Does this fairly eliminate Attacks of Opportunity?

[doghead]

An interesting thread. I do like some of the possibilities this would create.

Seems this system will unfairly favour heavy armoured characters with big sword. As they can just do full attack all the time and leave their armour to soak the damage. Rogue like characters will suffer since they have to spend more time defending actively to avoid being hit.

Although saying that how often is Sneak Attack applied? Seems to me once a Rogue gets into flanking flanking then full attack could be over powered.

To me, this seems like a plus. Historically (generally) the heavily armoured fighter was the king of the battlefield until the event of firearms. Depending on how sneak attack is incorporated, I think that the rogue can keep his mojo. But it will be a dangerous for them. Which seems right.

One sticking point of mine is still the beginning of initiative: the first attackers can use three attacks, and if a defender wants to defend all three attacks, then he doesn't have actions left with which to attack. (This is a bigger issue with a no-map combat system.)

Surely this is going to be an issue in any round if the defender chooses to use all their actions to defend, then they will not be able to follow up with attacks come their turn in the initiative sequence. Its like executing the full defence manoeuvre.

However, unless a character is surprised, then can they not choose to respond to the first attack first by defending, then with a counter attack? Or as mentioned below, by a disengaging manoeuvre, forcing the opponent to follow up, using two actions to the defenders one. From what I can see, the characters with the initiative are always going to be controlling the encounter to some degree, which gives real value to having the initiative.

In surprises rounds I think I would allow surprised characters to use Attribute or feat actions only.

Intuitively, I like the idea of increasing action cost for higher level spells. Depending on the implementation, it could go some way towards slowing down the use of higher level spells. But the flip side is that it may end up allowing barrages of lower level spells in one round. I don't play at the higher levels enough to be able to say what the net effect would be on the relative balance of the classes.

thotd

 

[GMMichael]

However, unless a character is surprised, then can they not choose to respond to the first attack first by defending, then with a counter attack? Or as mentioned below, by a disengaging manoeuvre, forcing the opponent to follow up, using two actions to the defenders one. From what I can see, the characters with the initiative are always going to be controlling the encounter to some degree, which gives real value to having the initiative.

In surprises rounds I think I would allow surprised characters to use Attribute or feat actions only.

Intuitively, I like the idea of increasing action cost for higher level spells. Depending on the implementation, it could go some way towards slowing down the use of higher level spells. But the flip side is that it may end up allowing barrages of lower level spells in one round. I don't play at the higher levels enough to be able to say what the net effect would be on the relative balance of the classes.

To maintain the integrity of the "round," it makes sense to allow consecutive actions during the character's turn, but only one response-like action during other characters' turns. So a character could respond to an attack either by defending, or by counter attack. The normal response would be defend with reserve action, and "counterattack" during that character's turn.

Speaking of the surprise round, we're seeing a distinct bonus to acting first in this type of combat system. So simulating surprise might be better by simply granting a bonus to initiative, instead of removing actions. (?)

Regarding actions for spell levels: in works out in my game system, Modos. Each action generally translates to one die of damage - so wizard spells don't dominate warriors because they can have a similar number of actions. Casters also face a tradeoff: they can (try to) use their most powerful spell, but that leaves them without the ability to defend themselves or do other things for one round. (In the gridless system, casters on the defensive only take half melee damage. In a gridded system, they take no melee damage until an enemy is in melee range).

Also, a Modos caster uses magic points every time he casts a spell. So to cast one higher level spell uses the same amount of magic points, but more actions, than a low level spell. He's welcome to cast several low-level spells, but that would eat up his magic points very fast.