Realistic Combat

[Dremmen]

Your right. I apologize. However you have said a few things which implied to me that you'd not explored the game. I probably shouldn't take them in that way, but that's how they sound to me.

It's all good. Now that I read through your argument, I can see why you may have come to that conclusion. Maybe I should simply have stayed away from having the Rogue in my example - it just confused things. My bad.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Just wanted to say thanks to Celebrim and Dremmen for resolving their differences peacefully.

Way to go, guys!

 

[Celebrim]

Just wanted to say thanks to Celebrim and Dremmen for resolving their differences peacefully.

Way to go, guys!

You don't have to make a big deal about it. I'm thirty odd years old. I don't need pats on the back. I like to argue and I can be passionate about it, but I've really got no desire to be a part of non-conversation where noone is listening - and if I am, I'll leave it. The only time I recall not resolving my differences (or at least bowing out of a thread that was clearly going nowhere) was when I got kicked out of a thread by a moderator. Just saying.

 

[Mallus]

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.

 

[AbeTheGnome]

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'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.

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.

 

[Dremmen]

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.

Agree with you 100%. My earlier argument, just worded better.

: 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.

The issue I have with handling it this way is that you have a very steep curve in the damage dealt. If you are 19 over his AC when you hit, you still deal normal damage. But at 20 over, the damage curve explodes. It seems a harsh cut off. I'd like to see more of a stairstep of damage increasing the better the hit.

 

[AbeTheGnome]

The issue I have with handling it this way is that you have a very steep curve in the damage dealt. If you are 19 over his AC when you hit, you still deal normal damage. But at 20 over, the damage curve explodes. It seems a harsh cut off. I'd like to see more of a stairstep of damage increasing the better the hit.

That's kinda the way it works in real life. Either the knife hits your heart, or it's an inch off. Big damage difference from just a little precision difference.

 

[Mallus]

...it does a poor job at modeling cinematic combat.

Someone around here, I forget who, came up with a real nifty way to fix that problem. The thread was called something like 'Weapons as Special Effects' (or maybe 'SFX').

In that proposed system, damage was mostly the product of a characters skill level. Weapons had different modifiers, so a hit from a greataxe wasn't quite the same as one from a ale mug, but most of the damage bonus came from the character.

It was the next logical step away from the kind of physical object-modeling that D&D arguably doesn't do well anyway.

The system pretty flexible, too. For instance, there were also provisions for lowering your damage modifier in order to gain special moves --things already part of the regular combat rules-- like trip or disarm.

The system was probably less realistic than standard D&D, but it seemed to model heroic, cinematic fighting well.

 

[StarFyre]

In the campaign I DM

What I did to try and make combat more tense and realistic in the sense that people COULD die from 1 hit if it's aimed at the right spot, is we use the COMBAT & TACTICS 2E expanded/detailed critical hit system and the SPELLS & MAGIC spell critical hit system.

How we do it is the same way as in 2E. Weapon size vs target size, make the roll, and compare to a chart.

Friend put it all into an access database so a few clicks if a critical is present (we still use the 3.XE system of threat range and then roll again for actual critical), and we get a result.

What this does is, any attack could maim, kill, crush, etc a body part.

On top of that, we also do the damage from the critical multiplier in 3.5E so criticals both ways are very brutal.

It does add realism in that players are now not running blindly (unless their character warrants such roleplaying) at everything, cause they know...it's a real fight. We gotta be ready.

The bad part, every few weeks, someone gets maimed, loses limbs, has stats drop due to a body part being crushed totally, etc.

Overall, players are fine with it.

Sanjay

 

[Aaron L]

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.

Lan is a 16th level character, he does have Power Attack, and he uses it all the time. That's what "wind slicing through steel" (or whatever flowery sword technique he uses at the time) is supposed to be. Power Attacking doesn't have to be wildly flailing about, it has to be a forceful strike sacrificing the ability to make quick refinements and changes in attack direction to gain cutting power. Take a look at kenjutsu's formalized strikes using power from the torque of the whole torso and you're seeing Power Attacks.