Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[rmcoen]

There are some things about the avoidance-based defense that can sometimes not work well for tanking, but they usually require certain assumptions about setting usually, and as you say, usually will at least complexity to some degree.

I'm picturing "the mage lets the AC 20 Dodgy McSwashbuckler go first, only to suddenly get hit with all the javelins the so-called 'tank' dodged AND DIDN'T ACTUALLY STOP"! But, in the D&D rules now, they'd either "attack the swashbuckler", or "attack the mage, the swashbuckler gives +2 Cover AC bonus". Nothing aimed at the swashbuckler hits the mage, no matter what...

 

[rmcoen]

Another broken aspect of most ttrpg combat is taking damage doesn't affect the character's overall physical performance. Even in the fiction (novels, shows and movies) when a character is slashed/stabbed by a sword, there's a distinct visible level of impairment. With D&D, its clones and all similar systems, the cartoon-style combat systems fail miserably at emulating the fiction that inspires the games.

Very true. I noted that playing Cyberpunk, after being "raised" with D&D. Ouch, gunshots hurt!!

IMC, I added "-1 to hit" at Bloodied (50%hp remaining), -2 at Battered (25% remaining), and -3 at Critical (10% remaining). Most unintelligent foes flee at Bloodied; intelligent foes weigh the odds at Bloodied, and generally panic at Battered. Pretty much everyone acts randomly at Critical (collapse, surrender, flee, go berserk, etc). But it does make a difference, in "bounded accuracy" of D&D 5e, to have that accuracy penalty; a small benefit, too, for not "focus firing" to eliminate one, but instead harm multiples.
(I avoided impairing penalties to defenses - AC and saves - because of PC "death spiral"....)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm picturing "the mage lets the AC 20 Dodgy McSwashbuckler go first, only to suddenly get hit with all the javelins the so-called 'tank' dodged AND DIDN'T ACTUALLY STOP"! But, in the D&D rules now, they'd either "attack the swashbuckler", or "attack the mage, the swashbuckler gives +2 Cover AC bonus". Nothing aimed at the swashbuckler hits the mage, no matter what...

Well, honestly, in most games of that stripe the mage can darn well just dodge himself, and the tank is mostly to engage with melee opponents that might get up on him, not stop incoming ranged fire.

And missed-shot hits are, for the most part, too big a pain in the behind for most games no matter how realistic or not to engage with; occasionally you'll get it with cases where blocking opponents are treated as cover, but the extra resolution for just missed shots going into the back ranks is just not usually perceived as worth the overhead.

 

[rmcoen]

My take on this is that the implication is that an owlbear or other common to the "realm" predator doesn't stand a much of a chance against 12 caravan guards, and consequently hungry owlbears don't generally try to snack on groups of humanoids in broad daylight.

One of the general rules I have for my campaign world is that if the problem is common enough to be ordinary, the NPCs have solved it on a cultural level. NPC competency sufficient to survive in the implied setting is always assumed. NPCs are never surprised by things that are ordinary in the setting like the use of low-level magic, common magical creatures, common undead, or so forth. They fear these things, but precisely because they fear them they are armed to the teeth against them. It's a society geared to the idea, "These tricky mages might use charm person, illusions, or invisibility to try to scam us" and "Any day now we could have a zombie apocalypse."

That's well-stated, and makes sense. One of those "that's obvious, duh!" facts that wasn't actually obvious until it is pointed out.

Yes, if the area has goups of a dozen goblins attacking wagons, the mechants hire at least 6 to 10 guards in response. If it's a half-dozen ogres, they don't go there, or they hire squads of adventurers. If it's griffons and chimerae... they don't go there! too much chance of lost wagons, even in "victory". in short - they act rationally to known dangers.

I still wouldn't want to be a caravan guard....

 

[Theory of Games]

(I avoided impairing penalties to defenses - AC and saves - because of PC "death spiral"....)

I've seen this complaint about "combat death spirals" for years because they incapacitate a PC leaving the player with nothing to do while everyone else is playing. But that's exactly how combat injuries work - they harm, maim, incapacitate and kill.

Best way to avoid the "spiral"? Avoid combat: sneak around the threat, negotiate or flee. But to say "This system is broken because combat damage impaired my character" is

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've seen this complaint about "combat death spirals" for years because they incapacitate a PC leaving the player with nothing to do while everyone else is playing. But that's exactly how combat injuries work - they harm, maim, incapacitate and kill.

But that's it: they really don't impair much during combat. The vast majority of injuries in firefights and equivalent either make you bleed out, shock out (either mentally or physically) or kind of do nothing until later. Most of the other injury gets simultaneously papered over by, and lost in, the effects of adrenaline (as in the latter already impairs you right out the gate so it conceals some impairment and also temporarily makes most irrelevant).

Most death spiral systems are as unrealistic in their way as mounting hit point systems are. People have just convinced themselves since they're "gritty" that they're "realistic", but that's (mostly) not true in short term terms.

(The lack of ongoing effects after your system has had time to settle down and stop blocking off the effects is different).

 

[rmcoen]

I've seen this complaint about "combat death spirals" for years because they incapacitate a PC leaving the player with nothing to do while everyone else is playing. But that's exactly how combat injuries work - they harm, maim, incapacitate and kill.

Best way to avoid the "spiral"? Avoid combat: sneak around the threat, negotiate or flee. But to say "This system is broken because combat damage impaired my character" is

I hear what you're saying, but that goes back to the fact that PCs will be in more combats than NPCs. Death spiral is "real", it makes sense. I've sparred a lot in martial arts, and the more I get hit, the less endurance I have... the more likely I take more hits! And then we're back to the "what kind of a game do we want to play" topic brought up many times over these 30 pages. One where the PCs have some kind of edge that gets them through repeated fights, or one where they suffer realistically (dying, or at least not particiapting).

I'm at least consistent about it - the monsters don't get easier to hit either! ;-)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I hear what you're saying, but that goes back to the fact that PCs will be in more combats than NPCs. Death spiral is "real", it makes sense. I've sparred a lot in martial arts, and the more I get hit, the less endurance I have... the more likely I take more hits! And then we're back to the "what kind of a game do we want to play" topic brought up many times over these 30 pages. One where the PCs have some kind of edge that gets them through repeated fights, or one where they suffer realistically (dying, or at least not particiapting).

I'm at least consistent about it - the monsters don't get easier to hit either! ;-)

I think that has more to do with the fact that melee combat is very fatigue-intensive, and the shock-inducing parts of being hit tends to decrease your available energy than the direct impact of the damage per se. At least the medical studies I've seen seem to strongly suggest the impacts don't do much direct impairment except in extreme cases, per se.

 

[Theory of Games]

But that's it: they really don't impair much during combat. The vast majority of injuries in firefights and equivalent either make you bleed out, shock out (either mentally or physically) or kind of do nothing until later

The last sentence contradicts the first. And adrenaline only does so much.

A ttrpg attempting to emulate combat needs rules for blood loss, shock and physical impairment - which is why I praise GURPS during these kinds of discussions. The system isn't perfect, but if a group is looking for more representational combat effects, it does it better than most.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, if the area has goups of a dozen goblins attacking wagons, the merchants hire at least 6 to 10 guards in response.

The guards are roughly 2nd level fighters with 12/12/12/8/8/8 ability scores, armed with a combination of light lances, broad swords, scimitars, composite shortbows and light and heavy crossbows, and wearing ringmail and carrying small shields. Some are on light warhorses to act as outriders and scouts. They are lead by a veteran 3rd level fighter wearing mail, and who has a masterwork weapon. One of their number is a green 1st level fighter new to the trade. Most things that would trouble the caravan just avoid it. Unless the caravan is really unlucky, nothing is going to happen. More serious threats (large force of bandits) can often be bribed since neither side wants to lose people.

If it's a half-dozen ogres...

Word reaches a Knight of the Road (4th-5th level fighter) tasked by the king to keep peace on a certain road that a caravan has been attacked. He determines that it was a large force of ogres - more than he feels comfortable fighting on his own. He warns villages and taverns along the road against travel without a large armed guard (caravans now band together and higher more men), and in the name of the sovereign convinces either one of the national garrisons or a city militia commander to march out with him. The ogres are pursued by a force of 80-120 fighters, well equipped for war with better gear than a typical caravan guard, with higher level leaders including likely a couple low level spell casters. Members of the closest village watch, or appropriate knights from nearby manors who might know the lay of the land join in the hunt. A half-dozen ogres are doomed unless they can reach the safety of the mountains. Depending on whether they can arrange surprise they might trade 1 to 1 with such an overwhelming force, but that sort of trade against fecund human civilizations guarantees extinction of ogres locally in the short term. Not that Ogres are particularly bright, but they are generally bright enough not to do this except on the fringes of civilization, where those sort of attacks are expected (you have to take a caravan through a mountain pass or other wild region, so you wait and 3 caravans go together with 12-20 guards each).

If it's griffons and chimerae...

Then you attract the attention of professional treasure hunters and small mercenary companies that specialize in dealing with low level threats like this. Griffons in particular are opportunities for big payoffs, as young griffins can be sold to national militaries to raise as steeds for good money, and nesting griffins always nest over some treasure as a precondition of successful breeding. In fact, initial raids by a griffon are almost certainly a young male looking to found a nest and attract a partner. Both griffons and chimerae properly butchered and preserved in alcohol or embalming fluid are valuable in the reagents trade.

Failing to attract such attention, a temple in the nearest large city attempts to put together a response team to deal with the threat, with a core team of a priest, fanatic and inquisitor from within their own ranks bolstered by such nobility, mercenaries, and wizards that are piously attached to the deity with incentives in receiving some favor of the temple (potions, free healing, magic items from the treasury, etc.). The temple of course expects to receive a healthy tithe from any profits.