Analyze this combat system element: the action framework

[GMMichael]

Its good that creatures have the capabilities to withstand a party going all out. The problem then is making sure that they aren't too tough normally.
If a creature can take everything the players can dish out by going all out, what happens if they don't go all out? Can they still beat the monster? With out careful handling of this you can end up with a game in which combat is an unfun grind.

Maybe not too pertinent to the action system, but I'll take the gedanken exercise.

Can a creature survive PCs going nova? Yes.
Can all creatures survive PCs going nova? No.
Can combat end up as an unfun grind?

Good question. Health/HP are generally low in Modos RPG, since you get 1 per level, or 4 if you spend a perk/feat on it. With low health and attacks that deal a minimum of 1 damage, you can almost put a counter on the number of rounds that combat will last.

There are several dice to roll; one to attack, one for defense, one for damage, one to reduce that damage (protection) and we're establishing, in this thread, that the defense roll gets used very selectively. So that could be unfun, but enter the take half rule: you can skip ANY die roll and just take half of the highest result. So that could eliminate a lot of die rolling.

What if the monster's so tough that it takes forever to kill him? 1st thought: monsters won't have too much health. A 15th level monster won't have much more than, say, 35 health. Now, granted, that could mean 9 rounds of fighting if each of four party members does one point of damage per round. That's if the monster doesn't have any healing abilities.

There's another built-in cap: the dice. Weapons and armor improve by die, so if there's only a d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20, then d20s can start getting thrown around by level 6, and combat could look like this:

Attacker: I swing my epic Sire-of-Excalibur, for 1d20 damage. 18!
Unfun defender: not interested in getting any less than a 10 on protection with my green dragon armor, so I take half on d20 for a difference of 8 damage. Ouch.

Epic weapons then, and/or spells could make for epic, but rather short-ish, battles.

Back to PCs going nova: casters will be cautious about spells in this game: cast too much and you'll knock yourself out (technically, it's called catatonic). And metaphysical health (MP) return hourly, so with 1st-level spells averaging 5.5 (or 5 on a take half) MP, a PC would recharge one first level spell in 5.5 hours, or 2.75 if he's concentrating. GMs that allow a party to start a fight and then go undisturbed for 8+ hours: go back to GM school, please.

 

[GMMichael]

New question based on the above-discussed action system:

Characters can boost their attack rolls during their own turns,
and can take any action in response to an action during another character's turn,
which means characters can counterattack instead of defending when they're attacked.

Should there be a disincentive to counterattacking instead of defending (or doing anything else)?

More mechanically, when one character attacks another during his turn, the defender can use an action to defend. In this case, a greater Parry roll prevents all damage from a Fight roll. If the defender has good armor, it's likely that he can reduce the attacker's damage to 1 (the minimum) without Parrying. So it makes sense that a defender (so armored) should instead counterattack, to try to cause the attacker to reach 0 health first. But if Parry versus Fight chooses a winner, shouldn't Fight versus Fight choose a winner too? What rule can I implement to make a bad idea of answering a Fight roll with another Fight roll?

 

[Meatboy]

New question based on the above-discussed action system:

Characters can boost their attack rolls during their own turns,
and can take any action in response to an action during another character's turn,
which means characters can counterattack instead of defending when they're attacked.

Should there be a disincentive to counterattacking instead of defending (or doing anything else)?

More mechanically, when one character attacks another during his turn, the defender can use an action to defend. In this case, a greater Parry roll prevents all damage from a Fight roll. If the defender has good armor, it's likely that he can reduce the attacker's damage to 1 (the minimum) without Parrying. So it makes sense that a defender (so armored) should instead counterattack, to try to cause the attacker to reach 0 health first. But if Parry versus Fight chooses a winner, shouldn't Fight versus Fight choose a winner too? What rule can I implement to make a bad idea of answering a Fight roll with another Fight roll?

I don't mind characters being able to counter. I don't think they need to be down played in fact I think it will make combat faster and a combat character shouldn't be spend their actions trying to survive. Its probably fine as is. You might want to playtest it before making too many changes.

 

[GMMichael]

I don't mind characters being able to counter. I don't think they need to be down played in fact I think it will make combat faster and a combat character shouldn't be spend their actions trying to survive. Its probably fine as is. You might want to playtest it before making too many changes.

Well, the Giant in the Playground forums helped me realize a few things:

- Parrying is stalling (hopefully without damage)
- Parrying in the front row allows your teammates to have a back row
- A defender can choose to counterattack, but that means he gets no defenses against anyone who attacks him simultaneously (otherwise, he'd get to choose whom he parries)
- Withdrawing to the back row forces your attacker to burn an action chasing you (in duels)
- Shields add parry bonuses, making parries more useful
- Parry acts very much like "defend" from Final Fantasy: you don't get to do anything, but reduce some damage

So, prior to playtesting, I'm not seeing a problem. But if your watchful eye does, let me know!