Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8402666" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think that more than one posters has mentioned Dungeon World.D&D has not always had turn-by-turn initiative in the 3E fashion; and has not always used the sort of precision-of-positioning that is at the heart of some of @FrogReavers's concerns.Classic D&D "side"-based initiative, where characters who are in melee have extreme limitations on their ability to move, helps reduce some of the issues. (Not all of them - I think a version of [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER]'s Orc-door-swarm might still happen, depending on how a particular table interprets the always under-defined rules for being engaged in melee.) In AD&D, the only way to close and attack in the same round is via a charge, which then triggers weapon-length rule, which makes it a bit clearer what happens if a fighter wants to close and attack a goblin archer.A variant initiative system for Classic D&D, developed from Swords & Spells, can be found here: <a href="https://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf</a>. It might solve some of FrogReaver's problems, but I don't know if it's workable for 5e D&D.Two of the systems I'm actively playing do this: Prince Valiant and Burning Wheel. (Burning Wheel has a variety of options for resoling interpersonal violence, depending on the degree of detail of resolution desired by the game participants; in this way it resembles the simple/extended contest framework of HeroWars/Quest. In this post I'm referring to the Bloody Versus subsystem.)Both use opposed checks. Bloody Versus is a single opposed check. There are rules for modifying the check based on gear and circumstances. BW also has robust rules for augments (eg increasing my Sword skill, when fighting an opponent in a castle, with my Castle-wise skill, reflecting my character's familiarity with the twists and turns of castles). Roughly speaking, whoever wins the check inflicts an injury on their opponent that depends on the degree of success, and also has the loser at their mercy. (That last bit is a special instance of the general principle in Burning Wheel that resolution should be final.)Prince Valiant permits resolution of a fight in a similar fashion, and this is its canonical procedure for resolving a joust. But for something less like a formal duel or contest and more like an all-in-brawl or a fight to the death, it has an extended procedure: the margin of victory on the first check is a penalty to the loser's dice pool; then another round is resolved; and this continues until the fight is resolved. Attempts to do things other than fight - eg use tricky swordplay, or dive for cover, run away, etc - are resolved ad hoc by setting an appropriate difficulty for the appropriate check (normally either Agility or Dexterity). There is no action economy: the GM calls for checks as the fiction and the momentum of play dictate.Tactics of the boardgame sort aren't relevant in either of these resolution systems, but tactics of the Napoleonic sort can be relevant in that they can be the basis for the granting of bonuses or the infliction of penalties.</blockquote>

Verification