What TTRPGs have the best tactical combat rules?

[MGibster]

Prime Directive 1E - it pretty much seems to assume minis use, but I've not used minis with it, and only rarely needed drawing. The initiative system is complex, but dual axis result - both when you go in the round, and how much you get to do in the round.

I don't know if I've ever met someone who actually played Prime Directive. Someone needs to put you in a museum!

One of my few concerns about Car Wars as either a combat game or a rules-light RPG in the vein of Lancer is that you can definitely lose a fight during the vehicle design stage if you either don't know what you're doing or your opponent has advance knowledge of what you're driving. It's not hard to trump most builds when you know they're what you'll face.

This is a problem inherent to games like Car Wars and Battletech where players might design their own vehicles. It doesn't take long for a saavy player to realize what combination of armor, weapons, engines, or accessories are the best for a scenario. This is especially true when the designer is only worried about one scenario and isn't concerned with logistical concerns such as resupply, repairs, or even the survivability of the pilot. But I'm one of those people who don't consider either Car Wars or Battletech to be RPGs. GURPS Autoduel? RPG. Mechwarrior? RPG.

I am reading Fallout 2d20 now in preparation to run it and it is a little lighter on tactics than I would have liked. That's actually okay for the group I am going to run for who are less interested in such things, but I was kind of hoping for a bit more crunch in the combat, along the lines of Conan2d20.

I ran a Fallout campaign last year and it took me and the rest of the group a few sessions to warm up to the system. It's not very tactical but it worked well enough to provide us with a satisfactory experience that mimicked the video games. I'm not sure how tactical any game can really be when the map is divided into zones rather than precise locations. Especially when zones can cary in size so radically.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I ran a Fallout campaign last year and it took me and the rest of the group a few sessions to warm up to the system. It's not very tactical but it worked well enough to provide us with a satisfactory experience that mimicked the video games. I'm not sure how tactical any game can really be when the map is divided into zones rather than precise locations. Especially when zones can cary in size so radically.

It depends on your perception of how important positioning and range are to tactics. Its possible to have a pretty rich tactical experience where that isn't the primary consideration, but it turns into things like use of individual character abilities (PC and NPC), combat maneuvers and resources at the right time and the right place.

Now you can argue that you'd still get a better result if you had both, but that at least narrows the options seriously; for example TW2000 was mentioned earlier, but while it certainly paid attention to resources and range/position, there wasn't much in the way of individual specialty traits or even maneuvers (short of some specific weapon traits that might or might not) be available, so it would fail when coming from the opposite direction.

 

[TheSword]

The most tactical TTRPG for combat is WFRP 4e of course.

Firstly whether you hit or not is based on an opposed WS check. With the options to become more skilled in particular classes of weapons. How well you hit also affects damage so you do more damage to creatures you outskill than those that outskill you.

Armour is a soak of damage and you can target specific locations to hit. Where you hit and what you hit matters.

You can chose to oppose attacks with other skills than WS if appropriate - dodge being the most obvious with larger creatures conveying a penalty on defense rolls meaning it’s better to dodge that giants club than try to parry it.

Threatening someone in combat is not just a case of standing next to them. You need to have attempted to attack them in this round or the last round. Outnumbering is a thing. You get a substantial bonus for outnumbering 2 to 1 with an even bigger bonus for 3 to 1. Some talents can allow you to count as more than one defender for outnumbering purposes.

Ranged weapon ranges matter a huge amount with some weapons doing different effects at different ranges - the blunderbuss for instance.

Reach matters - with longer weapons having an advantage against shorter ones.

In-fighting is a thing. You can get into a opponents reach so they can only treat longer weapons as improvised.

There is advantage - a spendable resource that increases as you beat your opponents in opposed tests. This can be spent to improve rolls; perform trick manouvers to blind or entangle the opponent; to disengage from combat or even to get an extra action.

Weapons have specific special rules for instance a Halberd has hack meaning it can reduce armour on a location hit. The sap has pummel meaning if you strike the head you have a chance to KO the foe. The quarterstaff is defensive and is easier to defend with. Etc etc.

Conditions can stack and have levels. So it’s possible to become more entangled or more poisoned.

Lastly there are injuries that actually matter and affect how you fight in a battle.

In short. WFRP 4e is far more tactical than D&D has ever been. Yes it’s crunchier but if you want tactical decision making combat you can’t do better IMHO.

 

[Jahydin]

Easily Lancer, but it is a sci-fi mech based tactical TTRPG rather than the fantasy games mentioned above.

Just noticed Amazon has it for pre-order!

Looking forward to finally getting a copy.

 

[MGibster]

It depends on your perception of how important positioning and range are to tactics. Its possible to have a pretty rich tactical experience where that isn't the primary consideration, but it turns into things like use of individual character abilities (PC and NPC), combat maneuvers and resources at the right time and the right place.

Allowing for the fact that there's going to be some level of abstraction in any set of rules that are actually of use, if the system doesn't consider or makes overly abstract considerations like range, facing, or speed then it's not a rich tactical experience. That doesn't mean it's a bad set of rules or that it isn't fun, but it's not a rich tactical experience. Phoenix Command is a rich tactical experience. Fun? Not for me.

Now you can argue that you'd still get a better result if you had both, but that at least narrows the options seriously; for example TW2000 was mentioned earlier, but while it certainly paid attention to resources and range/position, there wasn't much in the way of individual specialty traits or even maneuvers (short of some specific weapon traits that might or might not) be available, so it would fail when coming from the opposite direction.

I've only seen the latest version of the Twilight 2000 rules put out by Free League. The rules are fantastic and there are certainly tactical choices to be made during combat. I suspect we're going to get hung up on the word "rich" as it applies to tactical experience. That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I don't consider TW: 2000 to be a rich tactical experience which is just fine by me. It doesn't make for a less fun game.

 

[Reynard]

You don't need a grid to have a rich tactical experience. You need options.

 

[thullgrim]

I think SWADE hit a sweet spot between tactical options and speed of play. Baked in tests to inflict conditions (think dirty tricks) that are useable to non-combat characters to help in combat is a nice touch. The games ability to handle tactical combat at scale (meaning large numbers of combatants) is an added bonus. Also the way it interfaces with other subsystems like the Chase rules.

I also love the combat of 3.x family of games because I like the intricacies of attacks opportunity, 5ft. steps, and reach being a factor. It add decision points. When combined with feats and action economy manipulation, as well as different weapon properties you get a robust combat system with a variety of tactical options and decision points and characters feel different and interact with those decisions in a unique way.

4e’s dynamic movement make the combat system a dream. The push, pull, teleport both voluntarily and involuntarily can really change the dynamic on a round to round basis. Its simplicity of play without negating options is a thing of beauty.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Allowing for the fact that there's going to be some level of abstraction in any set of rules that are actually of use, if the system doesn't consider or makes overly abstract considerations like range, facing, or speed then it's not a rich tactical experience. That doesn't mean it's a bad set of rules or that it isn't fun, but it's not a rich tactical experience. Phoenix Command is a rich tactical experience. Fun? Not for me.

As you see, that's only true if those are at least the primary components of what makes for a rich tactical experience. To me, they're only a component of it, as I indicated in the lower part of my post.

I've only seen the latest version of the Twilight 2000 rules put out by Free League. The rules are fantastic and there are certainly tactical choices to be made during combat. I suspect we're going to get hung up on the word "rich" as it applies to tactical experience. That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I don't consider TW: 2000 to be a rich tactical experience which is just fine by me. It doesn't make for a less fun game.

Yeah, I suspect we're using "rich" differently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You don't need a grid to have a rich tactical experience. You need options.

Well, "grid" isn't necessary, but I do at least think range and positioning being significant matters. That's distinct from it being a necessity.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't know if I've ever met someone who actually played Prime Directive. Someone needs to put you in a museum!

My Parents and grandparents were/are hoarders... I feel like I'm living in one already.

PD was/is a solid game - the core mechanic is a d6 dice pool, 6=5+1d6, recursive; except on initiative, read only the highest die. Compare it to a 3 number difficulty, default being 4/6/8. Beat the low? minor success/partial success, beat the mid, moderate success, beat the high, complete success. Many things a minor is "Didn't get it done but can continue to work" while moderate is usually good enough.
Dice pools are average of skill and linked attribute; if no skill, there's also a difficulty penalty.

The complexities:
Initiative: best die determines action level. Each die individually contributes to initiative number: minors 1, moderate 2, complete 3, crit 5, fail/botch 0.
Optional Additional difficulty levels: under half minimal is a botch. twice or more the complete is a crit.
Scatter Phasers... just about all aspects of them in play. Massive power use, area affect...
Character gen is overlapping templates (species, starfleet, division, specialty)- my play notes reduce this to race and specialty by doing the fixed element combinations)
Both wound and stun damage. And stun overflow to wounds. And penalties from both.
Not all skills use the default 4/6/8 difficulty - some are 2/4/6, a few are 6/8/10. Skills that should be harder to learn have higher base difficulties., and vice versa. A table of these is handy in play.