D&D 4E 4e-inspired modular combat system

[Alex319]

What to do with other power sources is another question.

Why would other power sources need to be handled any differently?

I mean that I made characters who had options in their tactics, and I didn't need pre-written 'special moves' to make combat fun.

I think this might be where we're having a hard time understanding each other. The examples you give - power attack, grappling, quickdrawing - are also "special moves" in the sense that they are powers that do something different from a basic attack when you use them. What is the relevant difference between those powers and the kinds of "special moves" that you want to get rid of? Do you not like the encounter/daily restrictions? The fact that existing powers combine multiple effects into preset packages?

I dunno. Maybe an actual system to make moves is unnecessary. I could just say, your basic attack does more damage, and if you come up with something cool that you potentially _could_ do, you can try it. Which basically is how the system works now if you liberally apply page 42 in the DMG, but the power cards and everything sit in the forefront of players' minds.

I think maybe I understand a little better now. In the current system you have a reasonable number of options (at-will/encounter/daily) and they're designed so that in any given situation, most of them are useful (at the very least they do damage) but some are more useful than others. What you want are more options, but each option is more situational, so you have to figure out which of your options will work in that situation, and if you don't have a good situational option then you'll just go back to your basic attack option. Is this a good description of what you are looking for?

If so then a problem with the way you're currently going about doing it is that since all the conditions and effects you're giving out are basically the same as the existing ones, they still will not be significantly more situational than the existing powers. For instance, if you can weaken an enemy for the same cost in actions and resources as doing another attack, then the decision will be based on whether you think that doing more damage with another attack is worth having more damage done to you next round. Basically the same kind of decision as in the existing system when you choose a power.

 

[Alex319]

Each trick/exploit has a specific, fluff-driven trigger ("When your target is off-balance...").

That seems like an idea that might get you a lot closer to what you're looking for (if I am understanding you correctly). But that could have its own problems. Take the example given, "when your target is off-balance." In order for effects that have this trigger to be useful the players would have to have some way of forcing targets off-balance, and presumably monsters would have to have some way of getting back on balance. So what action is it to knock an enemy off balance? What kind of attack or skill check do you have to make? How long does it last? What countermeasures are available, in case an enemy tries to use that tactic on the PCs? All these are questions that you would have to figure out the answers to in order to be able to use these tactics. Expecting players to use "common sense" or "logic" in order to figure them out is dicey (no pun intended), because a lot of what people think of as "common sense" is just plain wrong (see http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/186860-realistic-combat.html, or watch a few episodes of MythBusters), one player's "common sense" can differ markedly from another's, and there's a lot of elements of the game (like magic and certain monsters) that have no real-world counterparts.

This reminds me of another, more general thought I had relating to this issue. I'm not sure how much it applies to your situation but it's worth mentioning. A lot of proposals for new combat systems center around the idea of replacing the current "effects first, action second" paradigm, where your combat options are defined by their effects (like the existing powers) and you describe whatever you want consistent with those effects, with an "action first, effects second" paradigm where the player describes what action they want to perform, and then the DM translates them (or the system has rules for translating them) into "game mechanics" language. The problem with this second paradigm, however, is that the reason why a particular action is useful is because of its mechanical effects. An action like "I knock him off-balance" or "I try to slice off his armor" isn't something a character in a life-and-death battle would do because it's "cinematic" or looks cool, it's something that they do because it has some particular effect (like making him an easier target for a follow-up attack) and achieving that effect is the best use of his actions or resources at this particular point in the battle. So if the player doesn't know what effects a particular action could have or what the mechanics are for setting up a particular tactic, then they have no basis for coming up with an effective strategy. And relying on "common sense" or real-world knowledge to fill in those gaps is problematic as described above.

 

[LostSoul]

Alex has some very good points.

I think you do want to make the DM judge the effect of an action because then it will tie you to the situation at hand. The fictional situation becomes very important.

This is how I imagine the "off-balance" thing working. The player declares the PC's action: "I swing my sword at him in order to knock him off-balance." The DM then clearly states the effect of that. "Str vs Fort, Str damage and he'll be off-balance and have a -2 to attacks." The player can change his mind after that. (This works better with simultaneous initiative, I think.)

The next PC might say, "Since he's off-balance I'm going to try and use my 'Spinning Sweep' exploit. I spin beneath my enemy's guard with a long, powerful cut, and then sweep my leg through his an instant later to knock him head over heels." (The basic idea is that I can't use the spinning sweep at the start of combat because he's not yet off-balance.) The DM says, "1[W] + Str or Dex vs AC and he falls prone."

Then the next PC might say, "I jump on his prone body, putting my legs on both his arms to pin him down and stab my sword up through his chin." That attack is going to deal some high damage. The DM says, "3[W] + Str vs AC and he's grabbed. On a miss you fall prone in his square as he rolls away."


The DM's job here is to reinforce internal consistency. He must make fair and impartial rulings. He can't care if the monsters win or the players win. This is how you handle the "realism" problem.

 

[Alex319]

It seems here like now we're moving more from a "create your own power using a set of rules" system into an "improvised actions" system.

The issue here is the following. If I were in the game you described, my reaction would be:

"Okay, so I can do 3[W]+Str damage plus grab to prone targets as an at-will? Thanks, I'll make sure to take as many prone knocking powers and abilities as I can so that I can pull that off as often as possible."

And then you end up with something similar to the original power system, only with "power effects" that the DM just made up on the spot and probably won't be nearly as balanced or free from abuses.

Also, note that from my character's perspective, there's nothing obivously illegitimate, abusive, or "metagamey" about that line of thinking. From my character's perspective, he's simply discovered a valuable tactic and is trying to figure out ways to take advantage of it.

 

[LostSoul]

It sure would end any ideas of "the grind"!

"Prone-knocking" powers would also be situationally dependant, so you'd need to set those up for the 3[W] attack. (Something that doesn't need to be done now.) Which, if I read RW correctly, that's what he's going for.

What's more, that "Spinning Sweep" power wouldn't work on anything with more (or less!) than two legs.

I'm not trying to claim that these would be balanced per the system we have now. I'm pointing out a different method of handling things.

 

[Garthanos]

I
I'm not trying to claim that these would be balanced per the system we have now. I'm pointing out a different method of handling things.

On the fly with good guidelines and limits is not that terrible in spite of the FUD tossing ;-) but it does mean tactics are a different thing and are now more limited to the imagination and knowledge and tolerancce of of the dm... for instance a DM might realistically make it incredibly hard to sword fight multiple opponents at a time.

The original BRV rules for all there flaws did lets somebody play a conan.. standing atop his pile of minion enemies with wounds no worse than scratches. not sure I can do that as well with the highly totem flavored barbarian or the new brv...

By the way dont shoot for realistic its not that much fun... wound saving throws are nasty scary and its very very hard to fight more than one enemy simultaneously. Disarming someone unless they are exhausted or you completely outclass them is next to impossible... and long ranged weapons really are the baddest on the block not just because rangers make it seem that way (rpgs usually underestimate their damage dealing because it isnt heroic ;-).
We really should just stop using swords and a more efficient form of ranged weapons maybe something based on alchemy so you dont have to learn wizardry and you can give the items mass produced to the troops oh yeah and armor will become a little passe since diving for cover spoiling your enemies aim is much easier without the armor... the things are going to be targetting reflex at minimum anyway.

 

[LostSoul]

On the fly with good guidelines and limits is not that terrible in spite of the FUD tossing ;-) but it does mean tactics are a different thing and are now more limited to the imagination and knowledge and tolerancce of of the dm... for instance a DM might realistically make it incredibly hard to sword fight multiple opponents at a time.

Yep, and that's the point.

 

[Stalker0]

Ranger, the system looks very interesting and creative.

I agree with the rest that you want to create some kind of antispam mechanic to keep the system fresh.

Also the balance seems a little off in the PR system. I don't know why slow is ranked higher than blind, blind I find is more generally crippling to those you attack. The light attack at PR 1 seems very strong. I can hit with a light weapon, because of the +1 W, I'm now hitting as hard as I do with a regular weapon?

 

[Alex319]

Yep, and that's the point.

I wasn't really trying to "toss FUD" or discourage you from trying new options, I was just trying to point out possible pitfalls before they happen. Of course some of the dynamics I've talked about may be what you want, in which case the new system would be good.

But in fact, Garthanos' post gave (probably inadvertently) a good example of what I was talking about:

for instance a DM might realistically make it incredibly hard to sword fight multiple opponents at a time.

And later...

By the way dont shoot for realistic its not that much fun...

So here there's two different standards being applied. A "realistic" standard is being applied with respect to swordfighting multiple opponents, while that standard is not being applied with respect to the other things like weapon balance and wounding. So how is a player supposed to know, when choosing an action, what standard will be applied to judge the effects? And if he doesn't know, he'll have no way of knowing what actions are likely to yield the best effects.

Perhaps now that I'm done talking about potential problems I could propose solutions:

1. Set up clear standards for when certain abilities will work. For example in the "Spinning Sweep" example by LostSoul, you would need to tell the players "This power only works on off-balance targets with exactly two legs." This mitigates the problem described above.

2. Allow players to ask the GM what the game effects of certain abilities would be before committing to them. For example if I say "I'm going to try to throw him to the ground," and I would have a hard time doing that because he's not off balance, then the DM should say that and give me a chance to choose a different action, not just silently give me a big penalty. This gets rid of the problem mentioned above, where players have to choose actions without having the relevant information.

Actually this gave me another idea for doing the whole "fluff based triggering" thing in a more systematic way. Here's how it works:

1. Set up a whole list of "conditions" - these work similarly to the existing conditions, and have ways of inflicting them and recovering from them. For example "off-balance" could beone of those conditions, and could be "-2 to attacks, and you can recover by spending a move action." Then you have your powers (which you could create via the BYOP system) trigger off of, and inflict, those conditions. You could design the BYOP system such that putting a requirement on a power is worth negative points. For example if "target has to be off-balance" is worth -1 point, then if you have PR 3, you can do a 4 point attack that requires the target be off-balance. You could also synergize the conditions and effects in a way that makes sense by, for instance, having in the description of off-balance "effects that knock this target prone cost 1 less PR", You could also add these effects to existing conditions. For example if being prone makes it easier to do a high damage shot in your example say under prone, "effects that do extra damage on melee attacks cost half as much PR" or something.

2. This is the important part that makes all this more situational - give monsters defense bonuses (or penalties!) against particular conditions. For example a multiple legged monster could have a defense bonus "+4 vs. off-balance, +4 vs. prone" which means that he gets +4 defense against attacks that knock him off-balance or prone. Thus players have to tailor their attacks, combos, and tactics based on which conditions the monster is vulnerable to. You would also have to have a way of players figuring out which conditions the monster is vulnerable to, such as by just telling them off the bat, or with monster knowledge checks.

 

[Garthanos]

But in fact, Garthanos' post gave (probably inadvertently)
a good example of what I was talking about: .

No it wasnt inadvertent --- heheh

I was being balanced I more than a little agree caution is advised and yes the dont shoot for realistic is right along side the example of a realistic shifting of the rules somebody might want but which could have serious implications...