Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shiroiken" data-source="post: 8073336" data-attributes="member: 6775477"><p>I'm just going to address the premises, so you can get the idea of my views.</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">FUN is relative, as you already mentioned. You need to find the right market to create the proper type of combat you prefer.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I'll agree that almost every combat system I've seen has very few choice per round, unless you're some kind of spellcaster or special power user. Even supposedly dynamic combat systems, like 4E D&D, still tend to fall back to the same small set of choices. <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I think that having some variability in a character's approach makes a difference, and allowing that to change each turn/round/etc. is a good idea. For example, a character could be in a Full Defense stance, Defensive stance, Aggressive stance, or Full Attack stance, allowing for a variety of penalties and benefits.</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A level of common sense should be applied, but the question becomes the level of complexity acceptable. IMO, the use of miniatures has actually been detrimental in this regard, as it forces a level of minutia that becomes problematic. <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You mentioned constant movement in combat, but the use of miniatures pretty much negates that, as characters will plop themselves in the most advantageous position, refusing to budge unless forced. With Theater of the Mind, the battle is more fluid and realistic, since the specifics of position become irrelevant.</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Agreed. One of the aspects of the early 5E D&D playtest had all rolls as ability checks. Saving Throws, Attacks, and Skill rolls were all forms of ability checks, and the differentiation was only for determining what might modify the roll (such as a bonus to attacks).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Rolls are a necessary aspect, and the real question is how much of a factor it should be. In a system using a 1d20 with a modifier, the die roll is going to be more relevant than the modifier most of the time. A system that uses 5d4 is going to have the modifier matter more, since the dice will be much closer to average each time. <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This is one of the reasons I like 5E D&D proficiency die, because with two dice rolled, the result will tend closer to the median. A system that used an ability die, skill die, and randomness die would cause a skilled person to win most of the time, but a few lucky rolls can swing things dramatically.</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Hit Points, like combat rounds and other combat mechanics, are a poor attempt to simulate the effects of combat while retaining a game aspect. The origin of Hit Dice is the average number of hits a character can take before death, and they didn't get particularly high in the original game, nor in AD&D. Most games have inflated these, probably as a result of player demand carried over from CCRPGs.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A system that I liked, even though it had some issues, was from the Pinnacle version of Deadlands. You had a Wind score, which was the equivalent of HP, and when you ran out you were too winded to act until you recovered (usually in a round or so). In addition, each part of your body had a number of maximum wounds it could take (always 5 IIRC). When you took "damage," you divided it by your "body" score (determined by size). The whole number was the number of wounds the part of your body hit took, with the remainder becoming loss of Wind. You suffered various penalties for using the wounded location depending on the number of wounds, which created the dreaded death spiral, but the concept is sound. A character could have HP that represent their endurance to continue on, but still suffer physical wounds until they take too many (again, based on size) and they die.</li> </ol></li> </ol></blockquote><p></p>

Verification