Realistic Combat

[Warren Okuma]

I like the GURPS system for injuries.

Every character starts with a certain number of hit points - 10 in the case of "average humans".

Injuries will bring that down. A broadsword wielded by a human with average strength against an unarmored target and not hitting especially delicate locations (I'll be assuming torso hits here) will do 5 hit points of damage on average. So two such hits will reduce a character to 0 hit points.

At this point he isn't close to dying yet (though if you use the bleeding rules, he will get there eventually if no one bandages him), but he is severely injured, and has to roll against his Health score to remain conscious every round. For average humans, this means that he has a 50% chance of falling unconscious every round - but healthier characters can remain standing for a long time if they don't roll badly.

Once that character reaches -1xHP (which means he lost twice his starting hit points), he must succeed on a Health roll or die. Additional Health rolls are made at -2xHP, -3xHP, and -4xHP. At -5xHP, he has taken so much damage that he dies automatically.

This system represents both people who die relatively easily, and those who pull a Rasputin and simply keep going even when suffering massive injuries. Characters who wish to survive such injuries should invest in a high Health score. But even then, the possibility of failing a Health roll and possibly dying from it always remains - keeping the characters on their toes and treating all injuries as a possibly serious problem.

Yup. Same here.

 

[mythusmage]

Good luck. The only time I was in a knife fight, I ran. I'm still happy about that.

You can't always run.

Then there was the time...

I was 16, he was 14, and I took the knife away from him. Caught him completely by surprise.

 

[Dremmen]

The real issue is something I mentioned earlier: From a realism perspective, the problem is not that a high-level D&D fighter can survive a dozen sword cuts and spear thrusts but that he cannot die by any one attack.

I concur - this is exactly the flaw that makes the system so annoying in my experience. My high level characters laugh at opponents wielding knives, even allow themselves to be shot with arrows, confident in their hp ability to buffer the damage.

I like the combat system in the Game of Thrones D20 game. It incorporated the Armor as DR, the inherent bonus to Defense from level, as well as the option to split up Base Attack Bonuses into Ranged and Close. But still, we have hp. And no matter how skilled the knife wielder is, that skill only translates into a near certainty of scoring a hit. But unless it is a Cloud Giant wielding the knife, the damage is so dismissable at higher levels that my deadly assassin falls short of being a threat ina stand up fight despite his skill. Not only that, after a certain level Magic is the only true source of massive damage - magical weapons included.

So would a simple rule to reflect the additional damage that can be caused by someone skilled with the weapon help in both bringing more realism to combat and further validation for hp? I put forth the following - when you roll to attack, however much your beat the opponent's AC by is added to the damage. Here is a scenario of how I envision this-
CAVEAT - this would HAVE to replace bonus to dmg from strength. Otherwise you would add this bonus when you beat the opponent's AC, then add Str AGAIN, which would be silly.

(warning for the bean counters - I don't have the PH in front of me, or the DMG, so vague it is)

3rd level Thug wearing rags (AC 11) and with a healthy 28 hp corners our hero Riddlin the Rowdy, a 10th level rogue. No chance of backstab here, they are facing off, and Riddlin only has his dagger. They just got out of a grapple so noone is flat footed. Granted, Riddlin is lethal with his dagger, but only in theory as the 1d4 damage would mean he'd have to hack at Thug all day, even with crits, to kill him. So much for being heroic and deadly and all. But rejoice! We are trying something new today. Where usually Riddlin would attack, hit, and with his +1 Str deal up to 5 dmg (ooooooh), he rolls to hit and with his healthy BAB and Dex and this or that feat he gets a 25. He beats the AC by 14, rolls 3 dmg, for a total of 17 dmg. He swoops in, stabs just under the Thugs arm pit and into a lung, and moves back. The Thug has to make a Fort save for massive damage, and lost half his life at the end of a puny dagger. This reflects the ability of someone that knows how to use a weapon, to hit where it counts.

By the same token, if a first level thief holds a knife at Riddlin's throat and slashes him but doesn't kill him, it is because at 1st level she doesn't know where to cut to kill. Too low, at an angle, too shallow - missed major arteries or the windpipe, and simply made a big slash. If it had been a higher level thief doing the slashing of the throat, bypassing dex and AC, the damage would have been much greater.

Riddlin always was a fool around the ladies.

HP are somewhat validated since they are being weighted by experience. The question still remains on what to do about crits - personally instead of adding to the damage I'd put in a broken limb, punctured lung, an eye gauged, etc - crippling but bestowing penalties not decreasing hp further. This also prevents sudden PC death by lucky D20. Of course, the PC might not see it as a good thing when their fighter loses their right arm - maybe better dead then.

This also brings up the issue of someone with a knife or short sword or rapier drawing their weapon at the same time as someone wielding a greatsword that is strapped to their back - because they all have Quick Draw. But that is a matter for another day.

 

[HellHound]

A silver half dollar isn't very thick, and being silver, isn't super strong or hard (and the silver pocket watches and whiskey flasks they tested for the earlier myth represented just as much material to shoot thru), yet every shot simply dented the things.

As you pointed out, they were shooting coins in mid-air. Of course the rounds didn't penetrate the coins. The coin is light and is not braced, it will flip out of the way of the bullet on impact instead of sitting in place to be shot through.

 

[mmadsen]

The US Military, especially the army and marines are looking at another standard handgun change, and one of the criteria is a .45 caliber (not neccessarily .45ACP though) bullet because they're finding that in Iraq and Afghanistan, against fanatical types who may (or may not) by hopped up on drugs, that the 9mm's they're mostly using just aren't doing the job at putting people down with a couple hits.

They were considering moving back to the .45 long before the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, I can't imagine the current 9mm pistol has seen much use in either theater. It has, however, been in use across the US, where police and FBI have questioned its stopping power.

Now the reason they went to a smaller caliber from the .45ACP twenty plus years ago was the thinking that the lighter 9mm ammo would be easier for second-line personnel to use (like truck drivers, medics, logistics folks, the support personel basically who wouldn't normally see front line action) and thus more likely to actually hit a target with, as well as enable everyone who are carrying sidearms to carry more ammo for a given weight of gun and ammo.

That sounds more like the argument for moving to the 5.56mm M16 from the 7.62mm M14.

The 9mm pistol round is a high-velocity round, and at the time it was considered quite effective. If you can carry more rounds in a magazine, and they cost less, so that troops can afford to practice more, why not go with the smaller round? That was the thinking.

The IRONY here is that this all happened once before... a century ago. In the late 1800s, the US Army switched its standard sidearm caliber from the .45 to .38 Caliber, for the similar thinking as above, and then they went to war in the phillipines where they went up against fanatical muslim rebels who were using narcotics before they went into battle to give them an "edge" as it were against the infidel americans. And after that war the US Army went back to a .45 caliber weapon, and that eventually became the now famous M1911 autopistol and the .45ACP bullet.

It's not clear how scientific their thinking was though. They went from a smaller, weaker round to a larger, more powerful round, assuming that would make a big difference against Moros with machetes, but their tests on animals were quite subjective and revealed that placement was quite important, even when all shots were against an immobile target. It turns out the whole process is pretty random...

 

[DeeEight]

As you pointed out, they were shooting coins in mid-air. Of course the rounds didn't penetrate the coins. The coin is light and is not braced, it will flip out of the way of the bullet on impact instead of sitting in place to be shot through.

Actually they also tested that one in a test stand.... they had a coin braced in a rig, and then tried different guns on it. None of the cowbow guns and ammo did more than dent the coins dead center (the ones done from dropping from the hand weren't dead center). Only by switching to modern guns like a .357Mag did they penetrate.

Also when they tested stuff like shooting out the lock of a door (something I'm sure PCs in every game with guns will try and do at some stage) they claimed using handguns was busted because with single shots, they didn't open the locks, and with heavier/longer guns, they often removed the whole lock assembly from the door. Yet if you look at those handgun hits, you'd think to yourself "that lock isn't gonna stand up to a good tug from my ogre now" or just "shoot it to the left next time".

As to the us army thing, I'm paraphrasing from a magazine article on it. Its in #42 of Special Weapons for Military and Police and what the author wrote on the subject of a couple contenders for the new contract.

 

[Celebrim]

I concur - this is exactly the flaw that makes the system so annoying in my experience. My high level characters laugh at opponents wielding knives, even allow themselves to be shot with arrows, confident in their hp ability to buffer the damage.

IMO, a high level character shouldn't be treatened by a low level one with a knife. How many times in heroic fiction does some low level character pull a knife on the hero, and the hero confidently takes him down. In any realistic combat system, that just doesn't happen. A knife is serious business and even a skilled fighter will be lucky to get away without needing medical treatment.

As for 'allowing' themselves to be shot with arrows, standing stock still and allowing yourself to be hit is the same thing as being helpless against the attack. It's just voluntarily helpless as opposed to the more usual situation. The point is that a high level character DOESN'T let himself be hit by arrows. He expends hit points in the act of avoiding the attack, basically taking no or little physical damage. Anyone that has read the 1st edition DMG knows that hit points are abstract and don't represent necessarily physical damage. So call them 'hero points' if you have to.

And no matter how skilled the knife wielder is, that skill only translates into a near certainty of scoring a hit. But unless it is a Cloud Giant wielding the knife, the damage is so dismissable at higher levels that my deadly assassin falls short of being a threat ina stand up fight despite his skill.

Which is why characters that wield weapons that do little base damage take power attack.

3rd level Thug wearing rags (AC 11) and with a healthy 28 hp corners our hero Riddlin the Rowdy, a 10th level rogue. No chance of backstab here, they are facing off, and Riddlin only has his dagger. They just got out of a grapple so noone is flat footed. Granted, Riddlin is lethal with his dagger...

Is he? If Riddlin is lethal with his dagger in combat, then he must be able to do alot of damage with it in combat. If Riddlin can only manage 1d4+1 damage, then he IS NOT lethal with his dagger in combat. The game says so. He may be a skilled fighter in his way, he just doesn't know the tricks of overcoming another skilled fighters defences quickly. If you want Riddlin to be lethal with his dagger, then give him the ability to be lethal with his dagger.

...but only in theory as the 1d4 damage would mean he'd have to hack at Thug all day, even with crits, to kill him. So much for being heroic and deadly and all.

so much for knowing the game. Riddlin, lethal knife fighter, knows that the Thug is too wary and experienced to be taken down by any single ordinary attack. But Riddlin is a canny fighter. He uses his knowledge of 'Improved Feint' to bypass the Thug's defenses quickly, catching his less skilled opponent off gaurd. He then uses his knowledge of 'Power Attack' to forgo some of the needless fineese, and makes a vicious thrust into the throat of the unprepared unarmored flat-footed thug (AC 10). His total attack is a 25 of which he poured 10 into 'Power Attack', beating the AC by 5 points. Riddlin's player rolls damage - 1d4, rolling a 4, plus +1 damage for 13 STR, +10 damage for power attack, +5d6 damage from his sneak attack for a total of 33 damage.

The thug is dropped instantly (to -5 hit points), and hits the street bleeding profusely from a serious throat wound. Now that is a lethal knife fighter, reflective of someone who knows where to hit and make it count.

There are alot of complaints I have with the D&D combat system, but you aren't really touching on what I would consider a big problem. If we really want to make for more interesting combat, how about preventing a character from completing all of his iterative attacks in a single phase of the round? Ahh, but then there is that 'speed of play' tradeoff.

There isn't a single best way to do things. There is just best for what you are trying to do.

 

[Dremmen]

IMO, a high level character shouldn't be treatened by a low level one with a knife. How many times in heroic fiction does some low level character pull a knife on the hero, and the hero confidently takes him down. In any realistic combat system, that just doesn't happen. A knife is serious business and even a skilled fighter will be lucky to get away without needing medical treatment.

Well, here you say that "a high level character shouldn't be threatened by a low level one with a knife", followed by " a knife is serious business". Both statements I agree with and support in my previous argument that skill with a weapon should translate into more damage. So the low level bad guy should not be a challenge for a high level PC, while a knife in the hands of someone experience becomes deadly even to high level PCs.

As for 'allowing' themselves to be shot with arrows, standing stock still and allowing yourself to be hit is the same thing as being helpless against the attack. It's just voluntarily helpless as opposed to the more usual situation. The point is that a high level character DOESN'T let himself be hit by arrows. He expends hit points in the act of avoiding the attack, basically taking no or little physical damage. Anyone that has read the 1st edition DMG knows that hit points are abstract and don't represent necessarily physical damage. So call them 'hero points' if you have to.

Call them what you might, a character with 68 hp never has to worry about being held up by a brigand with a loaded crossbow. He can confidently step up and snatch it away secure in the knowledge that it is impossible that he might receive any serious injury. It is this impossibility that troubles me. I like my heroes to still be human, and it is in their lack of god-like invincibility that their deeds are heroic. It isn't so much about what a high level character DOES or DOESN'T let himself do, it is what players do with their characters when they have enough hp to be cocky and reckless. They don't have to dance about avoiding anything, because they are safe and secure in their hp blanket.

Is he? If Riddlin is lethal with his dagger in combat, then he must be able to do alot of damage with it in combat. If Riddlin can only manage 1d4+1 damage, then he IS NOT lethal with his dagger in combat. The game says so. He may be a skilled fighter in his way, he just doesn't know the tricks of overcoming another skilled fighters defences quickly. If you want Riddlin to be lethal with his dagger, then give him the ability to be lethal with his dagger.....AND ALSO....so much for knowing the game. Riddlin, lethal knife fighter, knows that the Thug is too wary and experienced to be taken down by any single ordinary attack. But Riddlin is a canny fighter. He uses his knowledge of 'Improved Feint' to bypass the Thug's defenses quickly, catching his less skilled opponent off gaurd. He then uses his knowledge of 'Power Attack' to forgo some of the needless fineese, and makes a vicious thrust into the throat of the unprepared unarmored flat-footed thug (AC 10). His total attack is a 25 of which he poured 10 into 'Power Attack', beating the AC by 5 points. Riddlin's player rolls damage - 1d4, rolling a 4, plus +1 damage for 13 STR, +10 damage for power attack, +5d6 damage from his sneak attack for a total of 33 damage.

And here I just plain disagree. I don't think that a 10th level rogue should have to take a bunch of feats to be lethal with a dagger. Just the fact that he is 10th level should be merit enough to be dangerous with a dagger. I have never known a rogue to take Power Attack, although I am certain there are some out there. You also add Sneak Attack damage when the example purposefully made Sneak Attack not an option. A skilled rogue doesn't make vicious thrusts into the throat - he should be able to make two or three well placed cuts that aim vitals AS HE FIGHTS (read: not sneak attack) because he's been there and knows where to cut. Slash the wrist, under the arm, behind the knee, etc - not dealing 1d4 each time like some tavern keeper NPC. So comes in the system where a high bonus to hit (skilled) translates into added damage proportional to how well the blow landed.

Regardless, the thing is that I still believe skill, pure out skill should count more. Knowing where to hit, familiarity with a weapon, knowing how to twist a blade, etc, these are things that should be inherent to characters that have spent months and years of game time adventuring. I'd like to think that a 1st level fighter with average stats, and an 8th level fighter with average stats, neither with feats that increase damage, would not both have the same damage potential just because they both didn't take Power Attack. Think Lan from the Wheel of Time - its not wild Power Attacks that kill his opponents, or with Drizzt - it is skill that lets them kill opponents quicker than someone using the same weapon - if both score a hit, one's hit has more impact. The seasoned fighter knows where to hit you to make it hurt - that cannot be explained away by power attack which has the clear intent of swinging with all your strength at the cost of accuracy.

 

[SiderisAnon]

Make Them Fear The Mook

I concur - this is exactly the flaw that makes the system so annoying in my experience. My high level characters laugh at opponents wielding knives, even allow themselves to be shot with arrows, confident in their hp ability to buffer the damage.

I realize this may be slightly off topic, but ...

I had the same problem with players of powerful characters not fearing the mook with a bow or other 1d4-1d6 weapon. Between armor class and hit points, they felt they had nothing to fear. I came to the conclusion that the only way the PCs were going to respect the mook is if I put a scare into them.

So, walled town under siege by orcs. PC climbs up on wall over gate, stands up clearly while wearing bright colors, and launches a fireball at one of the groups of orc archers. As this was the first use of area magic in the siege, the orcs were rightfully both scared and impressed. So, the commander of one of the orc archer groups shouted out for everyone to shoot "dat guy up there."

This was Second Edition. 50 archers, two shots a round, 100 arrows. Sure, most of them missed. Enough of them hit to pin the PC to the wooden support he had his back against.

After that, they were a little more careful.

With another group, I had someone they thought was just an unarmed mook be a rogue of level to the party. (Third Edition.) He had the feat where you can bluff as a move. He would bluff, get you flat footed, then backstab you in the face with a punch. He took the party's fighter down in two rounds. (It was a one-on-one fight.)

Knocked the cocky right out of that fighter.


I realize these examples don't address the problem that hit points mean that one hit cannot be one kill without house rules or something special like sneak attack. However, they are a way to remind the PCs that they are mortal while staying within the rules as they are.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[replicant2]

I scoff at all the talk of "realistic" combat in this thread.

Until you've wielded a styrofoam boffer like me, or stood in the cardboard shield wall and felt the impact of plastic axe blows and Nerf (R) arrows, you aren't a man.