PDA

View Full Version : Please help me with my combat system



Thrawn4
2018-01-15, 02:29 PM
Hello everybody,

I would like to ask you for help.

After drastically simplifying my system, I am rather happy about. The focus is not on strategy but on fast resolution mechanic (basicalls just skill rank + D10), so there is no mechanical difference between wielding a two-handed axe and a saber plus dagger.

But I have run into an issue: A shield provides much better cover against missile weapons which makes this fighting style unbalanced. How could I correct this without making combat much more complex?

At first I thought, putting on a shield might take longer, so shield user would be at a disadvantage in a surprise attack, but I do not find this convincing.

I could introduce the option that other weapons can reroll in a tie with the added drawback that they have to accept the new result, even if it is worse (not sure about the probablity / usefulness, but I think the chances of this being an advantage are around 5% per roll).

Do you have any other ideas?

RazorChain
2018-01-15, 02:54 PM
Shield was simply better that's why everybody used shields in warfare. Even Phalangites used the pelte.

The dual wielder simply exist because it's better to have two weapons when you have no shield

Two handed weapons give you the advantage of reach which is often hard to portray in RPG's and the power to deal with strong armor.

Firearms and strong armor meant that shields became less popular.

Jama7301
2018-01-15, 03:12 PM
Maybe treat the shield as a percentage penalty to the attack skill? Not sure on balance, but the first thing that popped into my head was like, a 25% reduction in your attack stat when using a shield, to compensate for the added defense. Write it off as not having the same range of motion at your disposal due to the shield you carry or something.

Adjust accordingly to the math of your system, of course.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-15, 03:19 PM
As a general note on shields... while in some cases they were more like extra armor that was strapped on and passively protected that side of the user, in many cases they were actively used against the enemy's attack and as weapons in their own right. A shield can nullify an attack that would have split or shattered it, if it's aggressively used to interrupt the attack before the attack reaches full speed/extension.

Thrawn4
2018-01-15, 03:48 PM
Shield was simply better that's why everybody used shields in warfare.

Realism is important to me to some degree, but shields are not generally better AFAIK. It may be true that in warfare there were usually more advantages to shields, but it is my understanding that the use of a certain weapon depends on the exact combat situation. I mean, there are also many instances of two-weapons-fighting (dagger in the left hand), so I am willing to neglect this detail in favour of balance unless shields provide a major advantage.
More information on this would be appreciated, though.




Maybe treat the shield as a percentage penalty to the attack skill?
That's what I did in my original system, but this one is actually that simple that you only have on skill for attack and defense. The woes of a rules-light system, I suppose.

Jama7301
2018-01-15, 03:51 PM
If ties go to the attacker, could you reduce their cover bonus, and give the shield a rule like "A shield wielding defender wins ties, instead of the attacker"? I don't know how much that comes up in your system, though. It may be a way to make shields unique to other equipment, giving them a slight defense boost, without hopefully breaking their balance in relation to other types of equipment.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-15, 03:54 PM
"Two weapon" systems were often targeting two sorts of situations:

* backup techniques for when your shield was lost or broken and a second weapon was better than nothing
* self-defense and dueling techniques for away from the battlefield when carrying a shield around was impractical and conspicuous

Bulhakov
2018-01-15, 04:12 PM
As Max just above me points out - realistically shields were indeed generally better, just much more bothersome to carry around. Actually, the shield was often the mark of a full-time warrior/briggand. Historically merchants, civilians, often carried a knife/sword for protection, but only those expecting/looking for trouble also carried shields or at least a buckler (look up the origin of the term swashbuckler).

The only place you could probably expect dual wielding would be duels, or when improvising.

As for a simple mechanic for the shields, I'd make them give negative modifiers against various attacks. E.g. a tower shield could be -6 to any missile attacks aimed at the wielder, -3 against melee attacks, but it would also give the wielder a penalty -3 to his own attacks. A round shield would be -3/-3/-1. A buckler could be -1/-2/0. etc. If the ranged attack is expected, double the shield's effectiveness.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-01-15, 04:59 PM
As for a simple mechanic for the shields, I'd make them give negative modifiers against various attacks. E.g. a tower shield could be -6 to any missile attacks aimed at the wielder, -3 against melee attacks, but it would also give the wielder a penalty -3 to his own attacks. A round shield would be -3/-3/-1. A buckler could be -1/-2/0. etc. If the ranged attack is expected, double the shield's effectiveness.
"X to your defense rolls, -X to your attack rolls" seems like a decently easy and balanced way to handle shields, yeah. "+ defense against ranged attacks, -speed" also has potential, perhaps, depending on how easy it is to close with ranged attackers.

You could also go with a basic weapon triangle type setup: shields provide +2 against missile weapons, which have a +2 against heavy weapons, which have a +2 against shields (or some such).

shuyung
2018-01-15, 06:09 PM
So you have to determine to what degree realism is important to you. Your original post seems to indicate you want a fast resolution at the expense of finer details, and that's perfectly okay, but it does come with its own drawbacks. In your system, what are shields doing to the calculations right now? You could, if you choose, shift their impact from hit calculation to damage calculation. In other words, shields don't affect the hit chance, but ablate incoming damage.

tensai_oni
2018-01-15, 06:16 PM
How about differentiating between a sword and board equipment option, and a two handed weapon one? The latter would include two handed weapons, dual wielding weapons, or even using a single handed weapon + nothing in the off hand. The former would be more powerful defensively, but not as potent on the offense.

I remember a d20 inspired game that did just that. The name escaped me however.

Thrawn4
2018-01-16, 08:45 AM
So you have to determine to what degree realism is important to you. Your original post seems to indicate you want a fast resolution at the expense of finer details, and that's perfectly okay, but it does come with its own drawbacks. In your system, what are shields doing to the calculations right now? You could, if you choose, shift their impact from hit calculation to damage calculation. In other words, shields don't affect the hit chance, but ablate incoming damage.
If something is obviously not feasible it should be mirrored in the system. Minor differences such as axe versus sword are not something I want to bother with. I would prefer it if I could just give every weapon the same statistic but shields being obviously better against missile weapons is not something I can ignore, which is why I am looking for some disadvantage to balance shields.

shuyung
2018-01-16, 10:22 AM
If something is obviously not feasible it should be mirrored in the system. Minor differences such as axe versus sword are not something I want to bother with. I would prefer it if I could just give every weapon the same statistic but shields being obviously better against missile weapons is not something I can ignore, which is why I am looking for some disadvantage to balance shields.
Disadvantage relative to what? I would assume (I have to, because you haven't provided any mechanics) that, in your system, two handed weapons or simply two weapons are capable of dealing more damage in a combat-time-slice than a single weapon, so a shield user is already at a disadvantage in terms of raw damage output.

Are your players seeming to standardize on a sword and shield loadout, to the exclusion of other armament configurations? Are you attempting to disincentivize sword and shield usage? Why? I mean, there's a reason, historically, that many military formations were keyed by their shields.

You could certainly ignore that shields are better vs. incoming missile fire because A) they are, and B) what difference does it make? Do your players regularly find themselves contending against incoming projectiles? It would seem they're making an informed decision about their survivability, then.

Thrudd
2018-01-16, 12:36 PM
The only downside of a shield is/should be the encumberance. If you're adventuring, it means you can't also be carrying a light source or holding a map or opening doors (unless you've sheathed your weapon). To drop your lantern and then sling the shield off your back onto your arm should take at least a unit of combat time.

In combat, it is clearly a superior option in almost all scenarios, so you don't need to worry about the rules reflecting that.

I could see it two ways. If you're using attacks vs static defense number, then the shield could give a saving throw on any successful missile hit. The size of the shield determines the number required to save- like the largest shields might save on a 2 or 3+ on the d10, a buckler or similar might be an 8 or 9+ (though that should have other benefits, like encumberance and allows the hand to be used if it us a type strapped to the forearm).

If you're using active defense, a shield bearer should get a defense roll vs missile attacks, add their skill to a value based on shield size to a d10 roll, opposed to the archer's attack roll.

If you know you're going to be up against some archers, who wouldn't grab shields? It makes sense. In fact, there should be no active defense against missile attacks unless you have a shield. The attacker should need to roll a number based on the size of the target modified by range, cover and/or movement.

redwizard007
2018-01-16, 01:05 PM
...there is no mechanical difference between wielding a two-handed axe and a saber plus dagger.

But I have run into an issue: A shield provides much better cover against missile weapons which makes this fighting style unbalanced. How could I correct this without making combat much more complex?

You can't, and shouldn't.

Shields were the best option 90% of the time (untill the advent of full harness.) Shields protect quite well against melee attacks and unbelievably well against arrows.

So why did other load outs ever get used? Several reasons that I will over simplify here. Large two handed weapons were used to break pike formations and for a "shock and awe" effect. Sword and knife (or similar) were used off the battlefield where carrying a shield would have been a breech of protocol, if not law. Sword and empty hand was used off the battlefield if you couldn't find your knife. Given the chance just about everyone is picking up a shield.

Rules light generally doesn't deal well (IMO) with the difference between these load outs, but if you wanted to try...

Shield = base
Two weapons = +1 to attack/-1 to defense
Large weapon = +2 to attack/-2 to defense
Single small weapon = -2 to defense

Thinker
2018-01-16, 01:19 PM
Hello everybody,

I would like to ask you for help.

After drastically simplifying my system, I am rather happy about. The focus is not on strategy but on fast resolution mechanic (basicalls just skill rank + D10), so there is no mechanical difference between wielding a two-handed axe and a saber plus dagger.

But I have run into an issue: A shield provides much better cover against missile weapons which makes this fighting style unbalanced. How could I correct this without making combat much more complex?

At first I thought, putting on a shield might take longer, so shield user would be at a disadvantage in a surprise attack, but I do not find this convincing.

I could introduce the option that other weapons can reroll in a tie with the added drawback that they have to accept the new result, even if it is worse (not sure about the probablity / usefulness, but I think the chances of this being an advantage are around 5% per roll).

Do you have any other ideas?

Make arms and armor purely aesthetic. Everyone gets a defense stat, an offense stat, and damage. If you have a class-based system, your defense, offense, and damage is based on your class (with some options to improve each, obviously). If you have a point-based system, let them buy points in offense, defense, and damage. Your combat would look something like this: Player 1 rolls d10+3 and rolls an 11. This is a success and so gets to roll damage. Player 1 is a wizard so only gets a d4 for damage. You can create situations, feats, or things like that to allow greater flexibility - wizard rolls d8 instead of d4 when using Magic Missile. Rogue deals d10 instead of d8 when backstabbing someone.

If you're going rules light, don't worry about the features of your specific weapon or armor. Just ask the player to describe how the character is attacking or defending.

Thrawn4
2018-01-16, 05:54 PM
Rules light generally doesn't deal well (IMO) with the difference between these load outs, but if you wanted to try...



Make arms and armor purely aesthetic.
[...]
If you're going rules light, don't worry about the features of your specific weapon or armor. Just ask the player to describe how the character is attacking or defending.
I completely agree with you two. I intend to make different weapons equally useful and would not bother with the details if it weren't for these pesky arrows.

But apparently (or at least according to everyone in this thread) shields are just the best option? I dunno, I guess a shield combination would always be my choice
as well...

So I guess two-handed sword is only better if I am heavily armored and dagger and shield is more useful if I am ambushed and my shield is on the bag?

Psikerlord
2018-01-16, 06:48 PM
What about a simple flat save, eg if you have a shield and get hit, roll a d6: on a 1 the hit is negated (and maybe 1-2/d6 for ranged attacks?). dragon warriors did something like this, and so does 40K.

Thrudd
2018-01-16, 08:16 PM
I completely agree with you two. I intend to make different weapons equally useful and would not bother with the details if it weren't for these pesky arrows.

But apparently (or at least according to everyone in this thread) shields are just the best option? I dunno, I guess a shield combination would always be my choice
as well...

So I guess two-handed sword is only better if I am heavily armored and dagger and shield is more useful if I am ambushed and my shield is on the bag?

It sort of depends on the technology in your setting, or what historic period you're trying to simulate. If firearms are widespread, like late middle age and later, shields stop being so great. If you have the tech to make full articulated plate, someone wearing that can get along without a shield (their armor protects just as much or more against arrows and everything than a shield would). Really long huge swords are only technologically possible in a similar time period as full plate with advanced steel making/working. That is the same time when flanged maces and warhammers and military picks become a thing, to knock through the really strong steel armor. Or you used a really big strong sword to help you knock the guy over so you could jab the point into his eye visor or groin.

In earlier times you sometimes saw big two handed axes that could smash through a shield, like the Danish bearded axe from the 10th/11th century. You had to be really strong for that to be effective, though, and it still isn't a sure thing. Other older 2 handed weapons are spears and pikes used for keeping people at bay with length rather than overwhelming them with power.

So how much shields are used depends on what weapons are around and what the characters' professions are and the context of their activities.

Knaight
2018-01-16, 09:47 PM
But apparently (or at least according to everyone in this thread) shields are just the best option? I dunno, I guess a shield combination would always be my choice
as well...

There were two primary melee weapon options for most troops in most of history. Either you use a shield and a weapon (usually a relatively short spear), or you use a polearm in two hands (where a lot of larger spears and axes were often prototypes for later and more complex polearms).

Both of these sets also have a lot of similar problems. They're inconvenient in a way that just a short, wearable weapon isn't. In the context of soldiers this tends to show up a lot with missile troops, where an archer probably still has a sword or axe but no shield or big polearm.

In the context of adventurers difficult terrain really comes to the forefront here. A worn sword isn't helpful when climbing. A shield or polearm is a downright problem.

Thinker
2018-01-16, 09:54 PM
I completely agree with you two. I intend to make different weapons equally useful and would not bother with the details if it weren't for these pesky arrows.

But apparently (or at least according to everyone in this thread) shields are just the best option? I dunno, I guess a shield combination would always be my choice
as well...

So I guess two-handed sword is only better if I am heavily armored and dagger and shield is more useful if I am ambushed and my shield is on the bag?

I guess I'm not sure why you need special mechanics for the shield. "I dodge the arrow" isn't materially different from "I block the arrow with my shield" or "I parry the arrow with my sword" or "I catch the arrow out of the air". None of those require special rules if you're using a single defense stat.

Knaight
2018-01-16, 09:56 PM
I guess I'm not sure why you need special mechanics for the shield. "I dodge the arrow" isn't materially different from "I block the arrow with my shield" or "I parry the arrow with my sword" or "I catch the arrow out of the air". None of those require special rules if you're using a single defense stat.

There might well be more than one defense stat. Splitting melee and ranged defense somehow isn't exactly rare.

Thinker
2018-01-17, 09:45 AM
There might well be more than one defense stat. Splitting melee and ranged defense somehow isn't exactly rare.

Even if he has a special defensive stat for ranged attacks, it doesn't mean he needs to add anything special for shields. When pursuing a rules-light game, every exception makes things just a little heavier. Every exception should be well thought out to decide if it is worth including. From his posts, I got the feeling that he's not sure he can even justify the rules as described.

Knaight
2018-01-17, 09:49 AM
Even if he has a special defensive stat for ranged attacks, it doesn't mean he needs to add anything special for shields. When pursuing a rules-light game, every exception makes things just a little heavier. Every exception should be well thought out to decide if it is worth including. From his posts, I got the feeling that he's not sure he can even justify the rules as described.

It should be. If combat is a focus though (and it might well be) it's an area where a bit more mechanical load can be justified even given the minimal load budget of a rules light game. Differentiating between major differences in equipment for the most central subsystem is something even really light games can justify.

tensai_oni
2018-01-17, 10:28 AM
But apparently (or at least according to everyone in this thread) shields are just the best option? I dunno, I guess a shield combination would always be my choice
as well...

Please don't fall into the "it's realistic!" trap. If you're going to offer players options, they should be balanced against each other instead of one being clearly superior because realism.

Especially if it's realism by majority vote expressed on a forum for random RPG players, not game designers or historical warfare specialists.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-17, 10:59 AM
Please don't fall into the "it's realistic!" trap. If you're going to offer players options, they should be balanced against each other instead of one being clearly superior because realism.

Especially if it's realism by majority vote expressed on a forum for random RPG players, not game designers or historical warfare specialists.


That's entirely a question of what one wants from a game system. Some people want their options to reflect more than or something other than game-as-game balance.

(And never mind that in these very forums you'll find quite a few people with a lot of experience in one or both fields, such as here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?548448-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XXV&p=22760157#post22760157).)

Thrudd
2018-01-17, 11:06 AM
Please don't fall into the "it's realistic!" trap. If you're going to offer players options, they should be balanced against each other instead of one being clearly superior because realism.

Especially if it's realism by majority vote expressed on a forum for random RPG players, not game designers or historical warfare specialists.

There's different ways to balance things without disavowing common sense for the sake of creating a "rock/paper/scissors" style game because "options!".

For instance, be realistic about what gear a single person can carry on them at any time, especially when they are expected to be doing anything other than marching to or from a battle field.

Design your setting so it makes sense - if you don't want shields to be as much of a thing, then have better body armor that negates its necessity for a lot of people. Or place the game in a context where carrying large shields is impractical, so it's a choice might not be applicable all or most of the time.

You want a setting that's believable, not necessarily "realistic". If shields are to be a "balanced option" alongside other things in combat, then the technology needs to be such that this would reasonably be the case. It can be fantasy technology that is completely invented, as long as it makes sense.

If you want to say the game is about superhumans who are so tough that they often forgo shields in favor of carrying bigger or more weapons or so they can have hands free to cast spells, and often don't bother with arrows because other super humans are so tough that they don't do much damage - well ok. If your people are supposed to be in the normal human-like range, in a world a lot like our world, then what works in our world ought to apply there as well.

Thinker
2018-01-17, 11:16 AM
It should be. If combat is a focus though (and it might well be) it's an area where a bit more mechanical load can be justified even given the minimal load budget of a rules light game. Differentiating between major differences in equipment for the most central subsystem is something even really light games can justify.

That's fair. If combat is the focus, then that is where the most exceptions and complications will arise. In which case, I would recommend that there be special abilities (or feats, powers, whatever you want to call them) attached to your weapon choice:
If wearing a shield, you may roll to block one incoming attack
[Adv] If wearing a shield and you successfully block an incoming attack, you may make an immediate counterattack (melee only)
If wielding two weapons, you may make parry one incoming melee attack. If successful, you may make an immediate counterattack (melee only)
If wielding a two-handed weapon, you deal double damage on-hit


Just as a quick run-through of options. The power is less in stats and more in options.

Thrawn4
2018-01-17, 01:26 PM
As some people have asked for more details:
Everything related to combat is dealt with by the skill "combat" (names are a work in progress). In melee, you just roll a D10 and add your combat skill. Higher result wins, meaning the loser gets the status "disadvantage". If the loser alrealdy has this status, he gets a wound. There are only four wounds, so it is rather gritty and simple.
As others have pointed out, light systems don't do very well with details, and I am also fed up with detailed combat tables, so weapon choice is basically a matter of style/fluff.

But the system should still be somewhat believable, which is no longer the case for me if a shield does not offer additional protection against missile weapons.
Then again, balance is also very important to me, so the additional protection has to be countered somehow.
Or so I thought.

At the moment, I lean towards the idea that all weapons (designed for war) offer the same advantage in melee combat, and that shields just offer additional protection against missiles.
I base this decision on the premises that
1. the differences between the different weapons are not blatantly obvious (so they don't have to be reflected in a rules-light system)
2. players can still switch between dagger, shield or two-handed according to preference and situation (many swords can be wielded with one or two hands, and I also consider it realistic to have a shield for huge battles and a dagger for emergencies)
3. shields being more useful against arrows just makes sense

Input is still appreciated.


Bonus question:
Does it make sense to base the difficulty of a defense roll against missiles on the attackers skill? I think a good archer hits more reliably, but a novice's arrow is no more difficult to block than a master's.

Thrudd
2018-01-17, 02:42 PM
At the moment, I lean towards the idea that all weapons (designed for war) offer the same advantage in melee combat, and that shields just offer additional protection against missiles.
I base this decision on the premises that
1. the differences between the different weapons are not blatantly obvious (so they don't have to be reflected in a rules-light system)
2. players can still switch between dagger, shield or two-handed according to preference and situation (many swords can be wielded with one or two hands, and I also consider it realistic to have a shield for huge battles and a dagger for emergencies)
3. shields being more useful against arrows just makes sense

Input is still appreciated.


Bonus question:
Does it make sense to base the difficulty of a defense roll against missiles on the attackers skill? I think a good archer hits more reliably, but a novice's arrow is no more difficult to block than a master's.

It depends on how good you want archers to be. If high skill archers get past shields more often, your players will probably invest in archery. If not, then they would be less likely to, or at least will treat it as additional to,other skills rather than the focus of their skill investments. It could go either way. I'd say that the skill of the archer should only determine if the arrow is on-target. The shield bearer makes a flat save (combat skill plus shield value based on its size) against arrows, with a penalty for every subsequent arrow that hits in the same round. Groups of archers are bad news. One archer against one guy with a shield will probably have a tougher time.

Knaight
2018-01-17, 06:50 PM
That's fair. If combat is the focus, then that is where the most exceptions and complications will arise. In which case, I would recommend that there be special abilities (or feats, powers, whatever you want to call them) attached to your weapon choice:

I'd directly contradict this recommendation, but honestly it depends on the type of mechanics that the Op likes using. If they enjoy powers, then using powers as the differentiation mechanism makes sense. If they favor a stat-skill system, then stat/skill modifiers make sense.