Does this fairly eliminate Attacks of Opportunity?

nnms said:

I couldn't find anywhere he said he was going for simulation as a design goal.

Click to expand...

Maybe he isn't - and verisimilitude isn't the only issue in designing a roleplaying game. There are definitely a lot of mechanics in games that attempt to make the experience more fun at the expense of plausibility.

But on the other hand, does anyone really think that believability is totally irrelevant? How would gamers react to a system where weaker characters could carry more things, or bb guns dealt more damage than shotguns, or falling down a deep pit with spikes hurt less than falling into a shallow pit filled with feathers?

So I'm still curious - do you have any experience sparring with melee weapons, DMMike?

[MENTION=3987]Bagpuss[/MENTION]: the point of putting a finite number of actions in combat is to add simplicity and logic to the combat experience. In the 3E system, a character can literally dodge an unlimited number of attacks, provided his rolls are good enough, in the course of a combat round. This combat round then gets more complex with a different type of defense, called Saving Throws, which can also come in basically unlimited numbers. Throw in swift, full round, movement, standard, and free actions, plus opp attacks, and after one combat round, you're lucky if you have an idea of what just happened.

So to answer your question, "why wait to attack?" the answer is: a combatant considers defense a worthy endeavor. Now, if an "opportunity" arises which makes attacking look better than defending, why not take it?
[MENTION=40857]Meatboy[/MENTION]: a valid observation. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Sometimes it's not. But a three-action system allows that choice to be made, no?
[MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION]: I was actually thinking that using a bow would require a reload action, crossbow two, etc. Further, I don't see why there wouldn't be ways to get more actions, especially with the improvement of a character's skills or abilities.
[MENTION=6746469]Dethklok[/MENTION]: As above - I'm not going for simulation; I'm going for simplicity and logic. A standard-action-only system eliminates the need for movement actions, full defenses, and specifically, attacks of opportunity. You don't need a feat called Agile Riposte - if your opponent attacks, and you have an action ready, you can choose to block or begin your counterstrike. If you've spent your whole round doing other things, then it's likely you simply don't have the time to block yet another attack.
My sparring experience is mostly with fists, so please let us know where you're going with the question.

I see a bad outcome to a finite-actions combat system: it makes being outnumbered a very bad thing. But is that really out of the ordinary? Is it something a hero (or heroes) can't handle?

DMMike said:

My sparring experience is mostly with fists, so please let us know where you're going with the question.

Click to expand...

I just want to know where you're coming from. You say a lot of odd things, like that you're going for simplicity (in a game that looks heavily complicated to me), and it didn't make any sense until I realized your background is primarily 3rd Edition D&D.

I see a bad outcome to a finite-actions combat system: it makes being outnumbered a very bad thing. But is that really out of the ordinary? Is it something a hero (or heroes) can't handle?

Click to expand...

Being outnumbered in real life is incredibly difficult to cope with. The way a fighter deals with overwhelming odds is by remaining mobile and preventing more than one or two enemies attacking him at once, usually by using features of the terrain to separate enemies, or by simply darting at their flanks, where one enemy will then be in the way of another. A hero could easily handle being outnumbered if he had good mobility and your system allowed him to use that to pick his engagements. (And of course a hero could also handle it by having a jillion plusses and your system allows that. Different systems go different ways.)

DMMike said:

@Bagpuss: the point of putting a finite number of actions in combat is to add simplicity and logic to the combat experience.

Click to expand...

Except in your system people start with 3 actions, and then can gain more through experience, so your system doesn't have a finite number.

In the 3E system, a character can literally dodge an unlimited number of attacks, provided his rolls are good enough, in the course of a combat round.

Click to expand...

But dodging isn't an action, it adds no additional complexity as it included in the opponents attack roll against the fixed defence. Active dodging of your system adds complexity it doesn't reduce it as you have another resource to manage (actions) and another dice roll to make.

This combat round then gets more complex with a different type of defense, called Saving Throws, which can also come in basically unlimited numbers.

Click to expand...

Three different values that the enemy can roll against is hardly unlimited.

Throw in swift, full round, movement, standard, and free actions, plus opp attacks, and after one combat round, you're lucky if you have an idea of what just happened.

Click to expand...

You still really only need to worry about 2 actions, move and standard, most of the time and occasionally a swift or minor one as well, compared to your system where you have three or more standard actions, not seeing any reduction in complexity there.

There still would be a finite number in terms of each individual combatant. If a combatant with infinite or even just many thousands of actions would cause the system to break down but will never, ever see play, then there's not really an issue there.

The type of movement you do to avoid multiple attacks isn't really possible in a normal "take your turn to move" RPG system. Probably the most common strategy is to add rotational side stepping to your closing and distancing from who you consider you main opponent in order to put that opponent between yourself and the remainder of his allies. Sadly if I just move on my turn to circle about so that their ally is in their way, when they act they'll be able to just walk right up to me. In reality I'd be altering the speed of my rotating the line of combat and even reversing it as needed, in response to every move my opponents make.

While you could do a alternating foot step movement system to model something like that, it'd probably best to fudge it into a mechanic where if you succeed on your footwork check, the enemies find themselves in each other's way and no other enemies may move as close to you as your closest opponent.

Dethklok said:

But on the other hand, does anyone really think that believability is totally irrelevant? How would gamers react to a system where weaker characters could carry more things, or bb guns dealt more damage than shotguns, or falling down a deep pit with spikes hurt less than falling into a shallow pit filled with feathers?

Click to expand...

I actually think plausibility matters more in fantasy and science fiction as genres than in something like historical fiction or gaming. One reason being is that you are already asking people to suspend their disbelief in terms of there being fantastic stuff at all, so you don't want to break their willing suspension of disbelief by also asking them to suspend their reactions to even the mundane being ridiculous. Another reason is that having the mundane act in accordance with conventional expectations acts as a contrast which will further strengthen the fantastic elements.

Bagpuss said:

But dodging isn't an action, it adds no additional complexity as it included in the opponents attack roll against the fixed defence. Active dodging of your system adds complexity it doesn't reduce it as you have another resource to manage (actions) and another dice roll to make.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Dodging isn't an action. I'm asking: should it be? Doesn't that clear up the combat sequence a bit?

Bagpuss said:

Three different values that the enemy can roll against is hardly unlimited.

Click to expand...

That's HOW someone makes a saving throw. I'm talking about WHEN. Like, if you have 10 wizards firing lightning bolts at you in one round, then you get 10 saving throws. Somehow, you can dodge all these lightning bolts, and still have time for a move action, standard action, opportunity attack, encounter power, or what-have-you?

nnms said:

The type of movement you do to avoid multiple attacks isn't really possible in a normal "take your turn to move" RPG system.

Click to expand...

One of the prices we pay for orderly, more-or-less fair combat systems. I'm afraid the possible solutions are outside the scope of this thread. (Or are they?)

Your call as it's your system we're hammering out.

I've been talking with some friends who are getting a dumping of miniatures when the Reaper Kickstarter ships about a miniature-RPG hybrid and we really like your ideas here and are probably going to incorporate an activity point system into our game.

Outnumbering will certainly be an issue. It's a very dangerous in many RPG systems. I've heard it causes major alarm bells to go off in Rolemaster and in Runequest where one solid hit ends you quite reliably, being outnumbered is very, very bad. In AD&D (and many other editions of D&D) you could start off with really low hit points and even a couple lesser creatures could take you down.

Games have done various things to deal with it. in AD&D1e, Fighters got 1 attack per level when all they attacked were creatures of less than 1 hit die. 3.x has things like cleave/great cleave/whirlwind attack.

An evasive feat where you can spend an action to interrupt with a 5 ft step after an opponent has ended their move action to get away might help with the maneuvering against multiple foes where things like cleave and whirlwind attack help with the killing of multiple foes.

DMMike said:

snip...That's HOW someone makes a saving throw. I'm talking about WHEN. Like, if you have 10 wizards firing lightning bolts at you in one round, then you get 10 saving throws. Somehow, you can dodge all these lightning bolts, and still have time for a move action, standard action, opportunity attack, encounter power, or what-have-you?

One of the prices we pay for orderly, more-or-less fair combat systems. I'm afraid the possible solutions are outside the scope of this thread. (Or are they?)

Click to expand...

To me this is a perception issue. Its not that the PC is standing around and then dodges 10 lightning bolts in a row and then runs up to and attacks one of the mages. Its all supposed to be happening similtaneously, so the PC is running up to attack someone WHILE dodging.
My biggest peeve would be that everything in a turn is supposed to take place in only 6 seconds. I've heard that one edition of DnD (ADnD maybe) used 1 minute rounds. This seems to make more sense for allowing everybody a decent amount of time to take all their actions.

(on a lighter note remind me to not ever tick you off as a DM 10 lightning bolts a round seems excessive )