All Fours: the Rule of Fours? the Game of Fours?

[Stormonu]

Put me down for taking the Dexterity modifier out of AC. With Dexterity adjusting your AC and your Reflex save AND your ability to hit, it's too good.

Make AC about absorbing the attack and Reflex about avoiding it. If you want to apply your Dex modifier to AC or be able to use your Reflex in place of AC, make it a feat, skill or ability.

Also, I suggest adding a feat/skill/ability that allows you to increase on of your four defenses (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, Will) by +1, up to 1/3 your level (don't make it automatic, or it's kind of pointless). If the defense falls into the "prime defense" for your class (Fighter - AC or Fortitude, Rogue - Reflex or Fortitude, Cleric - Will or AC, Wizard - Will or Reflex) you can increase it by 1/2 levels. Heck, you could treat magical armor/items as granting you one of these bonuses; since they're the same type of bonus they won't stack (and it can help against the Christmas tree effect).

 

[steeldragons]

Just a couple of points.

NO IT DOESN'T!!! [

DAMN RIGHT IT DOESN'T! ....uh....wut're we talkin' about?

How many times do we have to bash people in the head with the facts before they'll finally 'get' that plate armor is no more restrictive than mail?

27.

I see. So, ok. No Dex. penalties for any type of armor then.

(And that mail does not clank!)

Oh! No, of course not. Plate yes. Mail no. I didn't intend to have chain or scale be "noisy."

I am also reminded, I think it was well into 2e, that anyone wearing plate armor was always sure to stipulate that they "padded" their armor at the joints with cloth or rags or anything, really, so they wouldn't "make noise." haha. I dunno if that's a legitimate use of the rules. But generally speaking, we never used any penalty for wearing plate...maybe it slowed your movement a titch? I don't really recall the rules as written off the top of my head there.

I believe we also had standing houserules that magical armor was, in addition to "sizing enchants" (shrinking/growing to fit any size character), magically silent. But that was just house rules...to make things simpler for the DM.

(Outfitting magical weapons with "sizing enchantments" was also considered "standard procedure" for creating magical weapons as well. So a magical battle axe, obtained from an ogre or giant, could/would "shrink" to be usable by a dwarf, for example. Still be a two-handed weapon, but usable by the smaller PCs, and still do "battle axe +magic bonus" damage.)

But for simple, pure fun of playing for beginning characters, I am not inclined to apply anything like that...though the limit to Dex./Reflex makes sense to me...if it is going to elicit that kind of reaction, it is just as well left out.

A DM can always rule, in their own game, to add penalties or say that this or that creature, with acute hearing, might notice a plate armored approach, but most "normal hearing" creatures wouldn't. But I don't see a reason to put that sort of thing into the rules.

Reflex save vs. area attacks. This is always written that the character dives out of the way if they make their roll. But I've never seen a rule that makes the character actually do so. They (theoretically) dive out of harm's way, but actually remain standing right where they were: in the middle of that firey breath or whatever.

Really?! Not in my games. Never! Getting out of the line of fire always meant you ended up someplace different than you started. Whether or not that put you "out of range" for missle fire, spell range or a still getting to sneak around for a backstab the following round without having to readjust your position was a case-by-case call. Sometimes you were/could. Sometimes you weren't/couldn't. But no one ever complained when they had succeeded getting out of the way of the area effect!

More nits than anything else, but a bit of proper flavor text, or something, really needs to be used to deal with them. But that's for the actual Combat Rules to do.

Nothing wrong with "nits". haha. Especially for the sake of flavor text. If it hasn't become abundantly clear by now, I am one of those who is significantly more concerned with flavor/concept than numbers/crunch. But yes. So we should really get on that.

--SD

 

[steeldragons]

Put me down for taking the Dexterity modifier out of AC. With Dexterity adjusting your AC and your Reflex save AND your ability to hit, it's too good.

So noted.

Make AC about absorbing the attack and Reflex about avoiding it. If you want to apply your Dex modifier to AC or be able to use your Reflex in place of AC, make it a feat, skill or ability.

That is certainly plausible. Though I am not inclined to say "use your AC or..." If you are being attacked (directly, not area effects), someone needs to hit above your AC to do damage. Flavoring it so that not topping your opponent's AC (especially if the roll is "close") does not necessarily mean a "miss" simply that you (or they) didn't take damage. They caught the blow on their shield or is skidded across their hide/your armor...or a complete "swing an'a miss."

But AC helping Skills for the PC to choose from are certainly reasonable.

Also, I suggest adding a feat/skill/ability that allows you to increase on of your four defenses (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, Will) by +1, up to 1/3 your level (don't make it automatic, or it's kind of pointless). If the defense falls into the "prime defense" for your class (Fighter - AC or Fortitude, Rogue - Reflex or Fortitude, Cleric - Will or AC, Wizard - Will or Reflex) you can increase it by 1/2 levels. Heck, you could treat magical armor/items as granting you one of these bonuses; since they're the same type of bonus they won't stack (and it can help against the Christmas tree effect).

Again, I'd hate to incorporate any kind of fractional increment.

But, this does make me think, instead of making Dex. relate to AC...using one's Prime Ability bonus. So Fighters can ass their Str. bonus (their strong/fortified enough to "take a blow" without damage), Thieves use their Dex. (fast/agile enough to avoid blows), MUs use their Int. (smart enough to figure how to evade an incoming attack) and Clerics have the Presence ("wisdom" to know when to back up or duck, etc. to avoid blows.)

Strictly for AC, mind you, the ability bonuses to their various Defense(s) stand. Str. applied to Fort, Dex. applied to Ref., Int. and/or Presence (whichever is higher? So clerics and mu's may be equally good at avoiding/overcoming magical effect?) applied to Will.

Keeps/makes the Prime Ability an even more important attribute for the success of the character, this time as regards their safety vs. an increase to their offensive capabilities.

Just a thought inspired by your suggestion...might be bollocks. But I'm getting that "makes sense" (and easy enough to understand/apply) feeling.

 

[Hassassin]

Do that have to? If they do, then why bother having separate defenses in the first place?

Well...no...I don't think. Your Ref. is your ability plus Dex. mod's...right? Your Ac would be...whatever the starting/case/unarmored AC is plus just your Dex. mod. So, no, they wouldn't be the same.

I feel like we are using a different language here, since you don't play 3e.

There's something called "touch AC" in 3e. Touch AC is basically your AC - any armor and shield bonuses. It is used instead of the normal AC when the attack ignores armor: e.g. someone trying to grab you, or shooting a spell ray at you, or when a ghost tries to touch you.

It would be great if those attacks could be resolved just as a normal attack, but against Ref. defense.

No. AC is your armor and Dex. mods. If you get better/stronger armor, then sure it'll increase. But I can see no justification to increase it automatically every level...when you're still wearing the same armor and your Dex. hasn't changed.

If your Reflexes improve as you level up, you become better at dodging fireballs. Why wouldn't that also make you better at dodging swords, which is part of AC?

This strikes me as unnecessarily complicated, and unsupported by any kind of flavor/fluff. Leather does nothing to inhibit one's movement. Chain does very little. Plate, yes. But I see no logical reason that leather (or any other) armor should detract from one's Reflex rolls.

If there is no Dex penalty/limit for wearing armor, then that's fine. If there is, however, I think it should also somehow apply to Reflexes.

Nah. Again, I don't see the "flavor-logic" there. Ducking down behind your shield to avoid a dragonbreath is not the same as diving out of the way.

Not the same, but shouldn't both be ways to avoid the effect? AC models how you either parry, dodge or absorb an attack in armor. Ref. could similarly account for dodging away or behind any cover, including your shield.

Well, additional attacks are certainly going to be possible with increasing levels, as the characters (fighters, pretty much) increase in skill, not every level though. And yes, one's "to hit" should be going up (in the case of fighters, as far as I'm thinking, every level) so one's chances of hitting will increase...this does not automatically translate to "more damage" but it is the potential for dealing more. How this translates to "more and more turns" I don't understand.

The higher level the opponent, the longer the combat SHOULD take. They will probably be/have higher AC (harder to hit). The more HP they will have. They will likely be hitting as well as if not better than the PCs they are fighting, potentially dealing more damage/round. I don't see how any of this is "bogging things down" or having a combat take more turns is somehow "undesirable."

If a level 1 combat takes three rounds and a level 10 combat takes 30, that seems very undesirable to me. If hp increases linearly and average damage does not, that's approximately what happens.

Yes it may be realistic or desirable in a simulation sense, but it's not something I'd like to see in play.

How much time are we talkin' here? Are we really suggesting that waiting for someone to roll 2 dice (or the same die twice) instead of 1/once is an inconvenience? That it "slows the game down" to some kind of unacceptable/untolerable speed? Are we really at that stage in our gaming [or larger] society? Really?

Roll the dice. Pick it up. Roll again. It really is....just that. Takes the time it took you to read this line. Where's the issue?

But, you a larger point that you may or may not be lookign to make...Combat. Really need to think about and lay down the "rules" for "All Fours Combat"...

--SD

Extra attacks don't take as much time as whole turns, so yes it's better. Still, I wouldn't totally discount it. Adding and announcing X attack rolls and then rolling damage for those that the DM says hit does take more time than for one attack. (Especially if the attacks are at different attack bonuses like in 3e.)

Maybe I'm exaggerating things, but I really dislike the type of combat I've seen in high level 3e, where most of a gaming session (ours are 2-4 hours) can be spent on one combat encounter.

 

[Hassassin]

Put me down for taking the Dexterity modifier out of AC. With Dexterity adjusting your AC and your Reflex save AND your ability to hit, it's too good.

Dex helps AC, ranged attacks, and reflexes.
Str helps hp, melee attacks, damage, and fortitude.

It seems Str is better if anything.

But, this does make me think, instead of making Dex. relate to AC...using one's Prime Ability bonus. So Fighters can ass their Str. bonus (their strong/fortified enough to "take a blow" without damage), Thieves use their Dex. (fast/agile enough to avoid blows), MUs use their Int. (smart enough to figure how to evade an incoming attack) and Clerics have the Presence ("wisdom" to know when to back up or duck, etc. to avoid blows.)

I think getting Str to AC would be too powerful as an ability. It would make a fighter pretty much independent of any other abilities. Replacing Dex by a mental attribute for AC might be fine for a special ability or feat at a higher level.

Strictly for AC, mind you, the ability bonuses to their various Defense(s) stand. Str. applied to Fort, Dex. applied to Ref., Int. and/or Presence (whichever is higher? So clerics and mu's may be equally good at avoiding/overcoming magical effect?) applied to Will.

I think Will should be based on Presence. That way anyone gets at least some benefit from a high Presence score. Everyone benefits from high Int in any case, if that gives more skills.

 

[steeldragons]

First, I completely forgot about the Elvin resistance to Charm spells!

I'd swap that in instead of the "Secret Door" discovery as this makes a lot more flavor-sense to me than some kinda "Secret Door sixth sense" (to keep 4 special/racial abilities per demi-human.) Make sense? Everyone ok with that?

Now...ok...so...here goes nuthin'...

COMBAT RULES

Hit Points: At first level, all PCs begin with max HP: Ftr 10, Cle 8, Thf 6, MU 4. Each gains dX (where X is there beginning HP) per level.

AC: AC is one's Defense against taking a "damage causing direct hit."
It is determined as follows: Base AC determined by class, + Armor (and/or shield) worn + Prime Ability modifier (+ any relevant Skill bonus and/or Magic bonus from enchanted armor, shields, items, spells, etc.)

Base AC
Fighters: 4
Thieves: 3
Clerics: 2
Magic-users: 1

Armor
Unarmored: +2 (base AC for non-adventurers/PCs, so a roll of 1 still/always misses. But pretty much, Farmer Bob is not skilled at engaging in combat/avoiding attacks.)
Leather armor: +4
Scale armor: +6
Chainmail: +8
Plate armor: +10

Shields add +1 (for this beginner/starter tier/set. Various sizes and types of shields can be expanded in the next tier/set. For now/beginning play, it can be assumed that any shield provides the same ratio of coverage/protection regardless of a PCs race/size. A halfling's shield will not be the same size as a human's, obviously, but it covers them just as well, "+1".)

*AC cannot exceed 19 (even with magical bonuses). A roll of 20 always hits/does damage.

Order of Combat (1 round or whatever increment we decide to call it)
Initiative
Declaration of action. (I charge forward and attack, I hide in shadows [roll Stealth], I begin casting X spell, etc.)
Roll for any Skills being employed (to see if they work/are applicable).
Roll "To Hit" (d20, roll higher than the target AC)

1. Missile attacks (for nocked bows, daggers ready to be thrown, a loaded sling, etc.)
2. Melee ("hand-to-hand") Attacks
3. Spells/magical effects
4. (Optional thought: if a PC has a bow/missle nocked/ready at the start of the round, they can reload/get off a second attack at the end of the same round? Excluding crossbows.)

Roll damage as necessary.

Rolls for Defenses/"saves" are made (within the round) as the attacks occur. i.e. you don't wait til it's "your turn" to make a "save". i.e. You're having Charm Person cast upon you. Roll a Will save to determine whether you can act [independently] the next round or not.

Initiative
Party rolls a d6. DM rolls a d6. Highest gets to act first. Now, the order in which the PCs attack is up to the DM/group to determine among themselves.

Some options:
"Closest" PCs get to go first
Roll a second dX to determine an order for attacks within the party
Just go clockwise around the table

It is assumed/understood everyone is acting, more or less, at the same time. Their order may be further predicated by the PCs Declared action for that round
Example: The MU who says "I'm casting" will have their spell go off at the end of the round/goes last -there is a Skill that allows MUs to move and cast at the same time/within the same round. this would be rolled before "to hits" begin. But the spell is still not completed until after the missile and melee attacks.

Additional Initative Option: Roll once at the beginning of combat (PCs go first or the DM goes first) and just go back and forth til the battle is ended?...instead of rolling each round? I know I played in games like this, but my default for games I DM is to roll each round.

To Hit
d20. You must roll higher than your target's AC. Rolling the exact opposing AC indicates a "miss/no damage" as does rolling under the target AC.

Yes, ACs are generally going to be LOW in this game so "hits" are going to happen a LOT! This, hopefully, will lend to the idea that avoiding conflicts (either by parlay, trickery, tactics, running away, etc.) is preferable to risking bodily harm (particularly for MUs or un-/lightly armored individuals). While a decently armored Fighter or Cleric might still enjoy getting into a scuffle with a reasonable likelihood of avoiding a damage causing hit (AC for a Fighter with 16 Str, wearing Chainmail and a shield would have an AC of: 4 (class base) + 2 (Str. bonus) +8 (chainmail) +1 (shield) = 15....Or does that seem too high/need adjusting?

Damage is rolled as stipulated for the weapon/spell +Str. modifier (for weapons), Int. bonus (for MU spells), Presence bonus (for Clerical spells) and/or any applicable Skill bonus (Thf's Sneak Attack damage bonus, for example).

I'm thinking "Weapon type v. armor type" be an "Optional rule/method" of doing/adding/subtracting damage to be introduced in the next tier/set. For now/beginners, just hit 'em and do damage.

What do we think about this for a starting/simple "Combat Rules"?

--SD

 

[steeldragons]

Apologies to Firelance. Apparently I was "pasting" the last quoted post into this one....which was not you. haha. Sorry for any confusion/inconvenience. I've changed them now to the correct original poster.

Dex helps AC, ranged attacks, and reflexes.
Str helps hp, melee attacks, damage, and fortitude.

It seems Str is better if anything.

Yeah...there is that.

I think getting Str to AC would be too powerful as an ability. It would make a fighter pretty much independent of any other abilities. Replacing Dex by a mental attribute for AC might be fine for a special ability or feat at a higher level.

Hmmm. Yeah. I could generate skills (for each class) that apply their Prime ability bonuses to AC instead of making it an automatic thing...'cept I already said in the Combat post that they would be applied.

As for adding Str to AC being too powerful...if the bonuses (for every ability) are +1-4, then how is adding Str. vs. adding Dex. (for the hf's AC) or Int. (for the MUs AC) any more powerful?

[EDIT] Ohhhh! I see. You mean in relation to Str. applying to 5 different things and other abilities applying to less...That's what you mean?

Eh. I don't know if that's such a big deal. If it is very troublesome, we could say that basic "to hit" bonus is the purview of Dex. for melee as well as missile weapons.

Then Str. bonuses would only apply to Damage, HP, Fort and Ftr. AC. (still 4 things)
Dex. bonuses become To Hit, Reflex and Thf. AC. (3 things)
Int. bonuses only effect MU spell allotment, MU AC and Skill points. (3)
Prc. bonuses effect Cle spell allotment, Cle AC and Will. (and 3)

I'm not sure if I'm down with that...or maybe it's just the grognardism acting up. lol. That melee weapons and missile weapons should be dependant on differing abilities "to hit"...or maybe I'm just over-thinking it.
[/EDIT]

I think Will should be based on Presence. That way anyone gets at least some benefit from a high Presence score. Everyone benefits from high Int in any case, if that gives more skills.

EXCELLENT POINT! I was forgetting about Int. adding to skills. So yeah, Will uses Presence. So, Int. has no baring on one's Defenses (other than the MU's AC -if we keep that kind of bonus/breakdown- and/or providing bonus Skill points that might improve any PCs Defenses)

Good catch.
--SD

 

[Hassassin]

On that whole abilities and defenses thing.

Ok, here is a vision of 4 abilities and their effects on a character and well as the four defenses, and a small look at combat. It's probably way contradictory to what you, [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION], have in mind, but maybe it's good for some ideas.

(Warning, long post ahead!)

Edit: I wrote this before seeing your previous two posts.

Abilities

Rolled 4d6 drop lowest or for grittier play 4d4 add all. Either in order or assigned, however the group likes to play.

Strength (Str): bonus/penalty to hp, melee attacks, damage, fortitude defense.
Dexterity (Dex): bonus/penalty to ranged attacks, physical and reflex defense.
Intellect (Int): bonus/penalty to skill points, spell attacks, mage bonus spells.
Presence (Pre): bonus/penalty to spell damage, cleric bonus spells, will defense.

All bonuses or penalties also apply to skills based on that ability as well as some class abilities.

Ability modifiers are looked up from one of the tables below. I'd use the first, but the second emphasizes extreme abilities more. In either case the modifier for humans ranges from -4 to +4.

First:
[sblock](2-)3: -4
4-5: -3
6-7: -2
8-9: -1
10-11: +0
12-13: +1
14-15: +2
16-17: +3
18(-19): +4
(For higher/lower scores add/subtract 1 per two ability points.)
[/sblock]
Second:
[sblock]3: -4
4: -3
5: -2
6:-1
7-14: +0
15: +1
16: +2
17: +3
18: +4
(For higher/lower scores add/subtract 1 per ability point.)
[/sblock]

Defenses

Based on class, ability and gear. All defenses start at 10, unless otherwise specified.

Groups that like to have the player roll all dice can start defenses at +0 and treat them as modifiers to a defense roll: 1d20 + defense modifier. In this case you can either roll the opposed attack or just add 11 to the attack modifier to get a target number for the defense roll.

Physical (Phy): defense against attacks that would cause physical damage. You add armor and shield bonuses, as well as Dex modifier to physical defense.
Reflexes (Ref): defense against attacks that only need to touch you, like many spell effects. You add your shield bonus, as well as Dex modifier to your reflexes.
Fortitude (Fort): defense against life-draining attacks, poisons, and tiring. You add your Str modifier to your fortitude.
Will (Will...): defense against mental attacks, like mind-affecting spells and fear. You add your Pre modifier to your will.

Core classes' defense modifiers (+4 or -4 to some defenses):
[sblock]Good: +4 to this defense
Average: +0 to this defense
Poor: -4 to this defense

Cleric: Phy, Ref, Fort average, Will good.
Fighter: Phy, Ref average, Fort good, Will poor.
Thief: Phy, Ref good, Fort poor, Will average.
Mage: Phy, Ref average, Fort poor, Will good.

In multi-classing you take the better modifier for each defense, but there will be other costs to multi-classing.
[/sblock]
Armors and shields:
[sblock]Shield: +2 Phy and Ref
Leather: +2 Phy
Chain: +4 Phy
Plate: +6 Phy (-2 Ref if you like that sort of thing)

Proficiencies:
Cleric: leather, chain
Fighter: all
Mage: none
Thief: leather, shield

There's still a theme of fours, since leather + shield (thief) is +4, chain (cleric) is +4 and plate + shield (fighter) is +8. Those would be the most common cases.

Yes, this means a thief and a fighter have the same Phy, but for different reasons. I don't think that's a problem, but if you do either make plate +8 or remove the thief's shield proficiency.
[/sblock]

Combat basics

Attack roll: 1d20 + attack modifier against relevant defense.

As written above, the attack modifier includes either Str, Dex or Int modifier, depending on whether the attack is a melee attack, a ranged attack or a spell attack.

Normal melee and ranged attack are against Phy. Combat maneuvers like trip are against Ref. Spells and monsters' special attacks may be against any defense as noted in the thing's description.

Damage depends on the weapon/spell used. If using the weapon table here, proficiencies are below:
[sblock]Cleric: tiny, small and medium
Fighter: all
Mage: tiny
Thief: tiny and small
[/sblock]
Thieves should also have some sort of precision-damage special ability.

Leveling up

There are two options here. The first is to have a level dependent bonus on both attacks and defenses. This is the simplest way. Example table:
[sblock]Level: Bonus
1: -
2: +1 attack
3: +1 attack, +1 defense
4: +2 attack, +1 defense
5: +2 attack, +2 defense
etc.

These bonuses apply to *all* attacks, whether magical or non-magical. When multi-classing, look up the numbers for all classes individually and add the modifiers.
[/sblock]
Another option is to only give bonuses to attack and defense from feats and specific class abilities. I'm not sure which is a better option.

In any case, there could be a system of four "tiers" of four levels. For example, a 1-4 level character would be "adventurer", 5-8 "hero", 9-12 "paragon", 13-16 "epic". Or something similar.

Ok, running out of gas now.

 

[steeldragons]

-snip all kinds detailed impressive good stuff-

Ok, running out of gas now.

I'm not surprised! lol.

THAT definitely deserves some XP but I "must spread some around..." before hitting you up again.

But, really, WOW! Nice job. Def. lots to examine, gage, think about, etc. I'm sure at least some of this can be used.

--SD

 

[Hassassin]

*AC cannot exceed 19 (even with magical bonuses). A roll of 20 always hits/does damage.

You aren't taking attack bonuses into account, I think. I wouldn't place a limit on AC (except the one due to available options), just have 20 always hit no matter the AC.

Also, critical hits? Critical misses/fumbles?

Order of Combat (1 round or whatever increment we decide to call it)

So the idea is that first everyone shoots in initiative order, before anyone slashes with their swords? At what point would moves happen? What if someone moves from line-of-fire before ranged or spell attack?

Initiative
Party rolls a d6. DM rolls a d6. Highest gets to act first. Now, the order in which the PCs attack is up to the DM/group to determine among themselves.

Maybe this should be handled by the circumstances? If only one side is aware, they go first, otherwise some kind of opposed spot checks... In any case, d20 is better, since you are less likely to roll the same number.

Additional Initative Option: Roll once at the beginning of combat (PCs go first or the DM goes first) and just go back and forth til the battle is ended?...instead of rolling each round? I know I played in games like this, but my default for games I DM is to roll each round.

I think this should be the default and each-round an option. It's simpler and requires less rolling.

Yes, ACs are generally going to be LOW in this game so "hits" are going to happen a LOT! This, hopefully, will lend to the idea that avoiding conflicts (either by parlay, trickery, tactics, running away, etc.) is preferable to risking bodily harm (particularly for MUs or un-/lightly armored individuals).

... at low levels.

OTOH, hp increases fast enough that everyone can soon survive a few rounds. Basically, having p(hit) be high just means the fight will be less random, since you can assume attacks hit. That may make it seem more of a grind down to 0 hp without attack rolls mattering all that much.