Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Technologist (alternate wizard using Santiago rules)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gamerprinter" data-source="post: 6459926" data-attributes="member: 50895"><p>Looking at the flying rules in Geek Industrial <strong>Complex Companions of the Firmament</strong> where several options are offered for 3D combat.</p><p></p><p>The most complex one uses 2 grids, a horizontal one and a verticle one with the horizontal grid as an actual physical map grid for the tabletop or using a white board. The verticle grid, like many other attempted 3D combat systems relies on markers or poker chips placed under the miniatures to denote differences in height. While this method offers the most accurate depiction especially regarding movement spaces (squares or cubes), range and distance, fitting most closely to combat RAW, if there are more than 2 flying combatants this method can get very tedious, complex and time consuming - and not very condusive to fast and easy play.</p><p></p><p>A second described method for 3D combat is <em>Abstract Aerial Combat</em> which indeed is fast, easy with no needs of an actual grid (and am seriously considering using for just this reason.) Merge the Fly skill with Initiative into one roll. Apply all necessary bonuses to DEX, initiative, maneuverability class, and a +1 for each 10' of movement. All flying combatants roll this for a Flying Initiative score that is rolled at the beginning of each round (with no memory of what took place in the previous round.) The result is an Aerial Advantage for that round. Spending Aerial Advantage for specific bonuses during that round can achieve: </p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bonus damage for a single attack equal to the difference in Initiative between the combatant and the target.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bonus to AC (Dex based) plus CMD to the difference between half the Flying Initiative score.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Trigger the use of an ability such as a feat, spell, class ability or other effect that normally requires a specific position on a battle grid, such as gaining position to perform a Sneak Attack.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Move 2 flying range increments to run away if your Flying Initiative score exceeds everyone else.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A stunt or narrative tactic agreed upon by both GM and player dependant on the difference between Flying Initiative scores.</li> </ol><p></p><p>This also includes an Abstract Range table differing between melee/short range attacks, personal and touch attacks (spell or physical), long range for projectile, seige and distance spell attacks, distant and extreme ranges as well. Each get a Ranged Attack Bonus and a Perception Bonus, and appoximate distances.</p><p></p><p>There are several more options included an Abstract grid for more complex flying options. However, I like the first 2, using the first method only for exact detail combat between 3 or less combatants. Anything more complex in number of flyers, I'd use the Abstract Aerial Combat rules. </p><p></p><p>Of course these flying rules involve gravity and falling, which would be eschewed since 3D combat in space is absent of gravity (for the most part) so falling is not a consideration.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gamerprinter, post: 6459926, member: 50895"] Looking at the flying rules in Geek Industrial [B]Complex Companions of the Firmament[/B] where several options are offered for 3D combat. The most complex one uses 2 grids, a horizontal one and a verticle one with the horizontal grid as an actual physical map grid for the tabletop or using a white board. The verticle grid, like many other attempted 3D combat systems relies on markers or poker chips placed under the miniatures to denote differences in height. While this method offers the most accurate depiction especially regarding movement spaces (squares or cubes), range and distance, fitting most closely to combat RAW, if there are more than 2 flying combatants this method can get very tedious, complex and time consuming - and not very condusive to fast and easy play. A second described method for 3D combat is [I]Abstract Aerial Combat[/I] which indeed is fast, easy with no needs of an actual grid (and am seriously considering using for just this reason.) Merge the Fly skill with Initiative into one roll. Apply all necessary bonuses to DEX, initiative, maneuverability class, and a +1 for each 10' of movement. All flying combatants roll this for a Flying Initiative score that is rolled at the beginning of each round (with no memory of what took place in the previous round.) The result is an Aerial Advantage for that round. Spending Aerial Advantage for specific bonuses during that round can achieve: [LIST=1] [*]Bonus damage for a single attack equal to the difference in Initiative between the combatant and the target. [*]Bonus to AC (Dex based) plus CMD to the difference between half the Flying Initiative score. [*]Trigger the use of an ability such as a feat, spell, class ability or other effect that normally requires a specific position on a battle grid, such as gaining position to perform a Sneak Attack. [*]Move 2 flying range increments to run away if your Flying Initiative score exceeds everyone else. [*]A stunt or narrative tactic agreed upon by both GM and player dependant on the difference between Flying Initiative scores. [/LIST] This also includes an Abstract Range table differing between melee/short range attacks, personal and touch attacks (spell or physical), long range for projectile, seige and distance spell attacks, distant and extreme ranges as well. Each get a Ranged Attack Bonus and a Perception Bonus, and appoximate distances. There are several more options included an Abstract grid for more complex flying options. However, I like the first 2, using the first method only for exact detail combat between 3 or less combatants. Anything more complex in number of flyers, I'd use the Abstract Aerial Combat rules. Of course these flying rules involve gravity and falling, which would be eschewed since 3D combat in space is absent of gravity (for the most part) so falling is not a consideration. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Technologist (alternate wizard using Santiago rules)
Top