D&D General Active defenses

[loverdrive]

So, I'm working on a D20 hack right now, inspired by Dark Souls. Previously, I've been contributing to Unofficial Elder Scrolls RPG, which surprisingly plays almost like Dark Souls -- with stamina management (a.k.a. don't get greedy) and dodge rolls. So, I'm kinda porting that game to D20.

The idea is pretty simple: all the characters have a limited amount of Action Points (right now I'm testing it with 3, but it's not set in stone), that they spend both on actions and reactions.

When you get attacked (or grappled, or prone), you can take a reaction (and spend an Action Point) to dodge -- and the attacker would roll against your AC, otherwise you just get hit automatically. At the end of your turn, you regain your Action Points back.

Pretty simple, and keeps the players engaged even out of their turn.

What do you think, folks?

 

[Redwizard007]

I would be interested to see how this played out across an adventure. You have effectively replaced 5e's "you usually get hit," with "you almost always get hit." My assumption is that Dex would be diminished even further in importance, as would armor.

Rolling armor into a damage reduction would make sense. So would making Dex a larger part of an "active defense." Maybe Dex could provide a percentage to miss based on 10 x your Dex mod to provide incentive to not dump it. At that point, it may be better to just switch to a system that already does what you want.

I would also expect to see more barbarians. A lot more barbarians. The resistance to damage would be incredibly powerful in this type of scenario.

 

[loverdrive]

At that point, it may be better to just switch to a system that already does what you want.

Just to clarify, I'm not houseruling this into 5e, I'm making a system from ground up.

 

[Redwizard007]

Just to clarify, I'm not houseruling this into 5e, I'm making a system from ground up.

Got it. Then my opinion changes dramatically. I like the idea in principle. A lot.

What are you trying to accomplish with the new system? More (or less) realism, lethality, complexity of combat, encounter speed, over all feel? A better idea of what you are trying to do helps us narrow our thoughts.

 

[GMMichael]

First, what is the Unofficial Elder Scrolls RPG?! I must know!

Secondly, but more to the point, a "d20 hack" isn't building a game from the ground up. So, I join Redwizard in being confused. For what it's worth, I've written and used 3 points worth of actions and active defenses. It's cool and does indeed keep players engaged.

 

[loverdrive]

First, what is the Unofficial Elder Scrolls RPG?! I must know!

Here's a google drive link. It's a cruncy midschool system, rooted in Dark Heresy (the first edition was just a straight up reskin) and Rune Quest.

Secondly, but more to the point, a "d20 hack" isn't building a game from the ground up.

Well, as I see it, it's vaguely D20-ish (and vaguely 5E flavour of D20-ish) with ability modifiers, proficiency bonuses and naughty word, but all the classes are going to be designed with all the changes in mind, so I guess things like barbarians wouldn't be a problem.

What are you trying to accomplish with the new system? More (or less) realism, lethality, complexity of combat, encounter speed, over all feel? A better idea of what you are trying to do helps us narrow our thoughts.

What I'm trying to achieve is combat depth with limited complexity -- so, instead of giving a huge list of different maneuvers or something I want to pose a choice even in things that were a no brainer before -- like "should I swing my sword or should I focus on defense?".

Dark Souls, when it comes to combat, is actually a game about knowing when to press the attack and when to stop -- and I want to replicate that feeling to some extent.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What I'm trying to achieve is combat depth with limited complexity -- so, instead of giving a huge list of different maneuvers or something I want to pose a choice even in things that were a no brainer before -- like "should I swing my sword or should I focus on defense?".

Dark Souls, when it comes to combat, is actually a game about knowing when to press the attack and when to stop -- and I want to replicate that feeling to some extent.

So is that you more want to incorporate an action point system, because in 5E you already have these options in a way through Attacking, Dodging, or Disengaging, don't you?

What I personally find more lacking in D&D are appealing combat options that make something other than "I swing my sword" the most appealing option over and over again. shrug

 

[loverdrive]

So is that you more want to incorporate an action point system, because in 5E you already have these options in a way through Attacking, Dodging, or Disengaging, don't you?

Well, these options are rarely needed that much, unless playing a rogue or taking dodge as a bonus action when playing a monk.

What I personally find more lacking in D&D are appealing combat options that make something other than "I swing my sword" the most appealing option over and over again. shrug

I want to maintain a pretty short list of primary options to avoid decision paralysis and then expand that list with situational conditions (like, you can also shove an enemy, if they weren't defending or on a crit) and class abilities and feats.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, these options are rarely needed that much, unless playing a rogue or taking dodge as a bonus action when playing a monk.

Isn't that part of the problem, though?

In every RPG I've played (that I can recall anyway) unless it is to save your butt, no option is superior in really any situation to just attacking. Other than riders for things like BM maneuvers I've never seen anyone try to disarm, etc. but we see such things in movies and read it in fiction all the time.

I guess when you've hashed it out further maybe I'll see your vision more.

 

[loverdrive]

Isn't that part of the problem, though?

In every RPG I've played (that I can recall anyway) unless it is to save your butt, no option is superior in really any situation to just attacking. Other than riders for things like BM maneuvers I've never seen anyone try to disarm, etc. but we see such things in movies and read it in fiction all the time.

I guess when you've hashed it out further maybe I'll see your vision more.

My idea is to add a layer of resource management into each turn.

Like, when playing a wizard, you can't just throw fireballs at every turn, because you'll run out of spell slots and be screwed later -- you need to weight your options and decide, whether the situation at hand is worth a 3rd level spell slot or not. So, instead of creating a ton of different actions that characters can take on each turn, I want to create a reason to not attack by making actions an expendable resource, running out of which can bite you in the arse.

With dodge or disengage, the problem is that the "cost" is too high -- you fortreit all of your attacks (which are probably a ton of damage) in order to do what? Have a slight less chance to be hurt and with leveling up this cost rises more and more. At lvl 1 dodging is a viable option, but at lvl 11, where a fighter can make three attacks for one action and enemies have a considerable bonus to their attack rolls, so imposing disadvantage doesn't mean that much -- it's just a no brainer, I HIT HIM WITH MY SWORD.

Again, think Dark Souls. You can unleash a flurry of attacks at a boss by spamming R1 or R2, but then you'll probably be open for a counterattack and unable to defend yourself. So the main gameplay mechanic isn't executing combos perfectly (like in DmC or Bayonetta or Mortal Kombat), but knowing when to attack and when to back off -- you need to manage stamina and animation frames in order to win the fight.


My goal isn't a movie-like combat (for that I have Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark and other PbtA games), but, well, video-game combat.