Idle Musings: Inverted Interrupts, Focus Fire, and Combat Flow

[Szatany]

You shouldn't be able to just walk away from your other if you're engaged...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Imagine defense always requiring a die roll. Each character has two dice. If one of the dice is spent before a character acts the charater is engaged. If the character has two dice then both can be used for offense. After acting the character recovers both dice.

Defense is thus dynamic. If I'm attacked by arrows I must roll defense (14) and add my AC (5), if the arrow hits home and I need to save against it's poison my defense for the round is still 14, and to that I add my Fort (7).

I really like that, because it is a clean mechanic that easily permits some modular changes for playstyle. If you want something more like what Ainamacar listed, you can make the "defense" die get steadily tougher to use each time it is used and/or interact with the offense die on a scale. However, if you want something more like what I was saying, where defense is constant no matter how much it is needed, then you roll the die once and use as listed. If you don't use it at all, it is your marker to get "disengaged" bonuses.

You shouldn't be able to just walk away from your other if you're engaged...

That's why in the OP I listed movement as one of the things that can cause "engaged". Ultimately, probably would go with something like the opportunity attack test of "leaving a threatened square" as automatically making someone "engaged".

Specific to your point, though, is the larger idea of how this affects flow. A character "engaged" that tries to walk away is trying to "disengage", but they can't readily move far and switch targets against someone that is more free, unless the free target is very close. And in any case, it will be harder to get lose from the person who engaged you, unless someone else is engaging them.

Also, I would expect melee characters to have something analogous to the function of 4E "marking" (if very different in mechanics to fit this system) to make it tougher to so escape them. It could be something as simple as a character with a melee weapon causing a penalty to attacks if the creature tried to move first. Characters heavily geared towards front-line work would probably have several options for attacking multiple adjacent opponets and/or slowing down their movement, thus engaging several (also analogous to 4E marking, but somewhat different in method).

For example, three orcs are engaging a paladin on the front line. Another orc is engaging a cleric on the edge of the front line. The cleric has his orc engaged back, and the paladin is keeping two or three of his opponents engaged every round. The orcs want to get free to get someone on a gnome rogue that is freely flipping knives at them every round. They can wait until one orc avoids being engaged. Or they can leave out and take their chances. It is difficult to hit the rogue on the first round, because instead of giving up an opportunity attack, moving away leaves them automatically engaged and attacking with a hefty minus. One doing this on the paladin is suffering whatever special effect the paladin brings to someone trying this, while the one on the cleric is leaving the cleric free next round--not a good plan!

So if you can set everything up just right, and pick the right moment, you can take your chances walking away from engaged, and maybe even make it pay off. But it had better be worth it, because it will mean someone on the other side has an advantage on the next round.

 

[Szatany]

That's why in the OP I listed movement as one of the things that can cause "engaged". Ultimately, probably would go with something like the opportunity attack test of "leaving a threatened square" as automatically making someone "engaged".

I was joking . I meant engaged as in soon to get married.

 

[MortalPlague]

I find the ideas presented in this thread really, really interesting. Especially the "engaged / disengaged" concept. I am always craving ways to make combat more mobile, and this would definitely serve that purpose. The thought of rogues circling the battlefield, looking for an opportune moment to strike makes me excited to play D&D.

Not just the mechanics, though; the flavor of the concept agrees with me. Picture the fighter, battling a ferocious monster, taking a beating. The ranger steps in to attack it (they become engaged), while the fighter ducks behind a pillar to catch his breath (becoming disengaged). Then the fighter steps back in with a ferocious blow (because he's disengaged). It feels very cinematic to me.

 

[Iron Sky]

Hm... fighters could also have power that automatically disengage allies. For example, if you don't like the idea of marking, you could just have the fighter step in, use "Over Here", and disengage all the allies engaged to monsters he can reach.

I like that idea over marking, especially since there's less conditions to track. The fighter just engaging as many enemies as possible and disengaging allies, maybe having powers where they can interpose themselves in the way of enemy's attacks on nearby allies too.

[MENTION=70709]Ainamacar[/MENTION], really like that momentum idea. I'm probably going to steal it, but I'm not sure for what.

 

[El Mahdi]

You shouldn't be able to just walk away from your other if you're engaged...

It's still an allowed action right up to the moment you say "I Do"...after that it triggers an Attack of Opportunity and loss of 50% of your HP.

 

[pemerton]

such a system was in some ways similar to the Mongoose Runequest II "combat maneuver" system. MRQII doesn't have any direct concept of gaining or losing "CAs" by being ignored. However, because CAs are spent on defense, anyone being ignored is automatically much more effective.

<snip>

I'm looking to either avoid active defense or at least do it differently than many systems have done, both for ease of handling and to keep well away from the "punish" aspect of being engaged. Specifically, I don't want to add something that makes a single creature being engaged by several opponents any worse than it already is--such as effectively locking down actions to defense.

I don't have a lot to contribute to this discussion, but what you describe here reminds me of Rolemaster, which relies upon active defence in melee (it's rules for missiles and spells are a bit different and more hazy).

Rolemaster also has a wound system (via its crit charts), which means that it is often worth spreading attacks so as to inflict debuffs (wound penalties to action) before then cleaning up the much-weakened rabble.

Rolemaster has a range of kludges to handle the multiple-opponent issue but none is fully satisfactory.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't find focus fire to be a big issue in my 4e game, for a few reasons I think:

*the "closest enemy" requirement for Hunter's Quarry means that often the ranger is attacking someone different from the sorcerer (the party's other ranged striker), who might be targetting a more dangerous backline enemy;

*the party has 3 "squishies" (archer ranger, wizard, sorcerer) and so target's who aren't engaged will try to run around and squish them;

*roleplay/story - there is a bit of a superhero dimension to the way we resolve fights, with different PCs seeking out their particular enemies, and likewise for the NPCs/monsters.

The third of these factors isn't easily replicable without changing D&D in ways that D&D next is almost certainly not going to (eg a Belief system which creates mechanical incentives to do what my group tends to do out of habit/RM training). But the other two - especially the first - are some mechanical features that help introduce some diversity into engaging/disengaging/targetting.

 

[Ainamacar]

Either forked or here is fine. It is a different approach, but there should be enough cross-over between the two to make discussion of both fruitful.

Cool.

For example, one of the things that immediately occurred to me reading your post was that such a system was in some ways similar to the Mongoose Runequest II "combat maneuver" system. MRQII doesn't have any direct concept of gaining or losing "CAs" by being ignored. However, because CAs are spent on defense, anyone being ignored is automatically much more effective. Another big difference is that getting hit hard in MRQII is more a feature of bad luck or running out of CAs. That is, it punishes being engaged more than it rewards being disengaged--which is often a characteristic of systems that require active defense.

It wasn't clear to me whether your system does require active defense or not. I guess that I'm looking to either avoid active defense or at least do it differently than many systems have done, both for ease of handling and to keep well away from the "punish" aspect of being engaged. Specifically, I don't want to add something that makes a single creature being engaged by several opponents any worse than it already is--such as effectively locking down actions to defense. Getting ganged up on is already bad enough--thus the attractiveness of focus fire.

Consider a solo fight, such as a dragon. If the dragon can "engage" with is breath weapon, then he can keep things on an even footing.

The defense isn't active, at least not in the sense of MRQII. Every attack is automatically defended against by one of the target's ability scores, which essentially sets the DC of the task. Momentum can be spent to increase the ability score for the purposes of resolving an attack. This is a free action, so as long as there is momentum to spend one can do it.

Also unlike MRQII this system tends to encourage engagement, and therefore cinematic action, because successful active engagement is how momentum is gained in the first place. The exception tends to be in situations with very asymmetric engagement, particularly ranged attacks and ambushes that cannot be answered in short order. In such cases the best solution for the defender is to disengage and seek more fortuitous circumstances for the next fight.

It is also possible to handle gang-up situations elegantly because there are two basic ways to spend momentum on defense, and each is a different sort of gambit. One can spend momentum when an attack is declared, and the benefit lasts until that attack is resolved. Or one can spend it during one's turn, and the benefit lasts until the start of one's next turn. By spending it beforehand one can better handle being surrounded (it effectively replaces the notion of "fighting defensively") both by making attacks more difficult and by making oneself a less appealing target. The downside is that the momentum are committed before one knows if they were "needed" and so reduces the momentum available in future rounds whether they helped or not. On the other hand, by spending momentum when an attack is declared it is only spent when needed, but if unexpected situations pop up (especially additional attacks) the character might not have the momentum to deal with it the way they'd like. Deferring the choice can also be done to draw attacks away from other characters, since a heavy hitter will generally want to force an opponent to spend momentum and make an opponent who has already spent some on defense gain no further benefit.

These considerations are held in tension with the normal benefits of attacking creatures in the first place. So consider the following situation:
1 troll, lightly injured, with moderate momentum.
1 wizard, very injured, who has spent a lot of momentum to increase defenses until next turn and has none left for other purposes.
1 fighter, somewhat injured, who has a lot of momentum.
It is the troll's turn.

The troll is weak to many of the wizard's attacks, particularly ranged and mind-based attacks, which favors killing it right now. On the other hand, the wizard has very high defenses this round, so the overall damage won't be very high, and unless the troll spends all his momentum on the attack there is a strong chance he will fail to finish it off. That said, even if an attack on the wizard fails to kill it the wizard can't unleash its most devastating stuff for at least a round or two.

The troll is strong against the fighter (and everyone else) in melee combat, all things considered equal, but the fighter has a lot of momentum to spend and could potentially introduce a game-changing hindrance on its next turn. If the troll attacks the fighter he can probably force the fighter to spend a good amount of momentum to defend against the attack and blunt any future attacks, but in a few rounds the wizard will probably be a sizable threat again.

The players were able to shape this situation for the troll by spending momentum in a way which made focus fire (i.e. attacking the wizard) less palatable. If both characters had high defenses from spending momentum beforehand then attacking the wizard is the clear choice (low damage in either case, so may as well go for the kill). If neither had spent it then the wizard is still the clear choice (the wizard will need to spend it or die, and might still die). If the wizard did not spend it but the fighter did then the wizard is the blindingly obvious choice (the wizard will need to spend momentum or die and might still anyway, and the fighter essentially wasted his momentum). In the scenario as presented attacking the wizard is probably still the best call for troll, but it is an interesting decision which has implications for the rest of the fight. To me that speaks to the heart of tactics: a dance where one invites the opponent to make just a few more missteps than oneself.

One other aspect I like about having these two ways of spending momentum defensively is that it can support different play-styles without baking too much into the character build. For example, a barbarian may very well tend toward offensive power, and use momentum for defense only when deemed absolutely necessary. Or someone who wants to play a thoroughly defensive style can do so without making their attacks uniformly worthless. (I think especially of the 3e defensive expert, often a duelist, who was largely untouchable but did peanuts for damage or perhaps couldn't even hit at all. The PC's contribution to the party often felt more like a courtesy from the DM than an achievement. Just pointless survivability.) Players can find a style that suits them and the character, but still have the freedom to change tactics to meet the situation.

In your solo dragon example in my homebrew system the usual balance is that dragon attacks are so powerful that they require almost any PC to spend momentum to counter them (or die very quickly) while giving plenty of momentum to the dragon. Consequently the dragon tends to control the tempo of a fight, or safely withdraw if desired. Even if the dragon has no allies present it will usually have enough momentum to boost its lowest defense for the entire round, reducing the gang-up effect, even as the PCs must scrounge for their momentum. And although the breath weapon is potent, even attacks that target just one or two PCs are usually enough because the dragon can often ignore a PC for a round or two without much risk of that PC reaching a really dangerous level of momentum. And if the PC spends all its momentum on an attack it may very well regret doing so. (By way of example: a dragon with high momentum that spends all of it on a breath weapon attack is likely to kill about half the party outright, even if they were previously unhurt.) Solo fights therefore tend to feel very different from a normal fight because, despite ganging up, the PCs have trouble using momentum the way they normally can. Even when the PCs are doing well it feels a bit desperate. I like that: a fight with a dragon should never really reach a "clean-up" phase.

@Ainamacar , really like that momentum idea. I'm probably going to steal it, but I'm not sure for what.

Glad to hear it! I think it works conceptually for almost anything where one can imagine the characters getting into a psychological flow state (i.e. "being in the zone") or other situations where "success begets success" and the raw consequences of success fail to capture something intangible about the result. That was my starting point, at least, long before I had mechanics I liked. So far I've tried it for combat, social scenarios, and complex skill checks. It shares a lot in common with morale systems, so one could probably adapt it for that purpose too.

 

[RHGreen]

Wouldn't part of this be solved by just saying that if you have an enemy next to you, you have to attack it (or one of them) as they are blocking your ability to attack any others.

That seems to be one of the major problems I can see.

Otherwise, it isn't all that unrealistic. Not if everyone is in a big scrum.

The only other thing I can think is to give all attacks the ability to reduce movement to slow down reinforcements. That would be a good way of splitting targets as some would be attacking a close enemy, while others would be attacking enemies so they couldn't get into the fight, until the close enemy has been dealt with.

Then you have archers. You do not get any advantage for paying attention to them. If you attack them, they shoot an arrow at you. If you concentrate fire on a target, they shoot an arrow at you. Perhaps if there was some kind of covering fire mechanic, where attacking them makes their aim really bad, it might be worth distracting them. You have three archers and a single PC uses covering fire giving them all a nasty penalty to attack, almost taking them out of the fight, for a moment or two, so your melee grunts can get to the boss.

In fact, thinking about it, I think the best way to deal with this problem is to look at all the ways concentrated fire can be split up rather than just make one single overarching mechanic.

I don't like marking because of the tracking part, I can't see liking a similar mechanic, however well it might fix the problem.


So the start of a list of things that might encourage concentrated fire:

1. The ability to target enemies that are not next to you when others are.

2. Few general abilities that can effectively slow reinforcements and keep them out of the fight for a while. They are going to come like it or not.

3. No advantage to engaging ranged enemies due to absence of any sort of covering fire mechanic.


Just some thoughts, but it's a start anyway.

 

[Sunseeker]

I went over this last time, it basically punishes melee and enforces caster superiority unless the DM makes a specific effort to "spread damage around", not to mention it would cause combat to drag given that players are trying to take down 5 targets at the same time instead of one at a time.

Honestly I don't get the objection to focus fire...it's a logical and easy tactic.