modifiers as we can, so there won't be more ways to boost one than the other.

Vadskye
2012-10-24, 12:58 AM
AC does have everything to do with a 50% chance. It means someone with a +0 bonus to attack rolls has a roughly 50% (55% technically, since attackers win ties) chance to hit someone with a +0 bonus to AC. Likewise, someone with a +10 modifier to attack rolls has a 50% (okay 55%) chance to hit someone with a +10 bonus to AC. And based on the conversation I saw in the first organizational G&G thread (based around this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13950977&postcount=18)), you seem to be keeping the vast majority of bonuses types, several of which only apply to AC.

Basically, 5+BAB+etc. can mean that equally leveled opponents can be roughly equivalent, but that's very different from saying that opponents with equal modifiers are equally matched. The former is very hard to guarantee, while the latter is simple - and matches the way the rest of D&D works.

Knaight
2012-10-24, 02:47 PM
One of the things that makes D&D combat faster than other game systems is that threshold successes don't matter. Doing math between attack bonus results and AC is time-consuming, and I guarantee you will regret the decision to track every hit precisely against every AC once you start playtesting this system. Combat doesn't need to be made more complicated; I think this mechanic can be safely dropped. D&D functions just fine without it.
Generally speaking, D&D combat is on the slow end, and there are plenty of systems where the relative degree of the results is relevant that are nonetheless far faster than D&D. While I'd rather go with 5 points than 2, to keep Advantage a bit rarer and make the calculations faster, I'd also consider it a relatively minor slow down that is worth it due to the tactical complexity it adds. It also speeds up other areas, as it simplifies the early decision making and limits it to largely successful rolls to some extent.

Eldan
2012-10-24, 02:53 PM
I'd go so far and say that D&D is one of the slowest systems I've ever seen in combat, some instances of rocket-tag excluded. Melee certainly is.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-24, 03:13 PM
I'd go so far and say that D&D is one of the slowest systems I've ever seen in combat, some instances of rocket-tag excluded. Melee certainly is.

Could be worse. Could be Exalted :smalltongue:.

D&D combat mainly slows down when:

Everyone is making lots of iterative attacks. Reducing the penalty to -5 for all will speed that up by letting you roll them all at once.
People take extra actions. Cutting back on spells and abilities that break the action economy will help here.
People don't know what their abilities do. Not much we can do here; idiots will be idiots regardless.
The party takes the time to plot tactics between turns. That's kind of what you're supposed to do; D&D is a very tactical combat game.
There are lots of mooks on the field. This can be helped by including effective minion and mass combat rules.
Big parties. Nothing we can do there.

Just to Browse
2012-10-24, 03:18 PM
I really don't like that advantage system. It eliminates any sort of momentum mechanic because you can get free iterative attacks off of stabbing ****ty rats, or get free attacks of opportunity by commanding rats to run around you on everyone's initiative.

Iterative attacks can totally happen, and I get the whole "hit them better, deal more damage" idea, but we're using a d20 and not a 3d6, so this just isn't a good idea.

Vadskye
2012-10-24, 03:41 PM
Generally speaking, D&D combat is on the slow end, and there are plenty of systems where the relative degree of the results is relevant that are nonetheless far faster than D&D. While I'd rather go with 5 points than 2, to keep Advantage a bit rarer and make the calculations faster, I'd also consider it a relatively minor slow down that is worth it due to the tactical complexity it adds. It also speeds up other areas, as it simplifies the early decision making and limits it to largely successful rolls to some extent.

What tactical complexity are you talking about? If you like the extra abilities that add complexity to combat, you can use an Action Point type system; you don't need to use a threshold success mechanic on every attack roll. Also, what early decision making is being simplified here?


Could be worse. Could be Exalted :smalltongue:.

D&D combat mainly slows down when:

Everyone is making lots of iterative attacks. Reducing the penalty to -5 for all will speed that up by letting you roll them all at once.
People take extra actions. Cutting back on spells and abilities that break the action economy will help here.
People don't know what their abilities do. Not much we can do here; idiots will be idiots regardless.
The party takes the time to plot tactics between turns. That's kind of what you're supposed to do; D&D is a very tactical combat game.
There are lots of mooks on the field. This can be helped by including effective minion and mass combat rules.
Big parties. Nothing we can do there.


I agree with all of these points: that's what makes D&D slow down (depending on your playgroup). The actual mechanics of combat are simple and streamlined - much better than systems where you roll attack, dodge, soak, and damage (hi White Wolf). There is definite room for improvement in D&D mechanics to make things smoother and faster, but the speed of physical combat is one of the system's biggest strengths, I think; that's what makes it possible to add on extra complexity. The only place where it really slows down is when you make inordinately large numbers of attack rolls, whether because of AoO shenanigans or high level combat (particularly with dual-wielders... ugh). Using a threshold success system will make those problems worse, not better.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-24, 04:10 PM
I'm not unduly attached to Advantage, but I'm also not sure just how much it will slow things down. Mutants and Masterminds, for example, uses thresholds an awful lot, and still manages to be quite fast. It needs playtested, basically-- I was going to try the new skill and combat mechanics out tonight, but that game fell through.

DonEsteban
2012-10-24, 05:03 PM
I think this is a giant step in the right direction. Thank you for the effort. I hope you appreciate an opinion from a complete outsider. I just felt the urge to comment...


> Dex bonus to Damage

I see where you're coming from, but I have a funny feeling with this. It seems so... unnatural. But if you think you must...

Editorial note: Shouldn't you include light weapons here right from the start? Or even: "If you use Dex bonus to attack, you add Dex bonus to damage."

> Advantage

Who ordered this? I mean, yes, it sounds kind of cool but
- it appears needlessly complicated and seems to involve a lot of bookkeeping
- if you wanted to sell me on G&G your argument shouldn't be "Hey it has lots of new sub-systems you never dreamed of." If it doesn't fix anything, don't include it.

> Two-weapon fighting

Seems very strong, but I might be wrong here. Also, I don't completely understand how TWF and iterative attacks interact.

> AC 5 + BAB +...

Seems odd, but it's hard to assess this before seeing BAB and other bonus progressions.

> Dying

I think you would make a lot of new friends if you made this -(CON score + level).

> Ini = BAB/2 + Wis + Dex

I don't like this. Why should wizards be slower to act?

> Actions

I second the "Ready shield should be a move action" motion above.

> Stand up as a swift action

I don't know. It's hard to imagine that knight in full-plate lying on his back one moment and standing upright a moment later... Maybe require an Acrobatics check or some such?

> Shooting into melee

I'm not sure if this new rule really solves a problem or just exchanges one akward rule for another one...

> Criticle hit auto-confirm

Seems to entail a lot of necessary changes later on. Does this really fix anything?

> Bull-rush

Moving still doesn't provoke AoOs from each other, does it?

> Charge

Might you change the requirement to "the last 10 feet of movement must be in a straight line"? I always wondered...

> Defend

Must you really include a die roll here. Can't it just be a +5 bonus? Less dice rolling = better.

You mention total defense and fighting defensively, but neither is defined anywhere.

> Dirty tricks

I really like this idea, but it probably needs work. Blinding your opponent with a crossbow bolt? Really?

> Grapple
> "Deal unarmed damage, attack with a light weapon, or attack with an opponent's light weapon by accepting a -2 penalty to their CMB."

Don't understand this sentence. Who has a penalty when?

> Interrupt

I think I love this.

Knaight
2012-10-24, 08:14 PM
What tactical complexity are you talking about? If you like the extra abilities that add complexity to combat, you can use an Action Point type system; you don't need to use a threshold success mechanic on every attack roll. Also, what early decision making is being simplified here?

Put simply - there's the matter of what you spend the advantage you get on, as it is free and as such you always have something to do unless you scrape the minimum. Similarly, because you make the decisions for specific attacks after you hit, you don't get to make them if you miss, which speeds things up. It also generally avoids most of the subsystems that tend to drag things down, particularly as Advantage provides an alternative to iterative attacks, which slow everything down in a big way at later levels.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-24, 08:39 PM
> Dex bonus to Damage

I see where you're coming from, but I have a funny feeling with this. It seems so... unnatural. But if you think you must...
If you have a big, heavy sword, Strength helps you cut through bone and armor. If you have something small and light, Dex helps you target the more vulnerable spots. It's also to help reduce MAD.


Editorial note: Shouldn't you include light weapons here right from the start? Or even: "If you use Dex bonus to attack, you add Dex bonus to damage."
Good thought, thanks.


> Advantage

Who ordered this? I mean, yes, it sounds kind of cool but
- it appears needlessly complicated and seems to involve a lot of bookkeeping
- if you wanted to sell me on G&G your argument shouldn't be "Hey it has lots of new sub-systems you never dreamed of." If it doesn't fix anything, don't include it.
As I said, I'm not 100% attached to it, but it's mostly intended to replace time-consuming iteratives and add interest to even the most mundane parts of combat.


> Two-weapon fighting

Seems very strong, but I might be wrong here. Also, I don't completely understand how TWF and iterative attacks interact.
With the AC changes, a -2 penalty to attack does get more meaningful. I'll try to clarify the wording on iterative attacks, though.


> AC 5 + BAB +...

Seems odd, but it's hard to assess this before seeing BAB and other bonus progressions.
It's mostly to account for armor. 10+Dex+BAB+misc balances well against d20+Str+BAB+misc, but when you add armor into the mix...


> Dying

I think you would make a lot of new friends if you made this -(CON score + level).
Good idea, thanks.


> Ini = BAB/2 + Wis + Dex

I don't like this. Why should wizards be slower to act?
BAB refers to general combat prowess.


> Actions

I second the "Ready shield should be a move action" motion above.
<shrug>


> Stand up as a swift action

I don't know. It's hard to imagine that knight in full-plate lying on his back one moment and standing upright a moment later... Maybe require an Acrobatics check or some such?
Not a bad idea, thanks.


> Shooting into melee

I'm not sure if this new rule really solves a problem or just exchanges one akward rule for another one...
It takes away a feat tax, at least. I dunno, it might be worth taking out altogether.


> Criticle hit auto-confirm

Seems to entail a lot of necessary changes later on. Does this really fix anything?
Whoops, thought I'd changed this back. A carry-over from when these were my personal houserules-- my group had long since ditched the confirm rules, since they took too much fun out of rolling a 20.


> Bull-rush

Moving still doesn't provoke AoOs from each other, does it?
No, it doesn't. I'll fix that.


> Charge

Might you change the requirement to "the last 10 feet of movement must be in a straight line"? I always wondered...
Ehh... since it's a standard action now, there should be enough maneuverability from the base move action.


> Defend

Must you really include a die roll here. Can't it just be a +5 bonus? Less dice rolling = better.
I was thinking that since you're using up your standard action, you ought to be able to roll a die somewhere...


You mention total defense and fighting defensively, but neither is defined anywhere.
Really?...whoops.


> Dirty tricks

I really like this idea, but it probably needs work. Blinding your opponent with a crossbow bolt? Really?
Blood in the eyes? Knock his helmet askew?


> Grapple
> "Deal unarmed damage, attack with a light weapon, or attack with an opponent's light weapon by accepting a -2 penalty to their CMB."

Don't understand this sentence. Who has a penalty when?
You can use the first three actions normally. If you attempt the last one (twisting his knife around to stab him), you take a penalty to your roll. I'll clarify that.


> Interrupt

I think I love this.
Glad you like it.

PS: @Just to Browse: sorry I missed your post before. In any case, and with all due respect... you're interpreting the rule wrong.


Advantage is accumulated only when attacking a single target. If you attack a different target, you lose all accumulate advantage. You lose all accumulated advantage upon the end of combat.
It's momentum against one foe. You can stab rats all you want; it won't help you against that owlbear trying to eat your face. (Also, the whole bag-of-rats thing is a stupid RAW construct that would never fly in a real game, but that's a different pet peeve)

PPS: Moved Advantage down to multiples of 5, to make the math easier and the points a little less common. Adjusted costs slightly to match.

Knaight
2012-10-25, 06:25 PM
It's momentum against one foe. You can stab rats all you want; it won't help you against that owlbear trying to eat your face. (Also, the whole bag-of-rats thing is a stupid RAW construct that would never fly in a real game, but that's a different pet peeve)
With that said, it probably shouldn't add between rounds either, and should instead be something you get in the context of a single attack (possibly with a feat that can give you a counter attack on defense).

Conor77
2012-10-26, 11:56 PM
Hey, I know this isn't exactly relevant to the discussion at this point, but I have to ask: Why are shields still only giving 2 AC? It seems like, giving up a hand that could be used for increasing offense should give more than +2, though it seems like it wonks with the BaB-to-AC thing. I only ask because if I'm remembering correctly, IRL shields were a primary part of short-distance melee combat. Like, they protected your entire body, and you shoved your enemy, hoping to knock his shield away so you could stab him, but until you did so, it was unlikely that winging your sword would get through his shield.

I realize that making combat like that, or even basing it on realism, isn't practical or desirable. But if nothing else, I would at least like it to be a viable gameplay method. As it is with the Base Attack Bonus to Armor Class, adding a +2 seems hardly worth it at lower levels, and not worth anything once you get above level 8 or so. I think that perhaps a different system for adding BaB to AC would work better, perhaps? Maybe there is a fraction of Base attack Bonus added to AC, but with different percentages when you use different weapon styles? There is also a lack of support for someone using only a one-handed sword, as a fencer.

I don't know where I was going with that. I just want my viking shield-warrior to have a place in D&D for once, instead of getting screwed by the shield rules each time.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-27, 09:07 AM
One thing about adding BAB to both sides is that suddenly that +2 gets a lot bigger. Think about it- the BAB cancels out, so you have 5 + Armor/Dex + Shield vs d20 + Strength. Shields also add to touch AC, and I'll try to make better rules for shield bashing.

Conor77
2012-10-27, 09:38 PM
Thank you for the consideration! I would like the ability to use shield-bash to knock someone off-balance (or something), since that would be more in line with what a shield-bash is supposed to do, rather than straight dealing damage. But maybe that is for Dirty Trick, to like, use your shield to make them dazzled or something? Either way, I think it needs to do something other than straight damage.

Math involving the effectiveness of the AC bonus
As far as the effectiveness of the +2, I suppose I don't know the "plan" for Armor Class, as such. But assuming all things are equal, that +2 represents a 10% reduction in someone else's chance to hit. Let's imagine two guys in a field, one with just a sword, one with a shield and sword, both exactly equal in level and ability scores (+2 mod on all of them). At one attack per turn, the guy with the shield has a 65% chance to hit his opponent each turn. The guy who doesn't have the shield has a 55% chance to hit, but gets 1 more damage every time he does hit, assuming he's holding his sword with both hands. At this point, they appear to be equal. Ten rounds go by, shield has gotten in 6.5 hits at 6.5 damage each (longsword avg.+strength), for a total of ~42 damage. Meanwhile, we have 5.5 hits from the other guy, at 7.5 damage each, for approximately 41 damage.

So, there is a 1 damage advantage to having a shield and equal sword. Assuming his opponent gets his hands on a greatsword, that advantage disappears, as he takes ~55 damage per ten rounds. If they both wear chain shirts, one greatsword, one longsword and shield, then the chance to hit is 45% against Greatsword, 35% against shield-man. Over ten rounds, Shield deals ~30 damage, but takes 35. But let's say that they both wear Masterwork Full-Plate, getting 15 AC for the Two-hander, 17 AC for our shield-bearer. Zeinhander hits 1.5 times over the entire 10 rounds, dealing 15 damage, give or take depending on how much he hits. The longsword wielder gets ~16 damage, though!

In all the math I just did, I didn't take into account levels or different ability scores (Someone with +4 to Dex would not be wearing Full-plate, and a shield might make more sense for them to increase their AC further, and someone with a huge strength score would desire the 1.5x Str to damage more than a shield), but the numbers aren't favorable. Excluding anything to do with feats like Power Attack, or anything except trying to stab each other, anyone who picks up a shield is defending against less damage than they could otherwise be dealing. Only with the best armor possible or no armor at all does a shield-user eke out better damage per round. It isn't that the shield is worse, necessarily. After all, you could argue that if both soldiers hadn't had shields, they would both have taken more damage, which may be why someone is picking up a shield in the first place. But still?

The difference just isn't high enough for me. Yes, it adds to Touch AC as well, but so does a higher Dexterity, or deflection bonus. There are a bunch of ways to increase Armor Class that are better than holding a shield, especially as health increases over levels, to make attack power more valuable than defense power. I understand that you are crafting a new system, and all sorts of things like health-per-level and attack bonuses and magic items are going to be different. But that +2 just doesn't seem like enough.


Warning, opinion zone below.

Aside from a game perspective, most shields cover most of a soldier's upper body, with a non-bypassable wall. Armors are nice against big smashing things, but daggers and lighter swords can slip through the gaps. The whole point of better, heavier armor is to prevent those edges from slipping through and give a little more impact deflection against the heavy blows. A big shield just seems like it should protect...more.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-27, 10:11 PM
Hmm. Thank you, I didn't actually work through all the math. :smallredface: What do you think would be an appropriate replacement? +2/+4? A 10%/20% miss chance? (That's probably way too good, and takes too much time, but eh)

Conor77
2012-10-27, 10:59 PM
Heh, no problem. I think I'm coming down with something, and anything that allows me to do a lot of analytical thinking without moving or being too complex is good...

As far as what bonus it should be, I'm not entirely sure. In my own games, I use +2/+4 for light and heavy shields, with Tower shields granting cover instead of straight AC. It depends on how G&G is handling light/heavy weapons, damage types, and armor as damage reduction (which was mentioned somewhere I believe?). If armor gets to be damage reduction, then +2/+4 with equivalent Damage Reduction (2/4) would work nicely.

Maybe we could add bonuses that are only effective when you don't attack in the round. If you are trying to strike with your weapon, big shields have a certain amount of effectiveness, but they really shine when you are focusing on blocking with them (crouching slightly, turning sideways, putting shield up, focusing on moving it to block your opponent). Maybe something nice would be to get a bonus when fighting defensively or using the full-defense thing that you have. Like, maybe you can take ten on your roll when using a Defending action. Or fifteen? Or maybe just a +4 to the defense roll. I'm not entirely sure.

EDIT: I just thought of this, maybe you add a flat number like 1 or 2 to AC, but then also get to use 1.5 times your Base Attack Bonus when defending with a shield, to express how one gets better at using a shield over time. I haven't run the numbers on it, but that sounds good, initially.

Seerow
2012-10-28, 09:20 AM
Maybe you could make wielding a shield in your offhand reduce the penalties for fighting defensively.. though checking the OP it looks like you got rid of fighting defensively and left only total defense so maybe not. Though honestly that Fighting Defensively/Total defense option seems like you could get away with letting it be used with an attack at -3 or 4 to hit. Reduce the penalty to -1 or 2 with a shield user. Or maybe let the Shield User get 5e style advantage on his defensive roll (ie roll twice, take the higher roll).

Or maybe turn Combat Expertise feat into a Fighting Defensively option everyone gets for free instead of a feat tax, and give a higher return rate while wielding a shield.


Either way, what I'm getting at is let the guy with sword and shield keep the +2 bonus passively, but become much better at defending himself if he chooses to actively do so.

tarkisflux
2012-10-29, 12:54 AM
Wow, I actually forgot to run the damage numbers on a shield. Thanks for catching that Conor77.

Ok, a +2 shield is not sufficient to counter an actual THF trying to bash you to death, and the styles are not equivalent. Seerow suggested a couple of things, and here are some more (that would go on top of the current +2, which you likely want to keep to counter masterwork attack bonuses anyway):


Allow a big shield to just declare 1 attack against you per round a miss. Or force a successful hit to be re-rolled. Or make 1 attack that hit you by less than 5 miss (same as getting to add +5 to your AC once per round). These are all sort of the same thing, just different ways of doing it.
Go the combat style path, and give the shield tactical options that other styles don't have. Like shield bashes that move people or knock them down or whatever. It could be ok if they don't keep up on damage if they get other tricks instead (subject to action economy bits and other stuff).


Will add more in if / when I think of them.

Dienekes
2012-10-29, 09:45 AM
So I've been thinking about the AC vs Attack rolls.

Currently it's 5+Dex+Armor+Shield+BAB
vs 1d20+BAB+Str

Alright cancelling BAB out we get: 5+Dex+Armor+Shield=1d20+Str. Going for averages change the 1d20 to 10 and we have Dex+Armor+Shields=5+Str, which to me is odd and would lead to funky funky numbers since supposedly Armor+Dex maxes at 8. So 3+Shields is supposed to equal Str, meaning with shields a fighters focused ability score can't increase further than 20 (or +5 whatever is happening) or attack starts to pull ahead of defense, unless buffing up armor becomes a lot cheaper than buffing up Str and attack bonus.

While I don't know what exactly is the planned stat progression but that seems like it won't work for long.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-29, 12:30 PM
So I've been thinking about the AC vs Attack rolls.

Currently it's 5+Dex+Armor+Shield+BAB
vs 1d20+BAB+Str

Alright cancelling BAB out we get: 5+Dex+Armor+Shield=1d20+Str. Going for averages change the 1d20 to 10 and we have Dex+Armor+Shields=5+Str, which to me is odd and would lead to funky funky numbers since supposedly Armor+Dex maxes at 8. So 3+Shields is supposed to equal Str, meaning with shields a fighters focused ability score can't increase further than 20 (or +5 whatever is happening) or attack starts to pull ahead of defense, unless buffing up armor becomes a lot cheaper than buffing up Str and attack bonus.

While I don't know what exactly is the planned stat progression but that seems like it won't work for long.

Um. Not sure I understand your math here. Canceling out BAB gives us

5 + Armor/Dex + Shield vs d20 + Str

Assuming a 10 on the d20 roll, and armor balanced to about where it is now, we get

5 + 8 (armor/dex) + 2 (shield) vs 10 + Str
=15 vs 10 + Str
=5 vs Str.

Part of the rewrite will include stripping out magic item bloat, meaning that you probably won't be running around with Gauntlets of Ogre Power and the like all the time, so it remains relatively sustainable.



Anyway, I'd like to keep the basic combat styles as simple as possible, although you guys have had some very nice ideas for style abilities. What does the math look like if we just double shield bonuses? (+4 for a heavy shield).

Dienekes
2012-10-29, 12:40 PM
Um. Not sure I understand your math here. Canceling out BAB gives us

5 + Armor/Dex + Shield vs d20 + Str

Assuming a 10 on the d20 roll, and armor balanced to about where it is now, we get

5 + 8 (armor/dex) + 2 (shield) vs 10 + Str
=15 vs 10 + Str
=5 vs Str.

Part of the rewrite will include stripping out magic item bloat, meaning that you probably won't be running around with Gauntlets of Ogre Power and the like all the time, so it remains relatively sustainable.


I get that, but the method above means that any increase in Strength above a +5 bonus swings it to attackers advantage, without any method for AC to increase. If there is not going to be any means of getting above +5 that's fine, but I did not think that was part of the plan.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-29, 12:45 PM
I get that, but the method above means that any increase in Strength above a +5 bonus swings it to attackers advantage, without any method for AC to increase. If there is not going to be any means of getting above +5 that's fine, but I did not think that was part of the plan.

Mmm, true. Something to consider, thanks.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-10-29, 02:50 PM
Personally, I don't think swinging things slightly to the attacker's advantage is a huge problem. One of the major complaints about 4e is the math treadmill: the base success chance is basically static as you level and actually decreases in many cases if you don't have the math-fix feats. Having your big guns whiff around half the time both drags out battles and makes those powers seem less cool. More than that, progress is only an illusion--you hit the same-level baddies with the same hit chance as you level, and if you subtract the +1/2 level from everyone's stats there's very little change in relative numbers at all between heroic and epic; a fighter with a +2 longsword has roughly the same chance to hit a wizard whether they're both 3rd level or both 23rd level, and the numbers for weapon vs. AC and implement vs. defense are also basically the same.

Conversely, in 3e attack rolls outpace AC to the point that at higher levels you can make good use of the options that sacrifice attack bonus for something, so you either gain more accuracy as you level or keep roughly the same accuracy and gain damage, AC, or whatever else. You don't just get better at hitting lower-level enemies, your hit chance against on-level enemies improves, so you can (A) have the chance to invest in boosting things besides to-hit and still stay on par and (B) expand the possible CR range of encounters that you can take on with a reasonable chance of success.

Now, obviously you don't want the disparity between attack bonus and AC to be anywhere near 3e levels and you don't want every fighter ability to be "take -X to hit to gain Y," but a slow increase in attack bonus wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. To take one alternate progression example, if you were to hypothetically replace 5 + BAB + X for AC with 10 + 1/2 BAB + X, AC goes up by 4 at 1st level and down by 5 at 20th level. That has the side effect of making fragile low-level characters harder to hit, as well as making it less of a necessity to have a huge Str at high levels and more of a perk because you can get to 70%ish accuracy rates without a maxed-out Str.

That particular progression might be undesirable for making combat too swingy at low levels (miss-miss-miss-miss-miss-crit-dead), so you could look at some other ones, like 5 + 3/4 BAB + X or 5 + BAB with bigger shield bonuses and weapon-based parry bonuses, or whatever else; every progression has pluses and minuses, but the specifics don't matter. What matters is that (in my opinion) you shouldn't have numbers increasing in lockstep as you level. If you need to roll a 12 to hit every time you fight a level-appropriate guy in chainmail regardless of level and you save against a level-appropriate DC with a 16 regardless of what save you're targeting, you approach 4e's math treadmill and things can get boring.

tarkisflux
2012-10-29, 03:07 PM
What matters is that (in my opinion) you shouldn't have numbers increasing in lockstep as you level. If you need to roll a 12 to hit every time you fight a level-appropriate guy in chainmail regardless of level and you save against a level-appropriate DC with a 16 regardless of what save you're targeting, you approach 4e's math treadmill and things can get boring.

Due to the different tracks, this will already not be the case. A fighter (full BAB) will get better at hitting a rogue (med BAB) and much better at hitting a wizard (poor BAB) as they level. Similarly, a rogue will get worse at hitting a fighter while they get better at hitting a wizard, and will have to rely on tricks like flanking and big piles of bonus damage to remain effective. And a wizard will suck at hitting things after a short time, and will be better off casting spells and targeting saves. So yes, there is a math treadmill in some places (fighter on fighter, or rock on rock to use an RPS metaphor), but it's likely the worst targeting option at any given time.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-10-29, 03:28 PM
So yes, there is a math treadmill in some places (fighter on fighter, or rock on rock to use an RPS metaphor), but it's likely the worst targeting option at any given time.

Fighter vs. fighter isn't an outlier or the worst targeting option, though, it's the baseline. At low levels, you have goblin warriors and fighters duking it out in tunnels, at high levels you have outsiders and dragons as the iconic enemies, and in both cases it's your full BAB guys vs. their full BAB guys. The whole dungeon-crawling paradigm of fighter types in front, caster types in back, sneaky types around the edges assumes that you have primary melee guys of some sort on both sides, and though D&D isn't all dungeoncrawl all the time anymore, running into full BAB enemies is still common, whether they're outsiders and dragons or an aberration's dominated warrior NPCs or whatever.

And as you noted, the people who aren't already good at hitting things get worse at hitting things. If targeting flat-footed AC or getting a flat +2 works for the rogue at low levels and his total relative attack bonus decreases as he levels, he's going to run into problems with hitting things at high levels--assuming he can still flank people or render them flat-footed, which isn't a guarantee with all the flying and special senses at higher levels. Same thing for casters and touch AC, though the gap is larger there. If you increase hit chances as you level, then you roughly end up with rogues staying the same at hitting things, fighters getting better, and wizards getting worse, which makes rogues' strategies stay competitive (as flanking/flat-footing gets harder, they can get more bonuses or ways of achieving those to compensate) while fighters get better at their jobs.

From a defensive perspective, attack bonuses growing over levels makes skirmishers and casters slightly more vulnerable, but again that's not necessarily a problem. Casters already get plenty of non-AC defenses, and in this system they need to supplement rather than replace AC already because you've closed the gap at least that much; caster reliance on buffs for defense is already a thing and isn't significantly worsened by increasing attack bonuses. As for skirmishers, they focus on Dex just like martial types focus on Str, so they'd have a higher-than-baseline AC already; an increasing relative attack bonus just brings them back to par.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-29, 03:45 PM
So are you suggesting that we can BAB-to-AC altogether? AC needs to scale somehow to stay competitive. What if we add the next lowest progression? (so fighters add 3/4+3, rogues add 1/2+2, and wizards are ****ed).

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-10-29, 04:12 PM
So are you suggesting that we can BAB-to-AC altogether? AC needs to scale somehow to stay competitive. What if we add the next lowest progression? (so fighters add 3/4+3, rogues add 1/2+2, and wizards are ****ed).

Not remove BAB entirely, not at all, just have a progression such that two people with the same BAB fighting each other don't entirely cancel each other out. Adding the next lowest progression would do that, though I'm not sure where the +3 and +2 in 3/4+3 and +1/2+2 are coming from. If there was a decision to change full BAB to level+4, 3/4 BAB to 3/4+3, etc. somewhere I missed that. If you're just adding that in now, then full BAB vs. 3/4 BAB+3 is a grand total of a +2 difference at 20th level, which doesn't really do much; a noticeable difference would be more like +3 to +5, it'd have to be bigger than just getting another minor stackable bonus like flanking.

tarkisflux
2012-10-29, 04:57 PM
That is what PoD is suggesting, and it works pretty well actually. It also sort of counters higher level fight length bloat by increasing your odds of hitting at those levels, when you need to hit lots to wear people down. It will also lead to people generating more advantage per hit at higher level (ACs are lower so margins will be larger), but that's probably fine.

If you wanted to add in a new 1/4 progression track for wizard ACs (and untrained skills and whatever else you wanted to use it for), that's probably fine.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-29, 05:03 PM
Sounds good, yeah. Tally-ho!

Just to Browse
2012-10-31, 08:53 PM
PS: @Just to Browse: sorry I missed your post before. In any case, and with all due respect... you're interpreting the rule wrong.It's not a misinterpretation, it's a literal reading.

If you, say, have an ability that gives you +5 damage every time you kill a target, and you can kill a rat and get the advantage to make another attack, then kill another rat and get the advantage to make another attack, etc. etc. until your attack bonus is +100000 and you spend your last iterative attack to attack the enemy in front of you. By my reading, since you only lose accumulated advantage (so you're not prevented from getting more advantage on the attack you make next), you can totally do this and hit maximum momentum.

And the bag of rats totally can happen and I've totally done it. You could even get a similar effect off of stabbing your homunculus or animal companion or your friend the barbarian if the DM doesn't like that you're bringing a bag of CR 1/10 animals with you.

Of course I dislike the advantage system for its points stuff too, but iterative attacks make a hole there... I guess you could just attach momentum to advantage and solve the problem.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-10-31, 09:20 PM
It's not a misinterpretation, it's a literal reading.

If you, say, have an ability that gives you +5 damage every time you kill a target, and you can kill a rat and get the advantage to make another attack, then kill another rat and get the advantage to make another attack, etc. etc. until your attack bonus is +100000 and you spend your last iterative attack to attack the enemy in front of you. By my reading, since you only lose accumulated advantage (so you're not prevented from getting more advantage on the attack you make next), you can totally do this and hit maximum momentum.
If my wording is unclear, I apologize, but the way you're interpreting it is quite contrary to the way it should work. When you attack a target, and roll well, you start gaining points of advantage. If you start attacking a new target, you lose all those points. Every last one of them. If there's a part of the Advantage section leads you to believe otherwise, please let me know so I can fix it.

In your situation, you stab a rat, beat its AC for a lot, and gain an extra attack. You spend it and attack a new rat. You lose any left-over advantage because you attacked a new target, and the attack resolves. You could, potentially, kill every rat in your sack in a round, and attack a new foe, but then what? What have you accomplished, besides rodent genocide?


And the bag of rats totally can happen and I've totally done it. You could even get a similar effect off of stabbing your homunculus or animal companion or your friend the barbarian if the DM doesn't like that you're bringing a bag of CR 1/10 animals with you.
This is the worst kind of example of RAW trumping RAI. Neither I, nor any other DM I've played with would allow this to fly.


Of course I dislike the advantage system for its points stuff too, but iterative attacks make a hole there... I guess you could just attach momentum to advantage and solve the problem.
I'm... not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

Just to Browse
2012-11-01, 03:26 AM
If my wording is unclear, I apologize, but the way you're interpreting it is quite contrary to the way it should work. When you attack a target, and roll well, you start gaining points of advantage. If you start attacking a new target, you lose all those points. Every last one of them. If there's a part of the Advantage section leads you to believe otherwise, please let me know so I can fix it.

In your situation, you stab a rat, beat its AC for a lot, and gain an extra attack. You spend it and attack a new rat. You lose any left-over advantage because you attacked a new target, and the attack resolves. You could, potentially, kill every rat in your sack in a round, and attack a new foe, but then what? What have you accomplished, besides rodent genocide? My original post said "I don't like the method of iterative attacks because it discourages any kind of momentum mechanic". A momentum mechanic (so far most famously used in 13th Age) is a game effect where you get a bonus off of successful hits, successful dodges, etc., but you lose it after you miss something, get hit, whatever. So if you have a momentum mechanic and you can get iterative attacks off of stabbing things, you can pump up momentum indefinitely.

Alternatively, if you have some sort of effect like "move 5' when you kill a target", you'll also get 100% free movement with a bag of rats. Introducing iterative attacks as part of a beat-the-AC mechanic makes a lot of cool abilities sketchy.


This is the worst kind of example of RAW trumping RAI. Neither I, nor any other DM I've played with would allow this to fly.Oberoni Fallacy. If your game has a system which creates problems, seek alternatives to solve the problem instead of ignoring the problem.


I'm... not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?I think this is a result of me using the word "momentum" and you thinking I mean "advantage". I mean for the terms to be distinct.

Also this system requires subtraction of big numbers from other big numbers. It kills me.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-01, 09:17 AM
My original post said "I don't like the method of iterative attacks because it discourages any kind of momentum mechanic". A momentum mechanic (so far most famously used in 13th Age) is a game effect where you get a bonus off of successful hits, successful dodges, etc., but you lose it after you miss something, get hit, whatever. So if you have a momentum mechanic and you can get iterative attacks off of stabbing things, you can pump up momentum indefinitely.

Alternatively, if you have some sort of effect like "move 5' when you kill a target", you'll also get 100% free movement with a bag of rats. Introducing iterative attacks as part of a beat-the-AC mechanic makes a lot of cool abilities sketchy.

I do like the idea of something like that. But that's exactly the kind of system exploitable by the bag-of-rats you keep claiming is a valid tactic.

tarkisflux
2012-11-01, 12:15 PM
Just to Browse's concern would be resolved by not allowing you to spend advantage on a target other than the one you built it up on. Which is what I actually thought you were doing already anyway. Even if you don't have bags of rats, allowing you to spend advantage on a different target, especially if that zeroes out your advantage pool, encourages you to build advantage on weaker foes and then dump it on a stronger one in an opening blitz. I don't think that's particularly appropriate in the genre, and it's probably not a behavior you want to encourage anyway.

If it only applies against the target you built it from, that encourages you to use it consistently or tactically so that you don't wind up with a large pool of unused advantage when they fall. Because it is all wasted at that point, and that is a sucky tactical outcome if you can avoid it. That is behavior that I do think you should encourage, and also nicely covers the genre convention of doing fancy things against minions and then having to build back up against their boss.

So, for clarity:

Advantage should only apply against the target you built it from.
Advantage should drop to 0 when the target dies, or you hit someone else with a non-opportunity attack (assuming those are still in, since you don't want to disincentivize people from using them).
Opportunity attacks don't build advantage, because that's tracking weirdness.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-01, 12:40 PM
Advantage should only apply against the target you built it from.
Advantage should drop to 0 when the target dies, or you hit someone else with a non-opportunity attack (assuming those are still in, since you don't want to disincentivize people from using them).
Opportunity attacks don't build advantage, because that's tracking weirdness.


This is exactly how things work already. "If you attack a different target, you lose all accumulated advantage." Good point about AoO's, though.

Just to Browse
2012-11-01, 12:53 PM
This is exactly how things work already. "If you attack a different target, you lose all accumulated advantage." Good point about AoO's, though.

Tarkis is resolving what my problem is. It's not that advantage drops down after you attack someone else, it's that you can't spend advantage on attacking someone else.

I personally think blitzing through enemy minions is cool, but I see the problems with doing that to build up a super attack.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-01, 12:57 PM
Tarkis is resolving what my problem is. It's not that advantage drops down after you attack someone else, it's that you can't spend advantage on attacking someone else.

I personally think blitzing through enemy minions is cool, but I see the problems with doing that to build up a super attack.

It is still possible to smash an enemy minion, use the Advantage to gain an extra attack, use the Advantage from that to gain an extra attack against a third minion, and so on-- sort of a Great Cleave type thing.

tarkisflux
2012-11-01, 06:50 PM
It is still possible to smash an enemy minion, use the Advantage to gain an extra attack, use the Advantage from that to gain an extra attack against a third minion, and so on-- sort of a Great Cleave type thing.

Ok, this is the problematic part I think. If the minion dies, I no longer have advantage to spend on an extra attack against another one because my pool is zero. If the minion lives, I should not be able to use advantage I gained against him to make an attack against someone else. But I could use it to attack him again, possibly killing him. Neither of these cases allow you to use your advantage to gain an extra attack that you spend on someone else.

If you want people to cut through minions Great Cleave style, you'll need to make that a special exception or a feat / class feature ("when you have X advantage remaining after killing a foe, you may immediately move 5' and make an attack against a new foe" or whatever) to avoid confusion. Otherwise, if you can spend advantage to take an attack on a creature other than the one you built it against, the follow up question is "why can't I spend it for anything else against the new target?" and there are no good answers to that.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-01, 06:57 PM
The key is that you lose the advantage when you attack a new foe, not when the last one dies. You retain accumulated advantage up until you make the next attack, so you can still spend it on AoOs, CMB checks, and (one) extra attack.

tarkisflux
2012-11-01, 07:55 PM
That just promotes you attacking the weakest guy around and spending any advantage gained from him on the bigger guy. Like if you have a rat, that you maybe got from a bag, and you hit that first for your starting advantage. As you likely get more advantage per attack from the little guy, you probably don't even want to kill him (unless there are a lot of them and their numbers are intimidating), just build up some stuff and dump it on the bigger guy.

For a particularly obscene example of how to do this, just get 1 guy stunned / helpless / whatever near your intended target. His AC goes to crap, and you get a bunch of advantage from him per hit. So hit him first, and maybe second and third if he can take it, and then unload all of your fancy new advantage on his neighbor. Have your healer heal him up a bit, but not cure his suck condition. Repeat as needed.

Removed redundant bits, I'm tired today it seems.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-01, 08:22 PM
You can spend the advantage to make an attack roll, but as soon as you do, it vanishes, so that's all that you can do with it.

...it might be easier just to have it all vanish when you kill the foe. Take Cleave if you want to massacre minions.

Knaight
2012-11-01, 09:33 PM
You can spend the advantage to make an attack roll, but as soon as you do, it vanishes, so that's all that you can do with it.

...it might be easier just to have it all vanish when you kill the foe. Take Cleave if you want to massacre minions.

Alternately, we could go back to advantage being a property of individual attacks, that is immediately spent and not persistent. One could even spend it on disadvantage for the opponent you just smacked upside the face - it makes sense that somebody else could then exploit this, whereas minion chaining seems extremely odd.

tarkisflux
2012-11-01, 09:34 PM
...it might be easier just to have it all vanish when you kill the foe. Take Cleave if you want to massacre minions.

It's not just that part though, it's the restriction that you can only spend what you gain on the target you gained it from. So build up all the extra attacks you want, but you can only make them against the guy you've been saving up against (representing setting him up for a bunch of shots or whatever).

Since that change will leave a huge hole in the massacre minions space, going with cleave or some other feat to add that option works fine.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-02, 11:54 AM
Since that change will leave a huge hole in the massacre minions space, going with cleave or some other feat to add that option works fine.

Sounds good.

Eldan
2012-11-02, 01:43 PM
Yes. The text of cleave would change into something like "If you kill an enemy with X or more advantage to spare, you may immediately make an attack against another enemy within reach".

Great Cleave would then maybe allow directly transfering leftover advantage to the new foe. With some restriction on "enemy must be threatening" maybe, and a maximum on advantage transfered, to counter bag of rats tactics.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-07, 04:07 PM
Right. If no-one else has any concerns, I'm starting to feel like we can call this one resolved?