Analyze this combat system element: the action framework

[GMMichael]

If you've checked out my Modos editing thread, this will look familiar.

I just pulled a rule out of my RPG combat system, and now it somehow seems more complicated. What if combat:

- had initiative and turns,
- required an action to do anything (that takes time or effort)
- granted three actions at the beginning of each round,
- had two positions for each combatant: front and back rows (back row has 50% damage multiplier)
- allowed characters to use single actions during other characters' turns,
- allowed players to use their highest roll when making several actions of the same skill, all at the same time,
- rewarded good defense rolls (also actions) with no damage, but granted protection (or damage reduction) against all attacks when wearing armor?

The rule I pulled out:

- during a character's turn, he can use an action to defend against an attack, even if that attack was made during another of his actions (i.e. while he was busy)

 

[GMMichael]

I'm making some progress here. Here's how the action-at-any-time system plays out:

Ideally:
- Player1 wants to attack Goblin; he has a higher initiative. So he uses an action to attack.
- Goblin opts to use an action to defend against Player1. His defense fails, so Player1 rolls damage. Goblin wears armor which reduces the damage, but the minimum damage for a successful attack is always 1.
- Player1 reserves his two remaining actions (everyone gets three...) for defense or other opportunities.

Messy:
- Player1 wants to attack Goblin; he has a higher initiative. So he uses an action to attack.
- Goblin has good armor, so he doesn't mind getting hit. He uses a reserve action to counter-attack.
- Player1 is using his action to attack, and Goblin is attacking at the same time. Neither side is defending, so both sides automatically do damage. Both sides also roll protection to reduce the damage.
- Player1 still has two actions, and so does goblin. Player1 wants to be able to defend while getting attacked, so he ends his turn - reserving his last two actions to defend against future Goblin attacks.

Defensive:
- Player1 wants to attack a goblin; he has a higher initiative. So he uses all three actions to attack.
- Goblin doesn't want to get hit; he uses three defenses against Player1.
- Round ends, since Player1 used all his actions, and Goblin doesn't have enough actions to have a turn.

Let's complicate this just a bit: Player1 and Goblin can use an action to take defensive posture. In this posture, they deal half melee (close) damage, and can only deal half melee damage. So in the last example, "defensive," the goblin could have moved back after Player1's first attack. He would take full damage (less armor protection) from the first attack, but once in defensive posture, only take half damage from the next two attacks. Then he would still have two attacks to use later in the round.

Is this system working? What does it need to work?

 

[Meatboy]

It works fine. A major concern might be combat with more than two parties, say 3PCs and 5 goblins. Trying to remember and keep straight who goes when and who has how many actions and if they used there one action on another's turn or not could get bogged down fast.

 

[GMMichael]

It works fine. A major concern might be combat with more than two parties, say 3PCs and 5 goblins. Trying to remember and keep straight who goes when and who has how many actions and if they used there one action on another's turn or not could get bogged down fast.

You're right, and I've just dramatically reduced the number of actions available. You get additional actions unlocked for every 5 points above 10 your ability scores are, but you still need to take perks to be able to use those actions.

Counting actions will be easy for the GM - he can just set up counter-dice for each NPC. Use an action, the die counts down. At the start of the next round, everyone goes back up to full.

I was most worried about characters using their reserve actions (similar to attacks of opportunity) to attack instead of defend, but as long as you're not grossly outnumbered, anyone attacking with a reserve action can expect the same thing to happen to them (possibly during the same action). And I expect a lot more parrying/defending to happen when characters get low on health.

I was also worried about fighters using combined actions to attack - just to have a spellcaster cast Sleep on them during the first action. An outnumbered spellcaster won't want to do this: it'll mean that he can't defend if someone attacks him at the same time. But to calm that spellcaster down, there's the Mute spell, and fighters have the option of tenderizing the casters a bit, so they'll hopefully run out of actions by the end of the round.

 

[Meatboy]

I was also worried about fighters using combined actions to attack - just to have a spellcaster cast Sleep on them during the first action. An outnumbered spellcaster won't want to do this: it'll mean that he can't defend if someone attacks him at the same time. But to calm that spellcaster down, there's the Mute spell, and fighters have the option of tenderizing the casters a bit, so they'll hopefully run out of actions by the end of the round.

I wouldn't worry too much about this, this seems to be more in line with tactical decision making and makes the game interesting. My worry would be situations like the PCs facing down a single powerful boss type creature and then spend the first few rounds of combat novaing, sure the take a few hit but if it doesn't kill them whatever, and turning a climatic battle scene into a cake walk.

The opposite of this would be a DM who focuses all the opponents onto a single PC in order to take them down.

If you are worried about the reserve action being used this way call it a defensive action, which can only be used in ways you think aren't unbalancing, then create some kind of feat, perk etc. to allow some skilled combatants to use it to attack.

 

[GMMichael]

I wouldn't worry too much about this, this seems to be more in line with tactical decision making and makes the game interesting. My worry would be situations like the PCs facing down a single powerful boss type creature and then spend the first few rounds of combat novaing, sure the take a few hit but if it doesn't kill them whatever, and turning a climatic battle scene into a cake walk.

The opposite of this would be a DM who focuses all the opponents onto a single PC in order to take them down.

If you are worried about the reserve action being used this way call it a defensive action, which can only be used in ways you think aren't unbalancing, then create some kind of feat, perk etc. to allow some skilled combatants to use it to attack.

I'm not familiar with "novaing," but I'm guessing it looks like an all-out attack. The bosses are going to have plenty of protective options available. One is defensive posture (back row), which allows 50% melee damage, but the boss will need minions to keep opponents away in that case. Another is heavy armor, which like all armor doesn't take an action to use (but it doesn't negate all damage, either). With enough levels the bosses can increase their health or max damage . . . and I haven't brought up perks or spells yet.

But one big consequence of this action system: if you're outnumbered, you're in for some pain.

Good idea about perking-out the reserve actions. I'll keep it in mind after some playtesting gets done.

After some thought, it seems that parry actions will get their due, but they'll be used slightly differently than the original intent. Parries, in this system, are most likely to occur when a character is one or two hits from death, when he's trying to avoid attacks from the most dangerous opponent, or when nasty spells need disabling.

Next question: should a character be allowed to parry (defend) another character? Is a 4-point difficulty penalty (on a d20) a fair way to allow this?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Next question: should a character be allowed to parry (defend) another character? Is a 4-point difficulty penalty (on a d20) a fair way to allow this?

Yes, absolutely. Characters should be able to defend others in the same row with a small penalty (-4 should be fine, depending on your bell curve, or lack thereof). Characters in the front row should be able to defend characters in the back row with no penalty.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm making some progress here. Here's how the action-at-any-time system plays out:

Ideally:
- Player1 wants to attack Goblin; he has a higher initiative. So he uses an action to attack.
- Goblin opts to use an action to defend against Player1. His defense fails, so Player1 rolls damage. Goblin wears armor which reduces the damage, but the minimum damage for a successful attack is always 1.
- Player1 reserves his two remaining actions (everyone gets three...) for defense or other opportunities.

Messy:
- Player1 wants to attack Goblin; he has a higher initiative. So he uses an action to attack.
- Goblin has good armor, so he doesn't mind getting hit. He uses a reserve action to counter-attack.
- Player1 is using his action to attack, and Goblin is attacking at the same time. Neither side is defending, so both sides automatically do damage. Both sides also roll protection to reduce the damage.
- Player1 still has two actions, and so does goblin. Player1 wants to be able to defend while getting attacked, so he ends his turn - reserving his last two actions to defend against future Goblin attacks.

Defensive:
- Player1 wants to attack a goblin; he has a higher initiative. So he uses all three actions to attack.
- Goblin doesn't want to get hit; he uses three defenses against Player1.
- Round ends, since Player1 used all his actions, and Goblin doesn't have enough actions to have a turn.

Let's complicate this just a bit: Player1 and Goblin can use an action to take defensive posture. In this posture, they deal half melee (close) damage, and can only deal half melee damage. So in the last example, "defensive," the goblin could have moved back after Player1's first attack. He would take full damage (less armor protection) from the first attack, but once in defensive posture, only take half damage from the next two attacks. Then he would still have two attacks to use later in the round.

Is this system working? What does it need to work?

I'm curious...

Attacks always do 1 damage if successful regardless of armor. (...and I'm assuming this is true no matter the stats of the attacker.)
What stops someone from focusing on speed and accuracy and then just kiting the enemy to death with ranged attacks?

 

[GMMichael]

Yes, absolutely. Characters should be able to defend others in the same row with a small penalty (-4 should be fine, depending on your bell curve, or lack thereof). Characters in the front row should be able to defend characters in the back row with no penalty.

Hearkens back to AD&D2e's called-shot rule. Wasn't that a -4 as well? Anyway, the fuller description of the back row is that it's called defensive posture, because it's a representation of anything that adds defense: cover, distance, guarding teammates. Having teammates in the front row is what allows a character to enter the back row, where he gains 50% damage reduction from enemy front row melee weapons, and 50% DR from enemy back row ranged weapons and spells. Back rows can't attack each other with melee weapons.
[MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION]:
Ultimately, the GM stops PCs from kiting the enemy to death, by running his NPCs properly. Sure, there are some monsters (mobs, if you will) who will happily stroll along, getting hit by arrows. I think some of these (missile skeleton, sprinter zombie) are already in my bestiary. But the rest should be talking to their allies, taking cover, or retreating in a kiting situation.

System note: my RPG doesn't have hits. Nor hit points. You just take "damage" from "successful attacks." So if PCs are dropping back with ranged attacks, whether or not they're hitting is up to the GM. Whether or not they're doing damage is up to the dice.

 

[Meatboy]

[MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION]

Yes, to nova is similar to an all out attack but its more over the top. Its where a party or PC expends all or most of their resources, usually the renewable stuff, in order to obliterate an obstacle. It is prevalent in all editions of DnD but mainly ties to casters and their spells, in 4e it applied to everyone. Going nova is one of the biggest reasons for the dreaded 5 min adventuring day, wherein the party uses up their juice then immediately rests for the next challenge.

Its good that creatures have the capabilities to withstand a party going all out. The problem then is making sure that they aren't too tough normally.
If a creature can take everything the players can dish out by going all out, what happens if they don't go all out? Can they still beat the monster? With out careful handling of this you can end up with a game in which combat is an unfun grind.