10 segmented combat

Lawngnome4hire

First Post
Has anyone experimented with incorporating 10 segmented combat into pathfinder?

Back in the day, when I had to walk 10 miles in the snow, up hill both ways, we use to play AD&D 2nd edition. And while the rules system had plenty of flaws, needing an advanced math degree to understand thaco being one of the bigger ones, there were a few parts of it that I really liked and I miss now that they've been phased out in favor of simplified combat.

For those that aren't familiar with it, the way it worked was every weapon and spell had a speed stat. With bigger weapons are more powerful and complex spells being slower. The way it worked is pretty straight forward, lets say you roll a 12 for initiative, the GM works his way up the initiative starting at 1. When he gets to 12 you tell him what your action is, lets say you want to cast a fireball spell, which I believe had a speed of 3, you tell the GM and he moves on up the initiative order. When he reaches 15, which is your original 12+3 for fireball your spell goes off. If you happened to take damage during the time between you declaring your action and when it goes off then your spell would be disrupted.

It adds a bit of complexity to combat but with practice it really isn't hard to push through quickly. And it adds a lot of strategic elements to combat. For example, it makes smaller lower damage weapons have a purpose. Right now most people just look for the most damage they can get in their allowed weapons. The only major difference between weapons is damage and crit range/multiplier. With the ability to effectively interrupt casters those fast weapons that don't hit as hard suddenly look a little more appealing.

This was even more apparent in spells. In the current system you really don't have to worry about a spell being interrupted. Most casters will have enough concentration that unless they get hit by a train, they can most likely still get their spell off. And when is the last time you saw someone deliberately try and counter a spell being cast? The current counter spell rules are a joke. With 10 segmented combat you have to think, "Do I have enough time to get that desintegrate off before the fighter smacks me? Or should I just pop off a quick magic missile?"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I recommend looking at the Hero System Speed rules and chart

Basically, it is a 12 segment round, your speed determines how many segments you can act in (in general the hero system I find a little convoluted but has its little nuggets around here and there, the speed is one of them)

Many of the spells take an extra phase in hero (magic: one of the pieces of coal, if it is that good) and so you could get disrupted if you had a bad speed or your opponent had a better one

For example (and I am making this up) I (the wizard) casts fireball (which for this example, takes an extra turn to cast), my speed is 3, and I start casting on segment 4. My opponent has a speed of 6 and takes an action on 4 as well (their dex beats mine, they go first) and they miss me on 4. Segment 6, they attack again, hit and I hurt, turn 8 they attack again, and I hurt more, this time enough to lose the spell on my action in segment 8

Complicated? can be when there are 4 players and 3-6 enemies but t works out
 

I've been playing with the idea of tick-based combat, a la Exalted or Scion. It has a lot of implications that I have yet to fully work through, but it's got a lot of potential as well.
 


In a lot of ways, like the ten segmented combat, only there's no "top end" to the round - it just keeps going. The combat system does away with the idea of a combat round entirely, and you just keep counting "ticks" - 1-second-long action "moments," basically - until the combat is over.
 


That's a really cool idea. But I can see it being difficult to track everything in combat.
There are some tricks to making it work easier, and it feels much more fluid and less "game-y" to not count things off in arbitrary "combat rounds." It took a little while to get used to when I first started playing Exalted 2E, but nowadays I'm a huge fan.

The catch so far has been trying to determine the balance between moves and standard actions, as well as how to handle full attacks. (Not to mention calculating initiative in a way that works with a d20.) I have ideas on all of that stuff, but I'm not sure how the balance will come out yet.
 

as well as how to handle full attacks

Wouldn't that just be "if our last action was an attack, it takes only <a lesser amount of ticks> to make another attack". So if you moved, your next attack takes a little longer, but then continuing to swing goes faster.
*feats and 5' steps floating around in my head now as I type that*

I could see that working pretty well.. but yeah, it'd be more complicated.

I think the primary change would be to the "rolling low" aspect. Everything in d20 is roll high for a better result. Needing to roll low for initiative kind of breaks that.
Not a huge, huge deal.. but it can make system learning harder. Probably why you won't find this kind of thing in an official release, unless a roll high mechanic can be worked in instead.

Hmmm... new math project for me...
 

Wouldn't that just be "if our last action was an attack, it takes only <a lesser amount of ticks> to make another attack". So if you moved, your next attack takes a little longer, but then continuing to swing goes faster.
*feats and 5' steps floating around in my head now as I type that*

I could see that working pretty well.. but yeah, it'd be more complicated.
The question is, how long should it take? If an average attack takes 6 ticks, should I require a full attack to take 12 ticks, in keeping with the "full round" nature of full attacks in the standard system? Is there another number or calculation that would be easier/more intuitive/better balanced?

One particular possible complication: if it takes twice as long to make a full attack as it does to make two standard attacks, why would I ever bother using the full attack action? I'd have to have three attacks before it made any sense at all, and it still might not be all that efficient if my options are two attacks at +X, or three attacks at +X/+(X-5)/+(X-10)...

I think the primary change would be to the "rolling low" aspect. Everything in d20 is roll high for a better result. Needing to roll low for initiative kind of breaks that.
Not a huge, huge deal.. but it can make system learning harder. Probably why you won't find this kind of thing in an official release, unless a roll high mechanic can be worked in instead.

Hmmm... new math project for me...
Currently my setup looks like this: make an initiative check (d20 + Dex mod + other bonuses, just as in standard d20), with result as follows:

(DC): (first action is...)
DC 0: tick 7
DC 5: tick 6
DC 10: tick 5
DC 15: tick 4
DC 20: tick 3
DC 25: tick 2
DC 30: tick 1

Characters are flat-footed until the tick of their first action. Surprised characters take a -20 penalty to their roll.

It looks okay to me so far,but I am certainly willing to entertain alternatives.

To give a baseline as to how "fast" (i.e., the number of ticks an action takes) I want things to be, the central drive of the concept was to couple a weapon's damage die to its attack speed, like so:

d12/2d6 - speed 8
d10 - speed 7
d8/2d4 - speed 6
d6 - speed 5
d4 - speed 4
d3 - speed 3
d2 - speed 2

Size changes, including things like enlarge person, would increase speed as well, making the larger weapons slightly slower, in addition to hitting harder. (As a rule of thumb, effects that only increase damage dice without actually increasing the weapon's size, like gravity bow or Improved Natural Attack, would not increase weapon speed. This would have interesting implications for monks.)

The catch, though, is that I haven't sat down and actually worked through the DPR effects of the system to see how things pan out. I'd prefer to have the weapons a little closer to balanced, rather than making everyone carry paired short swords or something.
 

I'd prefer to have the weapons a little closer to balanced, rather than making everyone carry paired short swords or something.

One option would be to have the speed based of weapon type

In some games I play, hammers and blunt weapons are slower in hitting then axes, and swords are faster then axes. Axes being medium

Another option could be a feat

Lighting Strike
Prereq: +1 BaB, Weapon Focus
Benefit: Drop the speed of a weapon by one class (Speed 4 becomes speed 3)
Special: You can take this feat multiple times, Its effects stack only once.

As for spells, You could have them take 2 ticks. First is casting, second if the actual effect

Last side note: your initiative table stops at 30, But I have a character with +16 to initiative, which means I will be going tick 3 at the latest, and could get a roll of 36 (waste of a nat 20 but oh well) and go tick 1, if not sooner
 

Remove ads

Top