Need critique for my combat system

[SpiralBound]

Okay, I've downloaded this thread and will be cleaning up Eltern's various posts into a 1-2 page "cheet sheet" that I can print to reference during combat. Using an NPC generator I've created 3 Human fighters and 3 Human Rogues, all between lvls 1-5. I'll equip them with all the same weapons (shortsword, shield, and shortbow) and will put them through a few example battles. I'll play equal levels off each other, high vs. low, elevation vs. level and throw in a few variations on tactics, such as surprise attacks, targeted attacks, etc. I'll do probably do about 8-10 combats using both standard rules and using these rules. I'll time the fights and take note of the complexity involved in performing the combat. I'll also consider playing out the tentative rules regarding effects of damage, however I suspect that this will definitely extend the combat time and increase the complexity, so I won't use it in all fights. Am I leaving anything out? I should have the results posted by this weekend.

 

[Eltern]

Am I leaving anything out?

Just the fact that you're awesome, and that you deserve my praise for your tenacity in attacking the system Thanks a bunch!

One possible way to simplify the wound penalty system is to say "-1 to Physical checks, attacks, and grapple for each wound". Might oversimplify things, though.

 

[SpiralBound]

Thanks for the compliment. My "payment" is that you do a like kindness to the next person you see who could use some help.

I'm almost ready to do my testing now, just have to finish cleaning up the reference sheet for your combat system. In case anyone wants to follow along, here are my test subjects (courtesy of Jamie Buck's NPC generator, plus some modifications to allow for this alt. combat system):

Mujibur, male human Ftr1, hp 10
Init +1 (+1 Dex)
AC 14 (+1 Dex, +2 leather armor, +1 Shield)
BAB/BDB: +1
Attack: Shortsword, +2 melee, 1d6+1 (19-20/×2); Shortbow, +2 ranged, 1d6 (x3)
Defense: +4 (+1 Dex, +0 Con, +2 Armor)
Str 12, Dex 13, Con 11, Int 11, Wis 6, Cha 10
Equipment: Shortsword, Shortbow, Quiver (10), Leather Armor, Light Wooden Shield

-----------------------------

Vigdis, female human Ftr2, hp 15
Init +2 (+2 Dex)
AC 15 (+2 Dex, +2 Armor, +1 Shield)
BAB/BDB: +2
Attack: Shortsword, +4 melee, 1d6+2 (19-20/×2); Shortbow, +4 ranged, 1d6 (x3)
Defense: +8 (+2 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Armor)
Str 15, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 10
Equipment: Shortsword, Shortbow, Quiver (10), Leather Armor, Light Wooden Shield

-----------------------------

Glum, male human Ftr5, hp 48
Init +1 (+1 Dex)
AC 14 (+1 Dex, +2 Armor, +1 Shield)
BAB/BDB: +5
Attack: Shortsword, +9 melee, 1d6+4 (19-20/×2); Shortbow, +6 ranged, 1d6 (x3)
Defense: +9 (+1 Dex, +1 Con, +2 Armor)
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 11
Equipment: Shortsword, Shortbow, Quiver (10), Leather Armor, Light Wooden Shield

-----------------------------

Erika, female human Rog1, hp 6
Init +3 (+3 Dex)
AC 16 (+3 Dex, +2 Armor, +1 Shield)
BAB/BDB: +0
Attack: Shortsword, +0 melee, 1d6 (19-20/×2); Shortbow, +3 ranged, 1d6 (x3)
Defense: +5 (+3 Dex, +0 Con, +2 Armor)
Str 11, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 15, Cha 14
Equipment: Shortsword, Shortbow, Quiver (10), Leather Armor, Light Wooden Shield

-----------------------------

Herdis, female human Rog3, hp 17
Init +3 (+3 Dex)
AC 16 (+3 Dex, +2 Armor, +1 Shield)
BAB/BDB: +2
Attack: Shortsword, +1 melee, 1d6-1 (19-20/×2); Shortbow, +5 ranged, 1d6 (x3)
Defense: +9 (+3 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Armor)
Str 8, Dex 16, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 16
Equipment: Shortsword, Shortbow, Quiver (10), Leather Armor, Light Wooden Shield

-----------------------------

Sheherazad, male human Rog4, hp 27
Init +2 (+2 Dex)
AC 15 (+2 Dex, +2 Armor, +1 Shield)
BAB/BDB: +3
Attack: Shortsword, +1 melee, 1d6-2 (19-20/×2); Shortbow, +5 ranged, 1d6 (x3)
Defense: +8 (+2 Dex, +1 Con +2 Armor)
Str 6, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 15, Cha 7
Equipment: Shortsword, Shortbow, Quiver (10), Leather Armor, Light Wooden Shield

-----------------------------

I've adjusted their AC and Attacks to reflect the equipment I've given them, and I'm ignoring any feats they would/should have at their levels. There's enough to test for without tossing in Improved Init., Power Attack, Weap. Focus, etc. They shouldn't act any differently as a result of this alternate combat system, so there's no advantage to including them in this test. For BDB, I'm giving them the same value as their BAB just to have a starting number to work from. Since all the NPCs are wearing the same leather and using the same weapons, all of which are Piercing weapons, I'm just listing one Defense bonus. For an actual campaign where you're guaranteed to encounter different weapons, you would simply list this as three numbers, probably like this: "Defense (P/S/C): +8/+6/+7" for an armor that granted a +2/+0/+1. For reference sake, my definition of "standard combat rules" are the ones in the D&D Player's Handbook v.3.5.

 

[Eltern]

So you know, when I was originally sketching up this system I pictured characters as typically having less BDB than BAB. The rationale behind this was than in the point buy character creation system I use (Buy the Numbers), HP are fairly in expensive, and BAB is expensive. Since HP doesn't exist in this system, the logical thing to do would be to take all that XP you -would- have spent on HP and spend it on BDB. But, since BDB is more expensive, you're getting less bang for your buck.

The lower BDB would be balanced out by having armor. So, characters who didn't put a lot of effort into learning to evade blows would wear armor, while those that didn't want to wear armor (ex. A rogue that doesn't want big penalties) would spend the extra points in BDB.

The end result, provided the numbers all worked out, was for BDB to be around BAB. This is unlike standard D&D where attack bonuses rapidly surge past Armor Classes. However, this is also unlike the characters that you present, SpiralBound, in that their defense bonuses are significantly higher than their attacks.

I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's just a thing. In general, it's going to be harder to injure someone than I imagined. The chances of screwing up an attack increase. The strategy of attacking loses ground to the strategy of counterattacking. I'm no martial artists, but this seems like this aspect of the rules is either kind of right, or kind of wrong. So, for you real life fighters out there, which is it? In general, across multiple fighting mediums, is waiting to counterattack a safer strategy than making an initial attack of your own?

I would think that answer would not be simple, but we'll see.

So, SpiralBound, if you find that the combat is not deadly enough/takes to long to actually deal damage, consider the possibility of lowering your characters' defense bonuses.

 

[SpiralBound]

Good points all around! The primary intent of my testing is to do a comparative study between standard D&D combat rules and yours, specifically comparing the time it takes to do battles and the complexity of usage of the systems to resolve attacks and defences.

Issues of whether the total Attack Bonus should be higher, lower or equal to the total Defense Bonus is something that would take more extended usage of your system to fine tune. To test for that would require multiple uses over at least 5 game sessions to create enough data to really know how to adjust it. Even then, one would be adjusting to suit their preferred play style.

For similar reasons, I'm not including factors like feats, magic, healing, regeneration, etc. You'll note that I haven't even factored their shields into their total Defense Bonus as you didn't list the DR for either shields or wood. I was just planning on having the sheild provide a physical barrier to the left side of the torso and no actual additional or different Defense Bonus. Were I to use your system in my campaign, I would not leave it like that, but so long as both sides of the combat are equal, then it will suffice for the low level of testing that I'm doing.

I'm not even running combats "to the death", instead to only a set number of exchanges per battle. Doing it my way will allow me to compare directly the time "x" amount of combat takes for each system. Running combats to the death would introduce a huge random element that would skew the time results unfairly. What if the attack rolls were mostly poor in one system and mostly good in the other? Useless results then.

The question that my testing is seeking to answer is this:
Does using "Eltern's Combat System" result in higher, lower or equal amounts of time spent and complexity of usage in comparison to the standard D&D v3.5 combat rules as presented in the Player's Handbook?

Further expanding, refining and adjusting your system into a finished form for a variety of play styles sounds like fun, but falls outside the scope of this test.

 

[Eonthar]

First of all, let me say that I think that this is a nice idea for a system.

I have a couple of questions regarding this system.

What happens to non-medium sized combatants. Will a giant still have the same number of wounds per location as a human? How about a halfling? How about a dragon? In a low-magic world, how about a horse, a cat, a wasp, an elephant, a blue whale?

What happens with creatures who do not have a humanoid body? Like a dragon, or a snake, or a squid, or a dog?

Are smaller parts harder to hit? If not, this would make head shots the way to go, every time. Especially if someone is not wearing a helmet.

How do you handle non-lethal (subdual) damage? What if I want to attack my opponent with a sap and knock them out?

 

[DarkKestral]

I'm not even running combats "to the death", instead to only a set number of exchanges per battle. Doing it my way will allow me to compare directly the time "x" amount of combat takes for each system. Running combats to the death would introduce a huge random element that would skew the time results unfairly. What if the attack rolls were mostly poor in one system and mostly good in the other? Useless results then.

Might I suggest pre-rolling a bunch of rolls, then using them for each combat? This way, you can see what the averages are for each class, and it doesn't matter if the rolls are bad/good, because they are equal in all cases.

 

[Eltern]

Well, let's take the easiest question first:

How do you handle non-lethal (subdual) damage? What if I want to attack my opponent with a sap and knock them out?

Smack them over the head with something. Two wounds = unconcious. The obvious response to this is "But that's really close to killing them!" To this I would say: If you're going to get a heavy object and smack someone over the head with it really hard, hard enough to knock them out in one blow, I would think you have a good shot of accidentally breaking their skull.

A safer alternative would be to give the target a couple of "softer" punches to the face, like in boxing. Now how to ensure that you're giving light blows, and not something that will kill your target? Sounds like we need a "pulling the punch" mechanic. A simple solution is to say you can willingly take a penalty on your attack, and I see no reason that this shouldn't be true, even in standard d20. I'm sure at -some- point the D&D fighter has tried to just look like he's fighting, "without really trying". This would be taking penalties to attack.

As for the other questions:

What happens to non-medium sized combatants. Will a giant still have the same number of wounds per location as a human? How about a halfling? How about a dragon? In a low-magic world, how about a horse, a cat, a wasp, an elephant, a blue whale?

What happens with creatures who do not have a humanoid body? Like a dragon, or a snake, or a squid, or a dog?

As much as possible, I would like to keep the nature, number, and location of wounds similar across the boards. Sometimes this is not possible, but in a lot of cases it is.

Big creatures typically have a larger Con, which means that they will shirk off small wounds, like those from itty bitty greatswords However, they also have lower Dex and size penalties to hit. This is a counter balance that may be too large or too small, depending on what you want. If you want large creatures to be tougher, you want the Con to outweigh the Dex and size penalties, which is how it is now using standard d20 size increases chart. This is fine by me, personally, and fits with my campaign. Obviously someone else could just jigger the Con, dex, natural armor, and size penalties to fit with what they want.

As for small creatures, the reverse is true. If want them to be harder to hit, give them bonuses to Dex and size bonuses (which standard d20 size advancing rules gives them). However, there's also Constitution. In my mind, most smaller creatures will die from wounds that would just annoy a man, so they should summarily have a lower Con. Standard d20 size advancement does this a little bit, but not as much as I might like. It depends on the animal, though, as a badger can take a lot more hell than a bunny.

Most creatures have the basic head/torso/limbs setup, and so animals like dogs and cows can use the wounds arrangment as presented. This doesn't work all the time (ie. A kangaroo's lower legs are a heck of a lot sturdier than its upper legs), and for those exceptions I would finally say it's time to change the number of wounds. It's that, or alter the Con mod for individual limbs, which is something I think will be more annoying to deal with. So, each octopus leg might have just one or two wounds, a snake would have a torso with six wounds. The dragon would remain the same, except it gets two wing locations which also have 3 wound points each.

Are smaller parts harder to hit? If not, this would make head shots the way to go, every time. Especially if someone is not wearing a helmet.

Yup. If your opponent is wearing armor on their head, shoot them in the face. Actually, even if they're wearing weak armor, shoot them in the face. That, or the heart. Attacking limbs are for disabling and slowing down your opponent. Attacking the torso and head are to kill them, or maybe knock them out.

I kicked around the idea of having limbs of different sizes having different defense bonuses, and this is how my thought process went. There are three main factors in how difficult it is to hit a body part: Its size, how fast it moves, and how likely another limb can get in the way. I decided very early that introducing the second factor was overly complicated for the minute differences it would bring. The third factor is incorporated in the "throw up an arm" mechanic. That left size.

For this, I looked to standard d20 for what would be balanced bonuses for something that size. Looking at the size bonus/penalty guidelines for creatures and objects in D&D, the difference in size needed to get a change in AC was too big for the various body parts. At best, you could say your torso is close to a small creature and your head is a tiny creature (a +1 difference), but then the arms and legs are in between.

If D&D allowed for more nuanced differences in size to affect armor class, I would be all over having different body locations have different defense bonuses. As it is, though, I didn't want to overhaul the size rules, too. However, I do understand that the head is marginally more difficult to connect with than other parts of the body, if only because people protect it more by blocking with arms/shields/weapons/etc. I think the "throw up an arm" mechanic might be sufficient for this, but maybe not. If need be, I can definitely see giving the head a +1 or +2 bonus. But since that's only absorbing 1/5 or 2/5 of a wound, I decided not to go with that, initially.

 

[SpiralBound]

Comparative Test Results

Hi all,

Sorry I'm a day late, I underestimated just how strenuously I would end up celebrating my birthday on Saturday past and thus everything took longer than expected.

Anyway... Here are the results of my testing on Friday afternoon and this evening.

I did four combats, first with the standard 3.5 rules and then repeated with Eltern's combat system. All combats ran to five rounds or until one combatant was incapacitated, whichever came first. The fights I did were as follows:

Combat 1: Mujibur (Ftr1) vs. Vigdis (Ftr2)
Combat 2: Vigdis (Ftr2) vs. Herdis (Rog3)
Combat 3: Glum (Ftr5) vs. Sheherazed (Rog4)
Combat 4: Mujibur (Ftr1) vs Erika (Rog1)

First Test Series: Standard D&D D20 v3.5 combat system

[sblock]
Combat 1: Mujibur (Ftr1) vs. Vigdis (Ftr2)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- M wins init
- M Att: 14 / V AC 15 / miss
- V Att: 20 / M AC 14 / 7 pt dmg / M: 3 hp
Rnd 2:
- M wins init
- M Att: Nat 1 / miss
- V Att: 13 / M AC 14 / miss
Rnd 3:
- V wins init
- V Att: 16 / M AC 14 / 6 pt dmg / M: -3 hp (dying)
---------
Time: 4:47, avg. 1:36 per rnd
[/sblock]

Combat 2: Vigdis (Ftr2) vs. Herdis (Rog3)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- V wins init
- V Att: 13 / H AC 16 / miss
- H Att: 17 / V AC 15 / 1 pt dmg / V: 14 hp
Rnd 2:
- H wins init
- H Att: 4 / V AC 15 / miss
- V Att: 19 / H AC 16 / 6 pt dmg / H: 11 hp
Rnd 3:
- V wins init
- V Att: 15 / H AC: 16 / miss
- H Att: 16 / V AC: 15 / 1 pt dmg / V: 13 hp
Rnd 4:
- H wins init
- H Att: Nat 1 / miss
- V Att: 14 / H AC: 16 / miss
Rnd 5:
- V wins init
- V Att: 9 / H AC: 16 / miss
- H Att: 9 / V AC: 15 / miss
---------
Time: 5:27, avg. 1:05 per rnd
[/sblock]

Combat 3: Glum (Ftr5) vs. Sheherazed (Rog4)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- G wins init
- G Att: 14 / S AC: 15 / miss
- S Att: 4 / G AC: 14 / miss
Rnd 2:
- S wins init
- S Att: 18 / G AC: 14 / 1 pt dmg / G : 47 hp / S drop Sword & Shield
- G Att: 19 / S AC: 13 / 5 pt dmg / S: 22 hp
Rnd 3:
- G wins init
- G Att: 18 / S AC: 13 / 10 pt dmg / S: 12 hp
- S mv -5 ft / S ready bow
Rnd 4:
- S wins init
- S mv -5 ft / S Att: 20 / G AC: 14 / 6 ptdmg / G: 41 hp
- G mv 10 ft / G Att: 19 / S AC: 13 / 5 pt dmg / S: 7 hp
Rnd 5:
- S wins init
- S mv -5 ft / S Att: 12 / G AC: 14 / miss
- G mv 5 ft / G Att: 15 / S AC: 13 / 5 pt dmg / S: 3 hp
---------
Time: 9:17, avg. 1:51 per rnd
[/sblock]

Combat 4.1: Mujibur (Ftr1) vs Erika (Rog1)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- E wins init
- E mv -5 ft / E Att (bow): 12 / M AC: 14 / miss
- M Att: Nat 20 / M Att: Nat 20 / 6 pt dmg (max dmg) / E: 0 hp
---------
Time: 1:38, avg. 1:38 per rnd
--- discard ---
[/sblock]

Combat 4.2: Mujibur (Ftr1) vs Erika (Rog1)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- M wins init
- M Att: 19 / E AC: 16 / 2 pt dmg / E: 4 hp
- E Att: 8 / M AC: 14 / miss
Rnd 2:
- M wins init
- M Att: 20 / E AC: 16 / 2 pt dmg / E: 2 hp
- E Att: 4 / M AC: 14 / miss
Rnd 3:
- E wins init
- E Att: 9 / M AC: 14 / miss
- M Att: Nat 19 / M Att: 8 / E AC: 16 / 7 pt dmg / E: -5 hp (dying)
---------
Time: 4:00, avg. 1:20 per rnd
[/sblock]
[/sblock]

Second Test Series: Eltern's combat system

[sblock]
Combat 1: Mujibur (Ftr1) vs. Vigdis (Ftr2)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- V wins init / V selects Torso
- V Att: 19 / M Def: 9 / <check spread chart> / <check wound chart> / M: 2 wounds Torso
- M Att: 12 / V Def: 19 / <check spread chart> / V mv -5 ft
Rnd 2:
- M wins init / M selects Right Arm
- M Att: 12 / V Def: 15 / <check spread chart> / miss
- V Att: 8 / M Def: 15 / <check spread chart> / M forfeits action
Rnd 3:
- M wins init / M selects Right Arm
- M Att: 13 / V Def: 17 / <check spread chart> / miss
- V Att: 14 / M Def: 19 / <check spread chart> / M forfeits action
Rnd 4:
- M wins init / M selects Right Arm
- M Att: 21 / V Def: 11 / <check spread chart> / <check wound chart> / V: 2 wounds Right Arm
- V Att(-2): 5 / M Def: 19 / <check spread chart> / M attempts to disarm V & fails
Rnd 5:
- M wins init / M selects Right Arm
- M Att: 5 / V Def: 28 / <check spread chart> / uncertain of approp. action, end fight.
---------
Time: 10:23, avg. 2:05 per rnd
[/sblock]

Combat 2: Vigdis (Ftr2) vs. Herdis (Rog3)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- H wins init / H selects head
- H Att: 9 / V Def: 20 / <check spread chart> / V attempts to disarm H & fails
- V Att: 6 / H Def: 28 / <check spread chart> / V disarms H
Rnd 2:
- H wins init / H retrieves weap.
- V selects head / V Att: 19 / H Def: 9 / <check spread chart> / <check wound chart> / H: 2 wounds head / H: uncon. (dying)
---------
Time: 4:44, avg. 2:22 per rnd
[/sblock]

Combat 3: Glum (Ftr5) vs. Sheherazed (Rog4)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- G wins init / G selects head
- G Att: 12 / S Def: 15 / <check spread chart> / close call
- S Att: 6 / G Def: 27 / <check spread chart> / AoO / G selects Right Arm / G Att: 17 / <check spread chart> / <check wound chart> / S: 1 wound Right Arm
Rnd 2:
- S wins init / S selects Head
- S Att(-1): 15 / G Def: 14 / <check spread chart> / minor scrape
- G Att: 20 / S Def(-1): 26 / <check spread chart> / S drop Sword & Shield, ready bow
Rnd 3:
- S wins init / S selects Head
- S mv -5 ft / S Att(-1): 7 / G Def: 9 / <check spread chart> / close call
- G Att: Nat 1 / miss
Rnd 4:
- S wins init / S selects Head
- S Att(-1): 22 / G Def: 27 / <check spread chart> / G mv 5 ft.
- G selects Head / G Att: 26 / S Def(-1): 12 / <check spread chart> / <check wound chart> / S: 2 wounds Head / S: uncon. (dying)
---------
Time: 10:28, avg. 2:37 per rnd
[/sblock]

Combat 4: Mujibur (Ftr1) vs Erika (Rog1)
[sblock]
Rnd 1:
- E wins Init / E selects Head
- E Att: 2 / M Def: 23 / <check spread chart> / AoO / M Att: 1 / miss
- M selects Head / M Att: 15 / E Def: 7 / <check spread chart> / <check wound chart> / E: 1 wound Head
Rnd 2:
- M wins Init / M selects Head
- M Att: 7 / E Def: 20 / <check spread chart> / E attempts trip & fails
- E Att: 11 / M Def: 16 / <check spread chart> / M mv -5 ft
Rnd 3:
- E wins Init / E selects Head
- E Att: Nat 1 / miss
- M Att: 11 / E Def: 24 / <check spread chart> / E trips M
Rnd 4:
- E wins Init / E selects Head
- E Att: 9 / M Def(-4): 11 / <check spread chart> / close call
- M stands / M Att: 17 / E Def: 21 / <check spread chart> / close call
Rnd 5:
- M wins Init / M selects Head
- M Att: 4 / E Def: 27 / <check spread chart> / AoO / E Att: 3 / M Def: 10 / miss
- E selects Head / E Att: 17 / M Def: 6 / <check spread chart> / <check wound chart> / M: 2 wounds Head / M: uncon. (dying)
---------
Time: 11:13, avg. 2:15 per rnd
[/sblock]
[/sblock]

Observations

The standard combat system resulted in rounds that ranged from 1 minute to just under 2 minutes, with a 5 round combat typically taking between 5 & a half and 9 minutes. By contrast, Eltern's combat system resulted in rounds that ranged from 2 minutes to 2 & a half minutes, with a typical 5 round combat lasting 10 & a half to 11 minutes. Why such a time difference?

Well, one big difference is that Eltern's system adds two charts to look up for each combat. First, the spread chart to see if a wound occurs or not, and if one does, then the wound penalty chart to see what the effects of that many wounds in that areas results in. In all fairness, with more usage the second chart would likely get committed to memory and thus not need to be referenced. I'm not so sure about the first chart though. Perhaps, it would, I'm not sure... Either way, during this series of tests, they were definitely a factor. Another difference was the addition of subtraction occasionally, which did slow things down a little - not a huge amount really, but it was noticed. Lastly, there was the addition of the Defence roll, which replaced the AC number in the standard system. That also wasn't a huge time addition, but it did take some time and it obviously contributed to the time totals.

Does this mean that the system is a "failure"? Of course not, but it does mean that the system is measureably slower and measureably more complicated to execute. I didn't actually find it ackward and in fact, while the combats took nearly twice as long, they didn't "feel" longer. I would be interested to know what a combat with more than just two combatants would be like though. I suspect that the rounds would quickly get a lot longer with more participants per round...

One other thing I noticed during testing which doesn't relate at all to the elements being tested, (those being only time and complexity to execute), was that it felt distinctly odd that the weapon one used didn't influence one's chance to deal a wound in any way whatsoever. I was sorely tempted to equip Glum (Ftr5) with a foam sword (dmg 1d6-6?) and beat all the rogues to death with it using his melee attack rolls only!

I am under the impression that this mechanic was intentional but I suspect that in actual gameplay, people will not be willing to accept that their longsword or battleaxe has no intrinsically better ability to damage an orc than a dagger does... YMMV. I also am perfectly willing to admit that I missed a reference to where a weapons innate damage-dealing ability was factored into the Attack Roll. I re-read your posts carefully several times looking for it, but wasn't able to see any such reference. In any case, all of that is outside the boundaries of my testing, so I'll drop that point.

I hope that my time and complexity testing results are of some use to you. I wish you the best of success in further streamlining and improving upon your system.

 

[SpiralBound]

Bump. Hey, Eltern! Did you notice? I've tested the bejeebus outa your combat system!