Variant combat mechanics

[RobertBrus]

Hello,

I am trying to come up with a combat variant where Combat Rounds (CR) would be broken down into segments: say each CR would be made up of 3 or 4 segments. Much would stay the same, the main difference would be movement and actions would be segmented rather than each player does everything on their Combat Turn.

Basically I want to minimize the issue where higher Initiatives get to play out their 6 seconds of activity while everyone else, in effect, stands there and watches. By "pulsing" the player turns, it might create a greater sense of things happening more simultaneously rather than more static. However, I also understand the need for clean mechanics so that the game doesn't bog down.

So my question: do any of you have experience with this type of combat mechanics, and/or any suggestions to help clarify.

My thanks.

Bruce

 

[Shiroiken]

If you wanted to do something like that, the best way to do it would be to break the round down into "ranged" "movement" and "melee." Everyone that plans to use ranged attacks would go first (in initiative order), then movement, then melee attacks. Spells would have to be determined individually, as would a lot of non-attack actions. You might want to add a "defense" segment as well, so that Dodge and other 1 round defensive actions can be taken before attacks begin.

This would be rather complicated for play, and I would suggest a slightly easier option. Each round, everyone declares their action in secret (writing them down is best), then rolls initiative. The actions are revealed, and resolved simultaneously, with any overlap being resolved using initiative. Bonus Actions can be declared after actions are revealed, and reactions work as normal. Anything that lasts a round counts from beginning to end, so only 1 Reaction can be taken. Turns become somewhat meaningless, so some things require DM adjudication (such as a battlemaster giving the rogue an attack to use sneak attack an addition time). This removes the notion of a character taking a turn while everyone else stands there, but it can easily cause some players and creatures to have little to no effect on a round, because they take an action against an already defeated foe. If your group is good with a little chaos (which they'd have to be for your original idea), I think this is a better method of getting what you need.

 

[RobertBrus]

Shiroiken, thank you for the response. I can see how "my" idea might end up being far more complicated and time consuming than the benefits gained.

I can see where your second idea could bog the game down with players taking quite a bit of time to write down, trying to cover multiple possibilities. But the first section might have some interesting possibilities. I am going to bring this idea to the thought table, and see how it might modify what I have been trying to sort out.

 

[dave2008]

I suggest looking at Hackmaster, I think there system of running combat could work for you. I have been thinking about adopting a simplified version for my own 5e game, just haven't had time to work out the details yet.

Also, there was a good discussion on this forum in and around Mike Mearl's UA - Greyhawk Initiative I would look at UA as well as some of the initiative discussions it fostered

 

[RobertBrus]

Thanks much Dave2008, I will take a look at your suggestions.

 

[dave2008]

Thanks much Dave2008, I will take a look at your suggestions.

Glad I could help!

 

[Blue]

You'd need to be careful - there are a number of abilities that assume movement before/after melee. Things like all Rogue's ability to do a bonus action dash or the Swashbuckler's ability to move without drawing attacks of opportunity for those she attacks.

This would have been a more natural fit with 3.x or PF where you move only before or after your attack, but that's been explicitly done away with in 5e.

Would you still allow reactions right after the trigger, so an opportunity attack happens during your movement pulse?

How are you dealing with bonus actions? Many require specific actions taken in order to be used, but that may not be go off in the same phase as the action that allowed it.

Onto a concrete example that might be helpful in designing your own phase system. Princeton University has Princecon, a gaming convention that just had it's 43rd consecutive year running. For the majority of them it was running it's own evolving system which did have every round broken down into phase. This past year we ran D&D 5e. Here's our list of phases from Princecon 39:

Phases
Each character may act in each combat round. Certain actions are faster than others, so the combat round is broken into phases. Actions within a phase are usually resolved simultaneously, but take effect before actions in the following phases. In general, each character acts in only one phase of the round, though there are several exceptions to this principle.

Phase Summary
I. Declaration: This phase is mainly a time for players to decide how to act and declare their intentions for the round. This is generally not binding, except for two cases:
• If you are dropping saving throws for the round, it must be announced now.
• A mage or guardian casting a spell must declare the spell being cast (though not the target or modifiers).
There is only one action which takes place during this phase: Mage spells cast with the Power Word modifier are resolved.
II. Powers: Innate abilities such as breath weapons and gaze weapons are resolved. Regeneration and continuing damage (e.g. poison) are applied.
III. Combat: All attacks with missile and melee weapons are resolved. Natural weaponry, unarmed strikes, and grappling attempts are included. Most combat is simultaneous. AC modifiers for defensive fighting, charging, or the Combat Maneuvers feat take effect now and apply for the rest of the round.
IV. Prayer: Prayers are announced and take effect in order of increasing prayer point cost, although clerics cannot be distracted by
effects suffered in this phase.
V. Spell: Spellcasters choose the modifiers and targets of the spell they have declared, or else drop the spell (taking no action and spending no points). Spells take effect in order of increasing spell point cost, although casters cannot be distracted by effects suffered in this phase.
VI. Item: Characters may switch weapons, get things out of packs, etc. General manipulation of objects (e.g. opening or closing doors)
takes place now.
VII. Movement: All characters who have not done anything else may move. Characters with the Halfmove feat take their partial move now. Characters who are dodging take their retreat now.

In earlier editions, Combat was broken up further into a Missile Phase and a Melee Phase.

Guardians were arcane gish. Your saves would affect all spells including buffs and healing, so you could stop resisting if you hoped good spells would be coming in and foe's spells would not. And Prayers/Spells could be interrupted by damage in phases before you cast them.

 

[RobertBrus]

Blue, thank you for taking the time to lay this out. Very informative. It is quite lovely to have a place such as this to throw out an idea and have others respond offering solid support.

With the above advice, I am going to try a segmented Combat Round, call it 3 (4?) mini CR's within the larger CR. (if that makes sense). I game with a good group who will allow for a play test of sorts. And let the results fall where they may.

My thanks to all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the main difference would be movement and actions would be segmented rather than each player does everything on their Combat Turn.

Basically I want to minimize the issue where higher Initiatives get to play out their 6 seconds of activity while everyone else, in effect, stands there and watches.
So my question: do any of you have experience with this type of combat mechanics, and/or any suggestions to help clarify.

Yes (ironically, in one instance, the 'segments' were 6 seconds each), IMX, they usually get too fiddly and end up ignored or mostly ignored - which isn't always all bad, sometimes there'll be a situation where segmenting movement or something is important, and often it won't be...

One thing it did help with was casting times: if a spell had a casting time in segments, it was fairly easy to determine between segmented movements & attacks, if it was interrupted.

Part of the point of having off-turn actions (the reaction in 5e) is to model that you are not, in fact, taking your whole 6 second turn all at once, rather, it's all going on at once, resolved in order, and when something happens out of that order that you should be able to do something about, you get a reaction (or an OA in earlier editions, potentially more of 'em than the one Reaction you get in 5e)...

...I guess it'd make some sense to implement something like this because 5e does just have the one reaction, and once it's gone, you are indeed just standing there.

A not entirely un-related, but relatively simple possibility is to give more reactions - sorta. For instance, characters with extra attack could get extra AoOs: until they've used their limit of AoOs or taken some other reaction, the AoO doesn't expend the reaction. Something like that. That would give more reactions to movement. You could then decide that a character can take part of his next movement as an AoO in reaction to someone moving away instead of attacking, to allow more immediate 'chasing' or position-keeping...

 

[RobertBrus]

Yes (ironically, in one instance, the 'segments' were 6 seconds each), IMX, they usually get too fiddly and end up ignored or mostly ignored - which isn't always all bad, sometimes there'll be a situation where segmenting movement or something is important, and often it won't be..."

Thank you for offering your insight into this. I can see where the "fiddly" could take away any or most of the potential benefits.

"One thing it did help with was casting times: if a spell had a casting time in segments, it was fairly easy to determine between segmented movements & attacks, if it was interrupted.

Part of the point of having off-turn actions (the reaction in 5e) is to model that you are not, in fact, taking your whole 6 second turn all at once, rather, it's all going on at once, resolved in order, and when something happens out of that order that you should be able to do something about, you get a reaction (or an OA in earlier editions, potentially more of 'em than the one Reaction you get in 5e)..."

I can see this idea, and I suppose it allows for a semblance of the above while still keeping the mechanics playable and fun. I have been involved in historical war game rules where realism clearly took the fun out of the game.

"...I guess it'd make some sense to implement something like this because 5e does just have the one reaction, and once it's gone, you are indeed just standing there.

A not entirely un-related, but relatively simple possibility is to give more reactions - sorta. For instance, characters with extra attack could get extra AoOs: until they've used their limit of AoOs or taken some other reaction, the AoO doesn't expend the reaction. Something like that. That would give more reactions to movement. You could then decide that a character can take part of his next movement as an AoO in reaction to someone moving away instead of attacking, to allow more immediate 'chasing' or position-keeping...

This idea is most interesting. My immediate thought that sprang from this would be to add a "movement opportunity" as long as the character didn't use all of their movement during their initiative turn. This might be a simpler (mechanically) way to minimize the "standing around" effect, at least for some of the situations. And possibly a pre-initiative turn "movement opportunity" that would then reduce their movement when they take their combat turn.

P.S. Sorry about my above format where it isn't easy to tell your quote from my response.