Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[Mercurius]

Thanks for the replies, folks. And yes, I do realize that a lot of systems do this. Just curious what people would bring up.

Another: Talislanta. While I normally don't like relying on a table, the Action Table is simple enough to quickly memorize, and rather elegant in terms of game play.

 

[J.Quondam]

Barbarians of Lemuria, etc, uses a 2d6 attack roll plus attack skill (eg, Melee or Ranged) minus the opponent's Defense skill versus a constant target number, 9.
Armor subtracts from damage, ie, soak.

 

[cbwjm]

I've been playing pirate borg and everything you have to roll for has a DC 12 (players also roll to defend) and armour is light, medium, heavy reducing damage by d2, d4, or d6. Heavier armours reduce your agility which I think is what you roll to defend (only played a few sessions, some things in still learning).

 

[Theory of Games]

Another: Talislanta. While I normally don't like relying on a table, the Action Table is simple enough to quickly memorize, and rather elegant in terms of game play.

Brought to us by the same creators of the Arcanum (Bard Games, orignally)

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Hero System

 

[dbm]

While the Hero system is a big beastie overall, I did think Combat Skill Levels were a cool and simple flourish. For people unfamiliar, these are in effect a modifier which can be applied to attack, defence, or damage (potentially with limitations on that) and characters can allocate these dynamically as they act. This is a really elegant way of modelling a shifting focus between prioritising attack / defence / damaging a foe that creates tactical decisions for every action.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Rolemaster solved this circa 1980.

Seconded. Though the whole system was very 80s... The clunkiness was somewhat everywhere.

It seems very complex, and has a reputation for being complex, but as long as you can do a bit of addition I would say it's less complex than most modern editions of D&D. The tables do a lot of the heavy lifting.

I'd say it's not complex. You roll a d100, add a bonus that is mostly static, substract a GM-provided modifier and refer to the chart for applicable result. It's easy, as in a middle schooler can do it. Even if you'll mostly use the same table during the fight (you're wielding a broadsword, you're unlikely to change your weapon mid-fight -- though there is a tactical sense to do so sometimes -- and the enemy won't don another armour mid-fight either... so you'll mostly use the same table...

It is, however, clunky.

Because, the crits are referenced on... another table. For example, if I roll a 94 with my broadswoard attack, against a breastplate wearing opponent (AT 17) and I'll deal 6 HP damage. That's very low, and it is mostly possible that wear from the fight will be the only way to kill him or a very lucky shot. If however, I do the same attack against a robe-wearing wizard (AT 2, notice that it is WORSE than AT1, naked), I'll do 14CK, which is 14 HP.... and CK means a severity C critical... that you can check on the Krush table (the second letter defines the type of critical).

So, you flip your Arms Law manual, because weapons can do several types of criticals, and get to the Crushing Critical:

Where you roll your dice, and you check in the C column. A roll of 08 will transform you 14 damage into 17 damage, while other results will get specific results, both narrative (a wrist-shattering blow in the left arm, foe stunned on a 76-80 up to 100 (+30 damage, foe is blind, stunned and unable to parry 24 rounds.

This is nice. This isn't complicated, but it is cumbersome. In this day and age, I'd rather have a computer program solving that, potentially on the GM's smartphone or tablet. I dislike computers at the table, but this one of the reasons I'd welcome them. It maes the things fluid. Type the parameters of the attack on your app, click "result".

 

[aco175]

If it is still just a to-hit roll vs 'AC' and then the opponent takes off armor reduction, then it seems fine. All these other examples of other games doing is better might be better, but not faster, which may also mean not better.

I agree with what @Reynard said about armor being used against the enemy encountered with knights fighting knights and not monsters and magic of all stripes. It would be hard to take all that into account.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Rolemaster's critical did that somewhat because they were sometimes dependant. Your opponent cast a lightning bolt at you? Take 23 hits if you wear no armor, take 31 hits and be stunned for 3 rounds if you wear metal armor.

This makes an incentive to wear, say, a neck-piece. Is the weight worth taking the chance of your opponent do a S92 critical and slash your throat if you have no neck armour? EDIT: I actually checked if my memory held, it did: it's not a slashing critical but a grapple. Being grappled to the neck on 96-99 means you're dead if you don't have neck armour. If you have, you're still stunned for three rounds, which might end up with the same result.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Hackmaster 5e (which has no connection to D&D).

There's a contested die roll, and armor (only) reduces damage taken. Plus a vast amount of optional combat moves for those wanting more. Plus a 'count up' combat tracking system instead of combat rounds.

Once everyone is familiar with it, it plays very fast. In our last session, and very old-school dungeon crawl themed campaign, we played out five brutal, bloody melees involving six PCs, 4 allied NPCs/henchmen, and numerous NPCs, plus a couple quick skirmishes, in about 90 minutes (plus 2.5 hours checking for traps and pondering the very simplest riddle possible).

Besides being fast, the combat is very lethal and satisfying.