Realistic Combat

[Pbartender]

I wouldn't want a complicated mechanic -- I'm sure I've made already made the point that complicated mechanics are generally neither more fun nor more realistic -- but having a mechanical guideline could go a long way. First, it would set some basic guidelines -- namely that most creatures will run away the moment they think they're in any danger. Second, it would give a mechanical reason for wearing gleaming gold-chased armor and wielding a glowing sword, etc.

It's easy... The Intimidate skill already has a basis for it:

Demoralize Opponent
You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent’s resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target’s modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.

Just expand that to include more options... Allow the opponent to be frightened or panicked if you beat the opponenet's check by a lot. Allow the effect to last longer than a single round. Allow a character to make the check as a swift action, or as a part of another action (spellcasting and certain types of attacks come to mind). Grant bonuses for impressive armor, mean-looking weapons, spellcasting fireworks and such.

You can easily use feats or a PrC to do it... "Improved Demoralize", "Greater Demoralize" and so forth. If it was Iron Heroes, I'd just make it a skill challenge.

 

[iwatt]

Does anyone have anything to say about bringing morale into the game in a bigger way? As I've been saying, I think, if anything, it adds to the heroic flavor of the game to have enemies shake with fear, run away, etc. (Granted, running them down might not feel quite so heroic...)

I agree that morale as a mechanic for NPCs and monsters is something sorely lacking in 3.x I'm concerned on how heroic it would be if the PCs had to face morale as well though.

In any case, it's always bothered me that the wiser you are, the less likely you are to run away in D&D, when in my opinion a better perception of your opponents real capabilities ought to make you the first to run. "Those who run away, live to fight another day." Or similarly in my mother tongue "Soldado que arranca, sirve para otra guerra."

 

[Pbartender]

In any case, it's always bothered me that the wiser you are, the less likely you are to run away in D&D, when in my opinion a better perception of your opponents real capabilities ought to make you the first to run. "Those who run away, live to fight another day." Or similarly in my mother tongue "Soldado que arranca, sirve para otra guerra."

Think of it this way... The wiser you are, the less likely you are to run away because you are afraid. You'll will, however, have a better perception of your opponent's real capabilities, because your Spot, Listen and Sense Motive checks will be higher, making it easier for you to decide whether or not you can or should make a successful escape from your enemy.

 

[iwatt]

Think of it this way... The wiser you are, the less likely you are to run away because you are afraid. You'll will, however, have a better perception of your opponent's real capabilities, because your Spot, Listen and Sense Motive checks will be higher, making it easier for you to decide whether or not you can or should make a successful escape from your enemy.

Oh, I can agree with that justification. Iguess my problem is moer with low wisdom characters. It's just that it's always bothered me that my dumb as a doorbell barbarian, who's acted recklessly all his life, will be the first to run away from a dragon, while Mistador the Coward, a wizard, will not.

 

[Dremmen]

Gracious, out for a day and the thread just goes wild.

At any rate, it seems much ado was done over the example I gave for my house rule to add damage based on a fighter's skill, but not a thing was said in criticism or comment of the rule itself.

So, once again, this time without examples - adding damage to a hit based on the difference between what you rolled and the opponent's AC. Strength is no longer added to the actual damage dealt, since this is already added when you roll to hit.

And it can be argued that this adds realism OR it adds a more cinematic feel or even both. A high level character WILL wade through ranks of orcs with the added damage. At the same time, if the character is caught unarmored, he is actually vulnerable to the damage of say, a knife of even a low level character, they stand to take significant damage. And lastly, if they get cornered by a a real badass high level villain, even if he is only wielding a knife, they still have a fight on their hands as his skill with the blade makes every strike crippling.

 

[Pbartender]

Oh, I can agree with that justification. Iguess my problem is moer with low wisdom characters. It's just that it's always bothered me that my dumb as a doorbell barbarian, who's acted recklessly all his life, will be the first to run away from a dragon, while Mistador the Coward, a wizard, will not.

And that's why using Demoralize Opponent from the Intimidate skill as a basis for morale checks would work so well... The Intimidate check is opposed not by a Will save, but by a modified level check: 1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear.

That way, your dumbas a doorbell Barbarian still has a pretty good chance of making that check, but still might let his instincts and superstition get the better of him at times.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Realism has no place in D&D combat of any stripe, d20 or not. Anyone who has been in a fistfight can tell you that physical combat bears no semblance to D&D at all.

I do not try to simuate reality with combat beyond the basics. I will favor smooth gameplay over realism any day.

 

[Dremmen]

Think of it this way... The wiser you are, the less likely you are to run away because you are afraid. You'll will, however, have a better perception of your opponent's real capabilities, because your Spot, Listen and Sense Motive checks will be higher, making it easier for you to decide whether or not you can or should make a successful escape from your enemy.

I didn't meant to ignore the ongoing discussion with my earlier thread. On the topic of morale - I trust in my players to RPG their characters accordingly on this. I don't have it in me to make a rule that might force them to flee. Most of the time they have the sense. If a hill giant is smashing throug the woods towards their 3rd level PCs camp, I trust they will run like mad. When the same party is faced with a small warband of barbarians of similiar level - I leave it up to them. They are supposed to be heroic, after all.

 

[Pbartender]

I didn't meant to ignore the ongoing discussion with my earlier thread. On the topic of morale - I trust in my players to RPG their characters accordingly on this. I don't have it in me to make a rule that might force them to flee. Most of the time they have the sense. If a hill giant is smashing throug the woods towards their 3rd level PCs camp, I trust they will run like mad. When the same party is faced with a small warband of barbarians of similiar level - I leave it up to them. They are supposed to be heroic, after all.

I was thinking of it more on the side of bad guys... Giving the PCs a feasible way to score off a bunch of bandits, for example, rather than having kill them dead becuase no one will back down.

Remember, PCs are supposed to be immune to a certain degree from social skills anyway.

 

[iwatt]

I was thinking of it more on the side of bad guys... Giving the PCs a feasible way to score off a bunch of bandits, for example, rather than having kill them dead becuase no one will back down.

Remember, PCs are supposed to be immune to a certain degree from social skills anyway.

Agreed. I'm thinking this is more a tool for GMs to run NPCs than something to screw with PC decision-making.

In any case, Pbratender, I just figured out what you were saying when you refered it to the demoralize rules: The opposed check should be a level check, and not a Will save. If that's what you meant, I completely agree. Making fear effects opposable by will save just irks me.