Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 1561893" data-attributes="member: 63">Hey CZ.&nbsp; You never returned my emails about EOM.And that's actually topical.&nbsp; I think that if I were to come up with a combat system designed to work without a grid, I'd need to have sort of ambiguous ranges.&nbsp; The range you are at from the center of combat changes your options.Ranges:Melee - Within 10 ft. of a foe.Close - About 30 ft. from the field of combat.Medium - About 150 ft. from the field of combat.Long - About 800 ft. from the field of combat.Now, there can be multiple 'fields' in any single battle.&nbsp; Usually there'll just be one, and we'll worry about the complications of multiple fields later.&nbsp; I know this is going to start to sound kinda like that old Star Wars d20 dogfight rules.If you are in melee, normally you can attack anyone else in melee.&nbsp; You might have to make some kind of 'Engage' check to see if you can keep in close combat with that foe.&nbsp; Not sure what would affect this check, but we could think of something.&nbsp; It'd be some sort of opposed check.If you're in melee, you can try to attack someone at Close range, but the engage check is more difficult.You can move to different ranges with a Move check.&nbsp; Moving from melee to long is practically impossible without magic.&nbsp; If you move to Medium or Long range and then try to engage a foe, if you succeed, you create a new field of combat, and you only have to worry about that area if other people come and join the fight.Terrain and other specifics that make locations cool would be a little harder to work in, but I'm sure we could find a way.Then again, when I game, I just sketch out a rough map, use letters to delineate who is where, and erase whenever someone moves.&nbsp; There's practically no scale involved.&nbsp; Very little metagamery.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RangerWickett, post: 1561893, member: 63"] Hey CZ. You never returned my emails about EOM. And that's actually topical. I think that if I were to come up with a combat system designed to work without a grid, I'd need to have sort of ambiguous ranges. The range you are at from the center of combat changes your options. [b]Ranges:[/b] Melee - Within 10 ft. of a foe. Close - About 30 ft. from the field of combat. Medium - About 150 ft. from the field of combat. Long - About 800 ft. from the field of combat. Now, there can be multiple 'fields' in any single battle. Usually there'll just be one, and we'll worry about the complications of multiple fields later. I know this is going to start to sound kinda like that old Star Wars d20 dogfight rules. If you are in melee, normally you can attack anyone else in melee. You might have to make some kind of 'Engage' check to see if you can keep in close combat with that foe. Not sure what would affect this check, but we could think of something. It'd be some sort of opposed check. If you're in melee, you can try to attack someone at Close range, but the engage check is more difficult. You can move to different ranges with a Move check. Moving from melee to long is practically impossible without magic. If you move to Medium or Long range and then try to engage a foe, if you succeed, you create a new field of combat, and you only have to worry about that area if other people come and join the fight. Terrain and other specifics that make locations cool would be a little harder to work in, but I'm sure we could find a way. Then again, when I game, I just sketch out a rough map, use letters to delineate who is where, and erase whenever someone moves. There's practically no scale involved. Very little metagamery. [/QUOTE]

Verification