A new approach to combat and initiative

[loseth]

Question 1. For melee combat, I want to experiment with moving away from the ‘you roll to hit, I roll to hit’ paradigm in D&D and moving to a more TRoS-like initiative system. More specifically, the combatant who takes the initiative will be ‘on the offensive’ and get to attack each round, but the one who doesn’t have initiative will be ‘on the defensive’ and only be able to defend or counter-attack that round (he or she can do other stuff on his or her initiative count, just not attack). Now, to keep the balance of the original D&D paradigm, I want to make sure that there is no inherent advantage to having the initiative, i.e. it’s just as advantageous to go on the defensive and wait for an opportunity to counter attack as it is to take the initiative and go on the offensive. I’ll accomplish this by ruling that if the combatant on the offensive hits or misses by a certain amount, then he or she keeps the initiative for the next round. If, however, the combatant on the offensive misses by more than a certain amount, then the combatant on the defensive gets to make a counter attack with a to-hit and damage bonus as an immediate action. The counter-attacking combatant may then decide to take the initiative on the next round, but is not obliged to do so. If neither combatant wishes to take the initiative, then intimidate or charisma checks can be used to try to goad one’s opponent into attacking.

So, the big question: at what value should I set (A) the miss threshold for the combatant on the offensive to suffer a counter attack, (B) the to-hit bonus for a counter attack and (C) the damage bonus for a counter attack in order to keep the relative odds between the two combatants equal, assuming no complicating combat conditions? I’m guessing maybe missing by 3 or more gives the opponent the chance for a counter-attack, which occurs at +3 to hit and 2x damage? Or does that favour the counter-fighter too much?

Question 2. I want to put together a list of conditions that will grant an advantage to one side or the other. So far, I’m thinking…

Going on the offensive is more advantageous when…

…you are much stronger than your opponent and can thus power through his or her defences.
…your opponent has no room to back up or circle round you (I’m going to specify that a counter fighter must take a 5’ step each round or suffer an AC penalty).
…your opponent has equipment poorly suited to defence (e.g. no shield and a two-handed mace).

Going on the defence and waiting for an opening is better when…

…you are much quicker than your opponent.
…you are more skilled than your opponent.


Can you add anything to either list?

Thanks in advance,

loseth

PS I’m not really interested in hearing about why abandoning the ‘I attack, you attack’ paradigm is badwrongfun or ruining the perfect machine that is D&D—I’d much rather focus on how to get it to work in a roughly balanced way.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

Yes, but how does that work when there's more than one combatant? Is there only one on the offensive and all the rest are on the defensive, or do we track initiative for each combination of two characters?

 

[loseth]

Yes, but how does that work when there's more than one combatant? Is there only one on the offensive and all the rest are on the defensive, or do we track initiative for each combination of two characters?

I'm still in the early stages of working things out, and open to suggestions, but at the moment, this is what I'm thinking:

What happens with multiple combatants depends on whether they're fighting 'in formation' or 'out of formation'. If fighting in formation, then being on the offensive/defensive is decided by side rather than individually. If fighting out of formation, then a fight with several combatants is just treated as a series of individual fights. In the case of multiple combatants fighting a single opponent at the same time, then the multiple combatants on the same side will:

a) all be on the defensive.
b) all be on the offensive.
c) be a combintation of on the offensive and not attacking.

It won't be possible for the multiple combatants to be a mix of 'on the offensive' and 'on the defensive' (under normal circumstances--risky maneuvers can change this). Also, if multiple combatants and a single opponent both want to take the initiative, then the multiple combatants will have a bonus in getting it, or getting it back (there are various maneuvers you can attempt in order to 'steal the initiative' from an opponent on the offensive; multiple, bigger and more skilled opponents will get a bonus on these maneuvers).

 

[Planeswalker Maloran]

Here's what I'd suggest:
When someone with higher initiative attacks someone with lower initiative, the defender can choose to take a total-defense action, dodge, counter-attack, or seize the initiative. In either case, he can take no action on his own initiative.

- If he chooses the total-defense option, he gets the normal benefits of total-defense for the round.
- If he chooses to dodge, he gains an AC bonus equal to his base Reflex bonus against only that attack (or full-attack), but is then flat-footed for the rest of the round.
- If he chooses to counter-attack, he may make a singe attack as soon as the original attack is resolved. If the original attacker missed, he is considered flat-footed against the counter-attack.
- If he seizes the initiative, he takes no action, but goes at the top of the initiative order next round.

The advantage to being on the offensive is that you can make a full-attack, and your opponent might not get to swing at you at all. The advantage of being on the defensive is that you have more options.

A rogue (or other character with Sneak Attack) would get the most benefit from counter-attacking, since the opponent is flat-footed if his attack misses. A damage-hitter or spellcaster would get the most benefit from seizing the initiative. A tank would get the most benefit from the total-defense option. And the dodge option is very nice for a high-reflex character who is low on hit points.

I like this idea. It sounds a lot more realistic than traditional D&D combat, and I think I'm going to use it.

 

[loseth]

@Planeswalker

Thanks for the input--lots of good ideas there.

I like this idea. It sounds a lot more realistic than traditional D&D combat...

Yeah, it scratches two itches for me. On the one hand, it satisfies the realism pedant in me. On the other hand, this system also mimics Hollywood-style swashbuckling much better, satisfying the action-film junkie in me. I really hope I can get a workable version together to test.