Best Combat System in an RPG

[Vitruviansquid]

Theoretically? DnD 4e hands down. But by God, it brings out the worst overplanning in my players.

Practically? Out of all the games I've played, I would say... Savage Worlds > DnD 4e > Pendragon > Call of Cthulhu.

Savage Worlds has its fair share of tactical consideration, character differentiation, dynamism and drama, and everything else an RPG battle needs. What distinguishes it even higher than anything else I've played is how easy it is to modify. The system was original designed for pulp adventure, but it's so malleable in so many ways.

DnD 4e, despite its problem above, is still highly enjoyable to me. I look forward to combat in that game, and being able to execute my powers in a brilliant manner... or hell, even being foiled in a brilliant manner. One of the things I enjoy about the game that gets little mention is the guidelines and balancing meant it was rare to have a combat devoid of either menace or heroism, even if a relatively new DM was running it.

Pendragon has a combat system that is great at giving you results that would fit in an Arthurian tale. But that's the only thing it's good at. Its process is, however, totally uninteresting.

I played Call of Cthulhu awhile ago, so forgive my vagueness, but I remember it as uninteresting system to play, as Pendragon's, but often making results that don't fit, and then also barely having relevance in the setting in the first place. Maybe it was simply the style of CoC games that I ended up playing, but it always struck me as counterproductive to have a combat system at all in *that one game where combat is never the answer*

[Morty]

Unfortunately, the rest of the system is either just ok or downright broken. Maybe that's fixed in Song of Swords I'll have to check that out.

Song of Swords does drop the hilariously broken sorcery system, at least. Although I think its replacement is still a work in progress. not included in the material so far. The worst part about RoS's sorcery was probably the writers' heavy-handed condescension towards the very notion of magic that doesn't overpower everything else. Non-combat skills in Song of Swords are just sort of there, from what I've seen. But they're a work in progress too, I believe.

[Glimbur]

The Street Fighter RPG has maybe my favorite initiative system. Each turn, each person chooses one action and holds that card face-down. Each card has a Speed on it, based on a combination of the character's Dex and the move's Speed Modifier. Then you start counting up from zero. When the speed count hits the speed on your card, you act. Each action generally includes both moving and an attack, though there are exceptions (blocking doesn't move, Moving doesn't attack). What makes it interesting is that someone with a higher speed can interrupt your action. Add in a couple of maneuvers that break the rules (Backflip kick attacks and then moves back and is reasonably speedy), a few more modifications (if you block your effective speed next turn is higher, there are Combos which increase your speed after the first one) and it adds up to something reasonably meaty.

[mikeejimbo]

I am certainly in the minority here, but I really appreciate the depth that is available in GURPS combat. The caveat is of course that it requires a lot of player engagement and can require a lot of book-keeping. And if you really want to get in-depth with it, you need GURPS Martial Arts, which is considered by some players to be pretty much a necessary core book.

A lot of complaints about D&D 3.5 regarding non-caster characters are the lack of tactical options available to them. Some people have that complaint about GURPS as well, because if you're not really diving into the rules that do exist to give you those more options it can seem that way. But it has called shots, slams, grapples, disarms, etc.

These options aren't limited to just fantasy-style stuff either. There are two entire supplements on gunplay, Tactical Shooting and Gun-Fu, aimed toward realism and cinematism, respectively.

[CharonsHelper]

I played Call of Cthulhu awhile ago, so forgive my vagueness, but I remember it as uninteresting system to play, as Pendragon's, but often making results that don't fit, and then also barely having relevance in the setting in the first place. Maybe it was simply the style of CoC games that I ended up playing, but it always struck me as counterproductive to have a combat system at all in *that one game where combat is never the answer*

No - that is not a game designed for the combat system.

After all - it's a horror game. The more tactical control you have over combat, the less horrifying it is. The best horror comes from a lack of control and the inevitability of defeat. Call of Cthulhu does that pretty darned well - so the combat system is inherently vague & swingy by design. With all that and with how much I enjoy tactical combat rpgs - Call of Cthulhu makes for pretty fun one-shots if you don't take it too seriously. (They have rules for campaigns - but with how deadly it is, at least 1 person would likely be killed or have gone insane each session - leading to a severe lack of continuity.)

Edit: Interesting link about horror games - it's about video games, but the same logic applies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lawxkSB13J8

[Mr Beer]

GURPS 4e has the best combat system I've played.

It's highly simulationist, you can dial the amount of technical details you require up or down, it's plausible and because GURPS is a universal system, you can easily mix- and match combatant tech and genres. If you want a quality arena duel, D&D-style dungeon fighting or time-travelling Nazis refugees desperately battling an enraged T-saur, GURPS will run all of those and do it well.

Like a lot of GURPS players, I found that it makes a better D&D game than D&D does. My dwarf fighters want to be able to break an orc's kneecap before decapitating them, dammit.

For reference: I have played D&D (various editions), Call of Cthulhu, Rolemaster, Runequest, 40K RPG, Warhammer Fantasy and probably a few others. Haven't played Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel or M&M games mentioned above.

[Rakaydos]

Myriad Song and its fellow Cardinal System games get my vote. Damage is abstracted into 6 or 7 tiers, and causes statuses that reflect being injured in combat. A weapon has a base damage, a stronger hit increased the effect, armor and natural durability decrease the effect, each according to their rolls.
Zero tier is staggering, where you arnt hurt but throown off balance for furthur attacks until you spend an action recovrring.
First tier is a minor injury that increades the tier of furthur att acks until you bandage the wound.
Second tier is morale failure-you can do anything you want except attack, until you either escape or a friend spares an action to get you back in the fight.
Third tier is a major disabling injury that takes weeks to heal, but you arnt quite out of the fight. This increases damage by 2 tiers.
Fourth tier, youre out and bleeding to death.
Fifth tier you are Dead
And 6th tier, your death is so spectacular, people near you suffer morale failure just for watching it happen.
PCs and major npcs get a once prr game ability to reduce death to a major injury or overkill to bleeding out. Otherwise, combat is fast and brutal, and surrender can save your life.

[Raimun]

I played Call of Cthulhu awhile ago, so forgive my vagueness, but I remember it as uninteresting system to play, as Pendragon's, but often making results that don't fit, and then also barely having relevance in the setting in the first place. Maybe it was simply the style of CoC games that I ended up playing, but it always struck me as counterproductive to have a combat system at all in *that one game where combat is never the answer*

You mean, "that one game where combat is not always the answer? I've certainly solved things with creative use of violence in different rules systems for Cthulhu.

That aside, the combat system in Call of Cthulhu (ie. Chaosium) is not very good. Chaosium works better as a combat system in RuneQuest and Stormbringer. There are... differences.

[goto124]

I figured the argument being made was "why does CoC have a combat system at all?"

[Arbane]

I figured the argument being made was "why does CoC have a conbat system at all?"

So you can shoot at cultists, of course.

[neonchameleon]

So you can shoot at cultists, of course.

Especially the one holding the knife over the altar. Oops?

Seriously, CoC is basically sold on the setting, and that was largely a contrast with D&D. Good setting, but the rules (other than the no recovery of insanity except under very rare circumstances) are mediocre.

[Anonymouswizard]

Especially the one holding the knife over the altar. Oops?

Seriously, CoC is basically sold on the setting, and that was largely a contrast with D&D.

So CoC is basically the proto-World of Darkness?

WoD has a horrible combat system for the record. I suggest ripping out the combat for either CoD or Scion/Exalted 2e, depending on if you want fast or tactical combat (I know that CoD fights can be tactical, but that's not what they were designed for).

Good setting, but the rules (other than the no recovery of insanity except under very rare circumstances) are mediocre.

You get SAN back every adventure, and most insanity should be temporary. Indefinite insanity can heal, and SAN 0 does not mean raving lunatic. I prefer Unknown Armies' insanity system anyway, where you always gain madness from sanity checks, you just hope it's the good madness and that you don't end up with 4 failed notches in Helplessness (and if you get 5 failed notches in one track you can snap and hopefully become insane but stable with your new magic).

[CharonsHelper]

Seriously, CoC is basically sold on the setting, and that was largely a contrast with D&D. Good setting, but the rules (other than the no recovery of insanity except under very rare circumstances) are mediocre.

I'd argue that the hard to control & unpredictable nature of CoC's combat system is mostly a feature. Could it be better with a similar vibe? Sure. But unlike some other equally awkward combat systems, it's quick, making it much better than slow & awkward. (The speed of it is a feature - focusing too much on tactical combat with take you out of the creepiness.)

As I said above - I wouldn't want to play a campaign of CoC - but it's fun for a one-shot on Halloween.

[Raimun]

I figured the argument being made was "why does CoC have a conbat system at all?"

So you can try your luck against some of the smaller monsters? They understand the universal language just fine.

[goto124]

I thought math is the universal language, but this is funnier

May I sig that?

[NoldorForce]

Math is the universal language; violence is the universal art.

On topic, out of what I've played recently I'll have to put my vote towards Iron Kingdoms. Not surprising, really, considering that it's a backport of an RPG from a minis wargame.

[Raimun]

I thought math is the universal language, but this is funnier

May I sig that?

Heh, sure.

[hifidelity2]

I figured the argument being made was "why does CoC have a conbat system at all?"

so when running away you can shoot the other players in their leg(s). This slows them down making them "lunch" for whatever is chasing you - so hopefully letting you escape

[Raimun]

so when running away you can shoot the other players in their leg(s). This slows them down making them "lunch" for whatever is chasing you - so hopefully letting you escape

I have this image of Blackadder and some poor, unfortunate souls investigating a mansion crawling with mythos monsters.

[Dienekes]

I have this image of Blackadder and some poor, unfortunate souls investigating a mansion crawling with mythos monsters.

This just made me realize, Baldrick may be the perfect character to try and survive CoC. Evil books? He can't read. Dark temptations? what will they tempt him with, a turnip? Non-Euclidean math causing confusion leading to madness? He already doesn't understand basic math and remains just as sane.

That's decided, if I ever play another CoC game, I'm making Baldrick.

[gtwucla]

As much as I love D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, or 5e), I don't think it was designed to be a dedicated combat system, so I wouldn't put them anywhere near the top there (and that's no knock against them, really). As someone previously stated, 'best' is subjective and best for me would be quick, easy, a good measure of your power level, your adversaries' power level, and last but not least, it includes some amount of chance. For that I choose Eldritch Horror (halfway rpg).

[Arbane]

As much as I love D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, or 5e), I don't think it was designed to be a dedicated combat system, so I wouldn't put them anywhere near the top there (and that's no knock against them, really).

D&D has ALWAYS been a combat system first and foremost. Just look how many pages the game devotes to weapons & armor, combat rules, and spells compared to how much it devotes to everything else. (How _good_ it is as a combat system is another debate altogether.)

[gtwucla]

It has a combat system sure. To say it is a combat system, I disagree. Just because they dedicated many pages to the trappings of war, doesn't mean it is a combat system. The actual combat section in original AD&D is only 2 pages long for gods' sake.

[Amphetryon]

It has a combat system sure. To say it is a combat system, I disagree. Just because they dedicated many pages to the trappings of war, doesn't mean it is a combat system. The actual combat section in original AD&D is only 2 pages long for gods' sake.

Since your original comment was about 3.5/PF and 5e, I'm not following how the combat section in AD&D is relevant.

[neonchameleon]

D&D has ALWAYS been a combat system first and foremost. Just look how many pages the game devotes to weapons & armor, combat rules, and spells compared to how much it devotes to everything else. (How _good_ it is as a combat system is another debate altogether.)

Go back to the very early days - oD&D was a game about hireling management as much as anything. But from 1e onwards 40% of the PHB was devoted to spells.

[AMFV]

Since your original comment was about 3.5/PF and 5e, I'm not following how the combat section in AD&D is relevant.

It was a direct response to Arbane's assertion that D&D always had been a combat system.

[wumpus]

Go back to the very early days - oD&D was a game about hireling management as much as anything. But from 1e onwards 40% of the PHB was devoted to spells.

Interesting. Eventually while playing AD&D I realized that a character could be vastly more powerful by bringing an army along. I remember that proficiency bonuses would make 1st level henchman OP (I hope this is from the Dragon, Unearthed Arcana would be awfully late). The other trick would be to drag a balista around. Balistae consider every target AC10 (lowest old school armor class), so level 1 henchman can still hit higher level monsters (and you only needed one character to aim, so get the high[er] level guy to do that). They also do decent damage against large targets, so the overkill vs. orcs doesn't mean ziltch against giants.

There is a lot about henchman and hirelings in the DMG, but in practice it was largely forgotten.

[Arbane]

It has a combat system sure. To say it is a combat system, I disagree. Just because they dedicated many pages to the trappings of war, doesn't mean it is a combat system. The actual combat section in original AD&D is only 2 pages long for gods' sake.

In the Player's Handbook, sure. (Not counting armor, weapons, blastomancy spells and 27 types of polearms.)
Add in 13 pages specifically about combat in the DMG, and everything in the Monster Manual...

[Milodiah]

Not counting armor, weapons, blastomancy spells and 27 types of polearms.

THANKS FOR REMINDING ME!

I must now nominate 2nd Edition AD&D, as I finally got to wield a voulge-guisarme that wasn't a houserule