Streamlining advanced combat actions

[Grayhawk]

In a couple of threads now, we've been discussing how to simplify D&D 3x to make it flow a bit smoother.

It's my belief that a simplified combat system for D&D should do away with the AoO mechanic and remove all dependency on a battlemat.

How would you go about streamlining the advanced combat actions?

Preferably the same mechanic should govern all these: Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, Sunder, Overrun and maybe even Grapple.

This mechanic should be single and easy to remember; something like an opposed attack roll, with a few modifiers where appropriate. Also, a couple of limitations are propably in order, like you cannot try one of these actions against someone more than 1 size larger than yourself.

The first thing I'm uncertain about is whether these actions should require a feat or whether they should be permitted to everybody:

No feats required
It's like the current system; everybody can do it, but since there are no AoO's, it becomes much less risky.

Benefit:
- Characters have more options in combat.
Drawback:
- Since everybody can do it with little risk, it may become too easy to circumvent the HP aspect of opponents.

Feats required
To be able to try and Trip someone, you must have the Trip feat. (All these will be on the Fighter's list of bonus feats.)

Benefits:
- Characters have the possibility of being more individualized, as most will only know a single trademark trick (if any), except Fighters, who'll propably pick up a couple to suit their character's style.
- More streamlined combats, since players have fewer options to consider.
Drawback:
- Less freedom in combat.

Questions:

1: Is the 'Feats required' method too restrictive?

2: Is 'the opposed attack roll' mechanic adequate to govern these actions?

2b: Does it make these actions too easy?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it will be pretty too much restrictive. From a rules point of view it could work, but it's definitely not nice to tell the players that their character cannot even try doing something which IRL everyone can try... It would be the same as making skills like climb and swim as trained only: "no, sorry you don't have ranks in swim, you cannot even try to avoid drowning"

OTOH, it's not yet what you are discussing here, but if you are streamlining the rules for advanced combat options, I think one of the first thing you should consider is to make them use the same type of action. Make them ALL standard actions, or otherwise make them ALL substitute for a single attack in the routine. As they are now (some standards and some substitutable) they often confuse the players...

 

[DreamChaser]

Also, if you could figure out a way to make them all just a single die roll (per side maybe), I think I would love you forever. The two die roll thing just drives me up the wall.

DC

 

[Grayhawk]

I think it will be pretty too much restrictive. From a rules point of view it could work, but it's definitely not nice to tell the players that their character cannot even try doing something which IRL everyone can try...)

I'm still a bit torn. On one side this is for a simplified version of D&D, on the other side, I'd like for players to have the freedom to be creative in combat. If these actions are allowed without any feats, should there still be feats to improve them (in a simplified game)?

OTOH, it's not yet what you are discussing here, but if you are streamlining the rules for advanced combat options, I think one of the first thing you should consider is to make them use the same type of action. Make them ALL standard actions, or otherwise make them ALL substitute for a single attack in the routine. As they are now (some standards and some substitutable) they often confuse the players...

Good point. I think they should be standard actions.

Also, if you could figure out a way to make them all just a single die roll (per side maybe), I think I would love you forever. The two die roll thing just drives me up the wall.

I think the opposed attack roll mechanic is simple enough. If you'd really just want it to be 1 roll, I guess you could make it an attack roll vs a DC of 10 + opponents attack modifier.

 

[Ferret]

Bull rush could be changed to opposed to strength rolls, with a one up/down size limit and a +4/ -4 modifier. If you win by five or more they go back 10 foot. Otherwise just 5.

[edit: Ok just looked at the current rules and it's about the same. That was redundant.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It would be the same as making skills like climb and swim as trained only: "no, sorry you don't have ranks in swim, you cannot even try to avoid drowning"

off-topic but this one is pretty much true actually... if you haven't been trained in the fundamentals of swimming you don't stand much chance of avoiding drowning. Swimming is one of the few skills that *should* be trained only!

 

[Grayhawk]

Imagine a game with the following rule in place:

'Trip, Disarm, Feint*, Bull Rush, Sunder, Overrun and Grapple all require a standard action and are all resolved using the opposed attack roll mechanic. You cannot initiate such an action against someone more than 1 size larger than yourself. If you are smaller than your opponent you get a -4 penalty on your roll.'

* I've included Feint, as this is for a game without the current skill system.

Since this is meant for a system without AoO's, there's no drawback to initiate one of these actions. Considering that these actions will be successful half the time, when going up against someone of equal skill, what do you expect the effects to be on the game?

 

[Turanil]

Imagine a game with the following rule in place:

'Trip, Disarm, Feint*, Bull Rush, Sunder, Overrun and Grapple all require a standard action and are all resolved using the opposed attack roll mechanic. You cannot initiate such an action against someone more than 1 size larger than yourself. If you are smaller than your opponent you get a -4 penalty on your roll.'

Since this is meant for a system without AoO's, there's no drawback to initiate one of these actions. Considering that these actions will be successful half the time, when going up against someone of equal skill, what do you expect the effects to be on the game?

Don't forget that if a PC can attempt it on a NPC, the NPC can also attempt it on the PC. Now, the thing is: the game should not degenerate in that every fight, opponents begin with melee weapons, then always go for disarm, trip, etc., thus always finish a fight into a brawl. That would be ridiculous.


-- Now consider this: for the little experience of LARPing I have, it's extremely difficult to trip, disarm, or feint, rather than simply bash like a madman (well, I admit I must have a BAB of +0 despite some years of martial arts... ). Hence, I think that all these maneuvers should induce a penalty of at least -4 to hit. I would go for an attack roll at -4 (no damage, the purpose of the attack is to get into a position where it is possible to make the attempt at disarm or what not), then an opposed check or Reflex save.

Now my suggestion (attack roll at -4, then opposed strength check) is very simple, but not very realistic. For instance, it should apply against Touch AC, not armored AC (so here is a first complication instead of an easy procedure); then you don't want to add another penalty to compensate for that, as it would make the game more complex; etc., etc.


-- Just another suggestion to consider: Attack of Opportunity kept ONLY in cases of attempting a feint, disarm, trip, etc. that fail. Then, in all other cases (where the battlemat and reach, threat range, etc. are involved) the Attack of Opportunity doesn't exist anymore. IMO: AoOs slow down the game because you must spend a combat figuring out if moving your mini on the battlemat that way or the other, will provoke AoOs. Players spend their time calculating and trying, arguing over going that way will provoke AoOs or not, and trying to figure out if they should stop on that square or the next, etc., etc., etc. Remove that part, and the action goes faster; then having AoOs only everytime you fail a special maneuver instead of normal attacks won't slow the game, and don't make it difficult to run round after round of combat.

 

[Grayhawk]

Don't forget that if a PC can attempt it on a NPC, the NPC can also attempt it on the PC. Now, the thing is: the game should not degenerate in that every fight, opponents begin with melee weapons, then always go for disarm, trip, etc., thus always finish a fight into a brawl. That would be ridiculous.

I agree with your concerns, I'm just wondering if they are unfounded. Is the 50% chance of success (against someone of equal skill) so good that you expect to see it all the time?

Considering that these moves require a standard action, you have given up any chance of dealing HP damage that round (and if you have more than one attack, you have given up all of those). Also, consider that while these actions may seem more inviting due to them not drawing AoO's, they also become less effecient due to the same lack of AoO's.

For instance, disarm someone on your turn. Unless you're working in tandem with someone else who then removes the disarmed weapon, your opponent will just pick it back up on his own turn (without drawing an AoO). Granted, this will deny him a full attack action, but you denied yourself one to do so, so it seems fair. Plus, had you failed, you would have wasted your round and would now be on the receiving end of a full attack. Likewise, being tripped won't be so bad, as there will be no AoO for getting up and no feat giving a free attack on a trip.

Now, I'll admit to having little experience with most of these special combat moves in actual play, as my players either thought they were to complex to use or that they just wasn't worth the effort. Therfore, I'll be very interested in hearing if all of you think that a straight up opposed attack roll make these things too easy. Especially when looking at the big picture, namely that this is for a system without AoO's.

Would it be better balanced if they all required a full round action?

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I like the idea that if you fail in your attempt, then an AoO is provoked. A lot of the rules and conditions for AoO's don't make a lot of sense to me, though I do realize that such an action can happen in certain circumstances.