TheSword
Warhammer Fantasy Imperial Plenipotentiary
I’ve been teaching myself the rules for Imperium Maladictum a 40k RPG and one mechanic in the game I found quite interesting and worth sharing - Superiority and Resolve. It got me thinking about whether this would work in D&D and wouldn’t encourage the kind of player behaviors I like to see in the game.
Superiority
Superiority represents the tactical advantage the players characters have in a combat and the momentum. If they are smart they can gain some at the start through scouting or god tactics.
As the fight goes on the players get an extra point of superiority when they kill or disable a leader, if they take down a major elite or if they take out half the regular moons of a fight.
They can lose superiority if they are surprised by enemy reinforcements, if a player character gets taken out of action or are disabled.
This superiority can be used once per round to get a bonus. In that game a bonus to one test per round equal to the superiority score.
Resolve
The enemy get a resolve score that’s based on their willingness to fight. An NPC has its own resolve. The more determined or fanatical the higher the resolve. Fighting on home turf or left with no way out might add +1 to resolve. Not thinking you can win or the fight having nothing to do with you might give -1.
NPCs can usually use the authority of their leader… as long as the leader is in the fight.
Once Superiority score is greater than the enemies Resolve then they become desperate. At that point they would either try to flee, surrender or go all out for a last gasp (perhaps if they think their is no escape or surrender is suicidal). Some enemies might enact a terrible plan when they become desperate.
Thoughts
All in all I really like these rules for three reasons. Firstly they encourage players to think before fighting - gather information about their foe, check out terrains, and devise plans to get the drop of their foes. There has never really been much incentive to make knowledge based checks to identify or to research monsters beyond working out their abilities which most players know already. This changes that.
Secondly they speed combat up to bring it to a resolution once it’s clear that you’re going through the motions. Too often I see fights drag on.
Lastly it encourages other outcomes to a fight than just keep fighting until you have reduced them all to zero hp. Morale checks in the past editions have always felt a bit arbitrary to me, while this system feels really nuanced and rewards the kind of player behaviors that I think are fun and interesting.
I wouldn’t be using numerical bonuses tests in D&D as I think it would break bounded accuracy but there lots of alternatives that superiority could bestow. Particularly since 5e doesn’t have a flat footed mechanics and surprise now just gives you advantage on initiative checks.
What do people think? Interesting mechanic or colossal waste of time.
Superiority
Superiority represents the tactical advantage the players characters have in a combat and the momentum. If they are smart they can gain some at the start through scouting or god tactics.
- Know thy enemy: Getting detailed information about the foes and their strengths and weaknesses in advance can give 1 point of Superiority.
- Know thy terrain: Getting detailed information about the terrain or using the terrain for a significant advantage - ambush, hidden approach, hazard etc. Could give one point of superiority.
- Know thy players: When the players come up with some inspired way to turn the tables or gain advantage in another way (disguising themselves as cultists) then they get a point of superiority.
As the fight goes on the players get an extra point of superiority when they kill or disable a leader, if they take down a major elite or if they take out half the regular moons of a fight.
They can lose superiority if they are surprised by enemy reinforcements, if a player character gets taken out of action or are disabled.
This superiority can be used once per round to get a bonus. In that game a bonus to one test per round equal to the superiority score.
Resolve
The enemy get a resolve score that’s based on their willingness to fight. An NPC has its own resolve. The more determined or fanatical the higher the resolve. Fighting on home turf or left with no way out might add +1 to resolve. Not thinking you can win or the fight having nothing to do with you might give -1.
NPCs can usually use the authority of their leader… as long as the leader is in the fight.
Once Superiority score is greater than the enemies Resolve then they become desperate. At that point they would either try to flee, surrender or go all out for a last gasp (perhaps if they think their is no escape or surrender is suicidal). Some enemies might enact a terrible plan when they become desperate.
Thoughts
All in all I really like these rules for three reasons. Firstly they encourage players to think before fighting - gather information about their foe, check out terrains, and devise plans to get the drop of their foes. There has never really been much incentive to make knowledge based checks to identify or to research monsters beyond working out their abilities which most players know already. This changes that.
Secondly they speed combat up to bring it to a resolution once it’s clear that you’re going through the motions. Too often I see fights drag on.
Lastly it encourages other outcomes to a fight than just keep fighting until you have reduced them all to zero hp. Morale checks in the past editions have always felt a bit arbitrary to me, while this system feels really nuanced and rewards the kind of player behaviors that I think are fun and interesting.
I wouldn’t be using numerical bonuses tests in D&D as I think it would break bounded accuracy but there lots of alternatives that superiority could bestow. Particularly since 5e doesn’t have a flat footed mechanics and surprise now just gives you advantage on initiative checks.
What do people think? Interesting mechanic or colossal waste of time.
Last edited:
