D20 version of Riddle of Steel's simultaneous combat?

[Ace]

Hey Galloglaich, I just wanted to congratulate you on the new supplement for Codex.

Glad to know your excellent system is still going strong.

 

[Sunsword]

I would start by adjusting AC/Def away from being equal to 10+Mods and make it be Parry or Evade which are D20+Mods first.

Then, I would say that Parry uses your BAB+Str+D20.

Evade uses your Def/Ref Def Bonus/BAB+Dex+D20.

I'd look at limiting Counter & Riposte to 1/Encounter and/or make both actions move you to the bottom of the initiative cycle. The other option would be make Counter occur whenever the attacker rolls a natural 1 against an Evading target & a Riposte occur whenever the attacker rolls a natural 1 agains a Parrying target.

Desperate Defense could be made 1/Day & could give you a +3 bonus to Evade or Parry. It could also be used with the expenditure of an Action Die, if your using them.

 

[garrowolf]

Nexus D20

I think that my game Nexus D20 could be exactly what you are looking for.

There is only one roll per action. Period.

Everything is skill based while also working as a class and level system. There are LOTS of feats.

Combat is fast! One attack roll versus a static defense. Base damage + margin of success over defense determines damage. Armor is DR.

Defense cascades after the first attack that round. This means that you can be overwhelmed.

Damage is wound system based instead of regular Hit points so getting hit means something every time. You never get to a point that you are safe from lower level characters.

It also has a good martial arts system as well that is not complex but does have tactics involved.

 

[ArghMark]

Ranger Wickett, may I ask why not use the Riddle of Steel rules? I have used them in the past successfully. If your PC's are dead-keen on D20, I think you have a nice idea for combat, but I might do it like this;

PC's depending on class and dex have a pool they must spend over 2 turns.

Fighters get + 10, + 3 dex, whichever. So Fighter a has a pool of 13. Using the maneuvers strait out of the RoS book, with each new 'weapon style' being a weapon feat perhaps, fighters get 3 for free.

Fighter A and Fighter B are identical. Fighter A drops his white dice and Fighter B drops the red. (I suggest keeping this, as it helps the game not be a charge fest.) Fighter A uses 7 of his dice to defend while also pulling into play the 'Counter' feat, which means he loses 2 dice out of his pool but can get bonus dice. Fighter B uses 7 of his dice to attack. Only difference is rolling d20's

Fighter A wins the round, gaining initiative. Fighter A only has 4 dice now because of the counter, and tries an attack. Fighter B parries with his shield, no drama.



What this will cause is lots of rolls, and you will need to feat up a lot of the non 'attack' or 'parry' actions, such as feint or beat or what not. I would suggest instead of using a HP system which could take a bucket load of time to run through, use the True 20 system of damage instead, giving faster results; a stunned character is rather vulnerable to the next hit for instance, giving people a one-two combination.

Regardless, just like RoS, this suggestion I think will cause characters to be a little vulnerable. Fighting big creatures doesn't mean big dice pools I suppose, but probably high damage if they hit.

You would also need to address armor, which to be honest I never did work out how to really sort in RoS. Two late period Plate and maille type Templars just got banged on by the PC's until grappled and murdered. Heroic combat in RoS isn't so... well, heroic. Brutal, sure.


I tried to run an Ars Magica/Riddle of Steel cross. It was.. mostly successful.

 

[steenan]

I'm not sure what is the goal here. In the posts above I see three trends, quite different from each other:
- making events in combat simultaneous instead of sequential (or at least create such feeling)
- making characters and players active in defense, so it is less "make your actions, then passively wait while others try to harm you"
- creating tactical choices between offense and defense

For the first, LostSoul's idea above seems very good. Declare actions, then roll initiative, then go through several phases for different kinds of actions. It makes combat more chaotic, instead of a chess-like tactical game. Character actions happen at the same time and you don't have to even use something like AoO to discourage shooting or casting in melee. That may be very good if you plan to play without map and miniatures.
On the flip side, such combat model may be much harder for the GM to manage. More things happen at the same time, so he has to hold more information in his head, which leads to mistakes. Some kind of diagram and written down actions may be required for fast play.

If the active defense is the goal, the easiest way is to just use opposed rolls instead of static defense value. It may be perceived as slowing combat down, as it adds more rolls, but the difference in speed isn't big, while the difference in players' attention is - nobody sits idly through others' turns.
If you want to put some resource management, you need to remember that it changes the feel of combat quite drastically. With static defense or just opposed roll, number of enemies does not affect defense capabilities. It fits high-power style, with heroes defeating hordes of monsters. If defending uses up some kind of resource (actions, modifier pool etc.), banding up on someone becomes much more effective and even a strong character will fall when attacked by many. It is much better for a realistic or gritty style.

If you want such resource management, leading to tactical decisions, the best approach that fits d20 is, in my opinion, a pool of dice that you use up for actions, both attacks and defenses. You may roll a single die in an action or roll more and take the highest result. A good way of offering players more options in addition to simple attacks and defenses is adding maneuvers, that still use the same base mechanics (take some dice from your pool, opponent does the same, roll as an opposed roll with some modifiers), but allows more interesting things to be done. A few examples:
- Total defense: You cannot attack this round. You roll all your dice in every defense and lose only one of them each time.
- Stopping hit: You get -5 to your defense. If you're successful, you also hit the attacker.
- Feint: This attack deals no damage. If you hit, defender loses an additional die from his pool.

 

[ValhallaGH]

- making events in combat simultaneous instead of sequential (or at least create such feeling)
...
For the first, LostSoul's idea above seems very good. Declare actions, then roll initiative, then go through several phases for different kinds of actions. It makes combat more chaotic, instead of a chess-like tactical game. Character actions happen at the same time and you don't have to even use something like AoO to discourage shooting or casting in melee. That may be very good if you plan to play without map and miniatures.
On the flip side, such combat model may be much harder for the GM to manage. More things happen at the same time, so he has to hold more information in his head, which leads to mistakes. Some kind of diagram and written down actions may be required for fast play.

An option my friend suggested is the Battle Tech wargame model.

• Roll Initiative each round.
• From lowest to highest Initiative, perform desired movement for the round.
• From highest to lowest Initiative, perform non-movement actions for the round.

The system allows the high initiative characters to react to the tactics of the low initiative characters, and then short-circuit those tactics with movement and power use that can completely prevent the original plans.
For the OP, this has a very organic and simultaneous feel, since the fast reactors get to take their turns in the middle of their opponents' turns.


Good luck.