A Strange Houserule - Timed Defence Bonus

[WhatGravitas]

Some minutes ago, I've read that:

I'd like to see the system place more of an emphasis on defense, so as to encourage a more graduated feel to combat. At the moment, there's no reason for characters not to open a fight with their biggest attack/spell/whatever. If it works, then great, you've stopped the enemy from hitting back. If it doesn't work, then you're no worse off than if you used it on the second round.

Contrast this to what you generally see in the movies, where fights start off low-key, and build up in intensity as you approach the climax. Instead in D&D, what you get is 1st round: meteor swarm; 2nd round: delayed blast fireball; 3rd round: fireball; 4th round: magic missile (or whatever constitutes scraping the bottom of the barrel in high-level play).

Together with Monte's recent article about combat duration, all battles in D&D are "uncinematic". Not a problem at all, and it works well... however, after reading that, my rules-tinkersense was twitching:

Timed Defence Bonus
The timed defence bonus is added to all saving throws and ACs, except when being flat-footed.
The timed defence bonus equals 2 + 1/3 HD, and each round in combat or a similar strenuous activity reduces it by 1, until it reaches 0 (or, instead of rounds in combat: Every round the creature takes more actions than a single move action).
Each round a creature spends a full-round to "catch breath", increases the timed defence bonus by 1 (never more than the maximum).

Intent:
This rule increases combat time, promotes small rests in fights, and explains why people use their "big" spells and attacks only later on: Because they don't want to waste them on well-rested opponents, therefore this rule can help to achieve both aspects of cinematic combat: Longer fights with looking for cover (to catch breath), and holding back in combat.

Certain Flaws:
It also promotes "doing nothing" if cover is present, because no side wants to exhaust itself.
It tips balances even more towards high level characters (but this may be fixed by changing the bonus to a higher static number with lower level dependant number, as 4 + 1/4 HD a.s.o.).
It also adds a layer of additional bookkeeping to the game (everybody has to track his pool), which may slow down combats with multiple opponents very much, since the DM has to track all of it (which may be solved by a "shared bonus" for the DM, just like creatures often share an initiative roll).
Can interact strangely with this & that, since the rule is just born from the moment, and possibly not very thought-out.

 

[Celebrim]

Hmmm.... you know, I think in like it.

The biggest problem here is #2, that it makes math ugly and lots of book keeping. I have the same general problem with this concept that I have with iron heroes. It's all well and good for low level parties facing single opponents, but its going to be a freaking headache in high level play. I mean ok, the players can keep track of thier tokens, but whats the DM going to do with 12+ creatures to keep track of?

And the situation could be even worse when you start throwing realism at the problem. Shouldn't people with high con lose thier defense bonuses more slowly, or recover them more quickly? How about if you have the Endurance feat? One thing that the system can't afford is to add more dice rolling. Some fixed variation on defense bonuses recovered per 'caught breath' say CON bonus/2 (minimum 1), with Endurance adding a +1 bonus.

Also, the concept of tiring doesn't work so much for things that don't tire - constructs and certain undead for example. Its hard to imagine oozes and plants getting tired, but they are generally fantastic so who knows. I haven't decided whether that can be ignored in favor of uniform cinematics, or whether its more interesting with special rules for non-tiring creatures.

The second biggest problem is that it makes mooks even weaker. I do think that the higher static number (4 + 1/4 HD) helps some and is better, and I'd like to see it in a couple examples of play. Even if it just helps a PC vs. mook combat stretch out for a few roun, its not a bad thing.

I don't consider your flaw #1 to be a flaw at all. Realistically, alot of fights involve neither side wanting to take the initiative. This becomes an oppurtunity for role play.

Other than the fact that it interacts badly with mooks and heavily favors ambush, I don't see any other strange interactions.

 

[el-remmen]

I have a very simple solution for this problem (I think).

Do what I do: All tactical discussion during a combat has to happen in character, and you can only speak as a free action on your own turn.

This means people will wait (readied actions or delays) to hear what someone else has to suggest. . .

It also means that both sides get a chance to hear what the other side may be planning as they yell across the battlefield to each other.

My combats last an average of 13 rounds - but we have had long drawn out cinematic fights over varied terrain with people calling out to each other, attempts at parley, people hiding mid-fight, etc. . .

 

[Celebrim]

I have a very simple solution for this problem (I think).

Do what I do: All tactical discussion during a combat has to happen in character, and you can only speak as a free action on your own turn.

I do that too. I still find that D20 combat goes too fast. I don't know what you are doing to get the combats out to 13 rounds on average. I feel I'm doing good to hit 4 or 5 on average, despite varied 3D terrain, multiple opponents, etc.

 

[el-remmen]

I don't know either - I am always surprised by people who say their battles never last more than five rounds (and there is a whole other school of thought that anything longer than four or five rounds is "repetitive" and/or "boring" - which I don't get either).

All I can say is that the group discussing things, yelling things, starting a plan and then aborting it, having running fights, etc. . . stretches the combats out and makes them dramatic.

Among them was a 47-round fight during an escape from a collapsing underground complex.

Another was a five-way combat with shifting alliances

Another had the party walking across open land when they spotted some flying monster heading their way - so they ran for the cover of a ruined mansion - and the fight took place as the manticore (not being a good flyer) made circles about the place as the party alternately spread out and re-grouped, attacking and planning attack between swooping and strafing attacks.

 

[WhatGravitas]

All I can say is that the group discussing things, yelling things, starting a plan and then aborting it, having running fights, etc. . . stretches the combats out and makes them dramatic.

Among them was a 47-round fight during an escape from a collapsing underground complex.

Another was a five-way combat with shifting alliances

Then you're blessed with a group that *likes* to make combats longer on more interesting on their own. Many party try to "kill/take down as efficiently as possible"... just to avoid being killed - well, just like: "Hit the villain in his monologue".

However, Celebrim is very right - a higher static bonus is better - it does less to shift the balance.

That ambushes are more dangerous... well, that's actually a nice effect. Ambushes *are* pretty dangerous, and usually an ambush only gives you the surprise round - and that's only for casters and perhaps well-placed rogues *really* great. It's a nice effect to have.

Finally: I think, for the ease of use, each DM'd horde of monsters should just share their bonus, just like initiative - and they only rest, when all rest. This makes stuff easier, and quicker - then you can actually use some d10 to track all of this.

For undead and constructs... hmm... that's always a sore point, eh? Perhaps it's wear and tear - I think it should just be ignored. They already have a bunch of advantages, especially, since the big guns (like massive sneak attacks or save-or-die spells) are already gimped for 'em.

 

[hong]

That ambushes are more dangerous... well, that's actually a nice effect. Ambushes *are* pretty dangerous, and usually an ambush only gives you the surprise round - and that's only for casters and perhaps well-placed rogues *really* great. It's a nice effect to have.

Note that flat-footedness applies in the 1st round of every fight, not just ambushes. So the benefit would disappear exactly when you wanted it to apply.

The biggest problem here is #2, that it makes math ugly and lots of book keeping. I have the same general problem with this concept that I have with iron heroes. It's all well and good for low level parties facing single opponents, but its going to be a freaking headache in high level play. I mean ok, the players can keep track of thier tokens, but whats the DM going to do with 12+ creatures to keep track of?

The general philosophy in Iron Heroes is that the standard classes, with their pools and other fancy stuff, are for PCs only. The companion books (Mastering IH, IH Bestiary) have "villain classes" for representing BBEGs and their underlings, which are much simpler than those in the main book.

. . .

I like the basic timed defense idea, but maybe you could make it a feat. Call it "Insightful Dodge" or something, giving a +10 insight bonus to AC and saves; every time someone attacks you or forces you to make a save, the bonus does down by 1. Haven't really thought through the exact implementation details, though.

Or you could give it to named characters (NPCs and PCs) as a sort of hero point/action point system. I wouldn't worry too much about mooks.