Realistic Combat

[Rothe]

It concerns me that there's next to nothing that a knife-wielder or an archer can do to really deal damage with a single attack. The case in point above was a Rogue, who has the SA option, but a knife Fighter can do no more than 1d4+str with a dagger (you can't even use PA with light weapons). This is not only unrealistic, it does a poor job at modeling cinematic combat. Think about Benicio del Toro's character in The Hunted. A skilled fighter can kill someone with a knife, with one or two precision strikes.

I agree as well. And would also add the cinematic and real world stab in the back by a trusted associate. A dagger stab between the collar bones should take almost any human down.

I've been toying with a variant WP/VP system. I know everyone seems to have a big problem with WP/VP, but since I haven't played SWd20, I guess they're not ruined for me. The system would work this way: if the attack roll beats a targets AC (Defense Class, in my system) by a margin of 20, the attack is a critical hit. Weapons with a higher crit range provide an attack bonus. For instance, daggers have a +1 to hit. Critical hits would do CON damage. Weapons with a x2 multiplier would deal normal damage (i.e. a longsword still deals 1d8, but it's reduced from CON). Weapons with x3 critical multipliers would deal x2 damage instead, and weapons with x4 multipliers would deal x3.

It sounds similar to what I do. In addition to "HP", player's get Critical Damage Point (CDP). CDP are basically CON/3 +1, with maybe another +1 here or there based on class, species, etc. CDP don't go up with level and are very hard to increase but might add in a feat to do increase. Critcal hits can damage directly CDP (when CDP=0 dead or dying) or inflict multiples of damage.
Similar to what you propose, the chance to even get a critical hit is not a straight %, but is related to how well you can hit. This is similar to your idea about rolling over by a margin of 20. If I understand what you propose, low level creature don't have the same critical hit chance as a high level creature, thus removing the dreaded critical hits really favoring the monsters problem. I think that is a good thing.

Keep in mind that this system would work in conjunction with other variant systems. Armor would give a DR value equal to its armor bonus, and would have no effect on AC (crits would bypass DR). PCs would be granted a Class Defense Bonus (based on REF saves, not BAB). The system is still very experimental, but it's aimed at solving these problems: excessively bold players who fight before they think, a single blow not being able to take down a character, and an inability to model realistic or cinematic combat. Please, give me constructive criticism.

Wow, sounding even more like what I do. Armor as DR, being harder to hit based on level basically.

I don't have criticals bypass armor DR. Instead you have the following options if you get a critical hit: (1) apply damage to CDP; (2) choose location of hit but do normal damage agasinst HP(very good if they have an unarmored portion); (3) have attack do x2 damage but against HP; and at GM discretion (4) follow through attack, if the attack kills the first opponent and there is a second right near by, extra damage applied to second target.

 

[iwatt]

Oh, brother. Like I said, your lack of familiarity with the game doesn't enhance your examples.

I found this line particularly amusing considering that you were basing your argument on a rogue taking Power Attack to use with his knife, something patently impossible based on the rules.

 

[shilsen]

I'll repeat what I recently posted in another thread...

I don't want more realistic combat, I want combat that's better at modeling fiction and film.

Certain things that I think should be core are needlessly hard to do using the D&D combat engine. It certainly works, but there's room for improvement.

I've always maintained that a significant reason I've never really had problems with combat (or most other things) in D&D is that I never expected it to really replicate fantasy literature. One can expand that to movies as well.

The one thing D&D combat (and, again, many other things in the game) is absolutely great at pulling off is the feel of mythology. Combat the way it occurs in the Iliad, Mahabharata, Mabinogion, Eddas, etc. is the closest fictional analogue to D&D combat that I've ever read.

 

[replicant2]

It concerns me that there's next to nothing that a knife-wielder or an archer can do to really deal damage with a single attack. The case in point above was a Rogue, who has the SA option, but a knife Fighter can do no more than 1d4+str with a dagger (you can't even use PA with light weapons). This is not only unrealistic, it does a poor job at modeling cinematic combat. Think about Benicio del Toro's character in The Hunted. A skilled fighter can kill someone with a knife, with one or two precision strikes.

I understand where you're coming from here, and from a realism standpoint, I agree. The problem is, if that's what you want, then D&D probably isn't game for you. Why?

If you start to look at everything through the lens of realism, the whole game falls apart.

Here's an example: A simple spell like fireball. What does it do? It engulfs its target in a blossom of flame. The heat is such that it (per the PHB), "sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals (emphasis mine) with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze."

Want to guess what that would do to a human? Melt skin, fry hair, boil eyeballs in their sockets, and other assorted nastiness. If you start insisting that knife thrusts can and should be able to kill or maim a warrior, common sense dictates something like fireball would be insta-kill or insta-maim, no saving throw.

You could go on and on. For example, who could ever survive a blow from a 10' ogre's steel shod club? Even a man in field plate would have his helmet and skull stove in with a single blow by something that size swinging a weapon that large and heavy. Even an interposed shield = shattered shield, shattered arm, and said warrior incapacitated in writhing agony, or unconscious.

Is this the kind of realism you want? Perhaps, but it will soon no longer resemble the D&D we've come to know and love.

 

[Celebrim]

I found this line particularly amusing considering that you were basing your argument on a rogue taking Power Attack to use with his knife, something patently impossible based on the rules.

I'm of much the same mind regarding 3.5 edition as I am with regard to 2nd edition. The changes to Power Attack made in 3.5 are something I try hard to forget about.

 

[mmadsen]

Is D&D realistic? No, of course not. Should D&D try to be realistic? Probably not, but realistic does not mean complex, and it does not mean unheroic.

This thread was not meant to be an argument for a more realistic D&D but an exploration of what realistic combat might mean -- which, perhaps surprisingly, does not mean hyperlethality.

A realistic-but-abstract system might have the following:

• highly random damage effects, where a single attack might kill a hardy warrior, or a dozen wounds might not kill a frail scribe
• low to-hit probability
• lots of morale issues, which might contribute to the low to-hit probability

 

[iwatt]

I'm of much the same mind regarding 3.5 edition as I am with regard to 2nd edition. The changes to Power Attack made in 3.5 are something I try hard to forget about.

Which doesn't change the fact that you were slamming someone for improper understanding of the rules.


Personally, I agree with you: mechanically speaking PA is just a way to trade accuracy for damage. IMO it should be a core ability (like it is in IHs through attack challenges). Functionally, PA could be used to reflect called shots (attack penalty reflects the difficulty aiming at the target zone, and the bonus damage reflects the vulnerability of the zone).

 

[replicant2]

Is D&D realistic? No, of course not. Should D&D try to be realistic? Probably not, but realistic does not mean complex, and it does not mean unheroic.

This thread was not meant to be an argument for a more realistic D&D but an exploration of what realistic combat might mean -- which, perhaps surprisingly, does not mean hyperlethality.

A realistic-but-abstract system might have the following:

• highly random damage effects, where a single attack might kill a hardy warrior, or a dozen wounds might not kill a frail scribe
• low to-hit probability
• lots of morale issues, which might contribute to the low to-hit probability

Again, I appreciate where you're coming from here. I like games that model reality, and when I do, I crack open a copy of RuneQuest (non-escalating HP, damage by location, possibility of the best warriors going down with a single lucky shot, etc.).

It's just that I haven't seen any good suggestions for how you can make similar changes to D&D while keeping it recognizably D&D. Moving towards realistic combat would require you to strip out escalating HP, for example, which would start a tidal wave of changes.

 

[mmadsen]

I like games that model reality, and when I do, I crack open a copy of RuneQuest (non-escalating HP, damage by location, possibility of the best warriors going down with a single lucky shot, etc.).

When I first cracked open Runequest, years ago, I loved the fact that it was "realistic" -- only it wasn't particularly realistic. Certainly it aimed at being realistic, and it wasn't hard to be more realistic than AD&D, but what it really managed to be was (a) complicated and (b) grim.

One of the first points I made in this thread was that real combat is not hyperlethal. Most weapons can kill in one blow, but they don't generally -- and most attacks don't hit. (Similarly, a single punch can knock someone out, even a strong boxer with a good chin, but it generally does not.)

It's just that I haven't seen any good suggestions for how you can make similar changes to D&D while keeping it recognizably D&D. Moving towards realistic combat would require you to strip out escalating HP, for example, which would start a tidal wave of changes.

Obviously any change to the combat system will ripple throughout the game, mechanically, but I think it can be fruitful to think through what the actual consequences of changing our assumptions might be.

For instance, does it change the heroic nature of the game to replace hit points with hero points that get used up avoiding hits or downgrading hits from serious wounds to light wounds? Probably not.

Does it change the heroic nature of the game to base these hero points on something other than toughness, as represented by Constitution, etc.? Probably not.

Does it change the heroic nature of the game to have these hero points replenish through something other than healing? It changes the game, but not in a clearly bad way.

At any rate, I'd rather explore the subject than say that any realism is bad and any unrealism is good.

 

[mmadsen]

I mentioned before that a realistic combat system would make a much, much bigger deal out of morale and fear in combat. Under the current rules, a successful intimidate check leaves the target shaken for 1 round. That's not very impressive.

Even mundane foes should scare most people, leaving them shaken indefinitely, potentially frightened, and even panicked. In a modern fire-fight, I would expect most soldiers to be frightened and taking cover. The braver ones might be shaken and firing wildly. The bravest, or craziest, few might keep their cool and deliver pinpoint accuracy. (Those are the PCs, of course.)