Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Something that I have been stewing on for a while is how I could make combat in roleplaying games run faster. We've all been there- make a few rolls, then go to the store and buy snacks while all the monsters and players take their turns. One idea I had, and am going to play with a bit, is taking a page from Infinities rulebook, and having the game run off of opposed rolls. This also opens several other doors to have other aspects of an RPG be more interesting. Why not do away with fixed DC's altogether? After all, player characters are meant to be exceptional, and spending ages trying to climb a tower can be extremely boring when you have to take a test every 10 feet. Instead, why not assume that the player succeeds automatically, as long as the DM feels that they are adequately prepared. Unless, of course, someone notices them on the tower and tries to knock them off. Trying to disarm a trap? You roll off against its attack (Using your "Disarm Trap" skill). If you succeed, you disable it. If you fail it smacks you for however much damage.


The Core Concept:
Any time that a PC or NPC (Hereafter referred to as "a/the character" performs and action, all other characters (Friendly or opposing) are able to perform a reaction. As a general rule, actions are more powerful than reactions (so, a character would be limited to attacking once as a reaction, but may be able to attack three times as an action, or, a character may be able to move 8 spaces as an action, but only 2 as a reaction). Characters whose reactions are opposed to the current action may need to make an opposed roll to the action, with the character who rolls higher succeeding in their action/reaction. Characters will typically be limited in how many other characters they will be able to actively oppose at once, and unoposed reactions automatically succeed. For example a character with 2 attacks is fighting 3 opponents- they may roll against up to two opponents but the thirds attack automatically hit. Deciding the appropriate skills to roll off is left to DM discretion with the exception that combat rolls should be met with combat rolls.

Character Creation: I also want too have a fairly open system of character creation. Characters will only roll for three stats to start with. These are Fitness (how strong and quick a character is), Toughness (how well they take a hit), and Intelligence (Which controls how many skill points a character gets). Characters use skill points to buy abilities (for example, +1 to hit, +1 Attack, or +1 stealth), with all abilities being separated into one of seven categories (Combat, Arcana, Stealth, Survival, Technical, Scholarly or Diplomacy). Characters choose two catagories to be good at, three to be average at, and two to be bad at. Abilities from the "Good" catagory cost 1/2 as much to buy, while abilities from the "Bad" categories cost 2x. Catagory preference will confer some other benefits, for example, how a character rates combat affects what weapons they start the game knowing how to use (Good= most weapons Bad= Pointy sticks and clubs). Players may not spend more than a quarter of their skill points in a single category per level.

Armour, Shields and HP: The fact that I'm having "hit or not" be determined by attack stats pretty much means that armour needs to serve as a form of reducing damage. So if you get hit somewhere, you reduce the damage by the amount dictated by the type of armour that you are wearing on that area. To help keep combat flowing, Health will be fairly low, with your HP Equaling your toughness (about 8). Hits will also be randomized between bodyparts, and characters suffer penalties depending on where they are injured. Because of the low HP, characters will not die immediately when their HP drop to 0. Instead, characters will only die when Coup de Grasse'd, abandoned in the wilderness, or suffer a massive (damage=HP) headwound (So wear a helmet kids!).

Shields will work in an interesting fashion. In addition to providing a substantial armour bonus to the arm which holds the shield, a character equipped with a shield will be able to make a shield check in response to an enemy combat action/reaction, although they are limited to one per action (so if two enemies react to attack them during their action, they can shield against one of them). This is in addition to any rolls made. To make a shield check, a player must roll a d20. if the result is less than 5+the characters combat bonus, then the check is successful. A successful check will cancel the highest attack roll by the character being defended against, before comparing results.


Example of Combat:

Blaze the Blade and Yodo Longbeard are adventurers. While hiking through the woods, they come upon a pair of Orcs, armed with long axes. Immediately, all four characters roll for initiative. Blaze rolls highest, followed by Orc #1, then Yodo then Orc #2. Blaze declares that his action shall be to charge into battle with both orcs. Both orcs decide that they shall hold their ground and fight Blaze, while Yodo decides to advance after his friend. Because no-ones reaction opposes Blazes charge, he moves into melee with the orcs. Likewise, Yodo's movement is also unopposed and succeeds automatically. Once Blaze is in melee with the orcs, they get to perform their melee attack reactions, opposed by his melee action. Blaze is armed with a sword and shield, and has two attacks. He chooses to allocate one attack to each orc, as well as defending against Orc#1 with his shield. His attack bonus is +3 while both orcs have a +2 bonus. Against Orc#2, Blaze rolls a 12 (for a total of 15) against the Orcs roll of 4 (for a total of 6). He wins and rolls for damage, but rolls poorly and his sword bounces off of the orcs helmet, causing no damage. Against Orc#1, he rolls an 11 against the orcs 15. The orc wins with a total of 17 to his 14, so he takes his shield test. He rolls a 7, succeeding and reducing the orcs roll to 0. Because he now has the highest roll, he now wins combat and rolls to damage the orc. He delivers a gash to the Orcs arm, which injures it enough to give it a -1 penalty on future attack and damage rolls. With His action, and all reactions, completed, the initiative now passes to Orc#1.

Orc#1 is understandably upset about being attacked, so decides to attack Blaze. This triggers a reaction from all other characters. Blaze elects to continue fighting the orc. Yodo is still too far away to fight so continues to walk forewards. Orc #2 is engaged in combat, so may not move as a reaction. As it may only attack the active character, it may not attack Blaze as a reaction. Because it has no desire to attack Orc #1, Orc#2 chooses to forego its reaction. This leaves the combat between Blaze and Orc#1. Since Orc#1 is now acting while Blaze is reacting, Orc #1 now has two attacks to Blaze's one. Orc #1 Rolls a 15 and a 7. Factoring in its injury, this makes for a 16 and an 8. Blaze rolls a 6, for a total of 9, and fails his shield check. Because Orc #1 has one roll which is higher than Blaze's, it lands one hit. Fortunately for our hero, the blow lands on his shield arm, and he escapes uninjured.

Yodo activates next, and is finally able to reach combat. Orc #1 reacts by attacking, while Blaze is in the same situation Orc#2 was in the previous action. Orc #2 would like to attack Yodo, but Orc #1 is between the two of them, and so Orc #2 can't target Yodo with an attack and is forced to wait. Yodo only has one attack but has a massive +6 bonus. Needless to say, Yodo rolls higher than Orc #1 and lands a hit with his pollaxe. Combined with the wound Blaze gave the orc, this is enough to incapacitate it.

Orc#2 decides to get revenge for it's friend, and attacks Yodo twice. Both Yodo and Blaze choose to react by attacking. Yodo rolls a 7, for a total of 14, to the orcs roll of 7 and 11 (totals of 9 and 13 respectively). Yodo lands a hard hit, but does not stop the Orc. Blaze, however, is not opposed by the orc and his attack automatically succeeds. He rolls for damage, and causes just enough damage to down the second orc. With the fight over, both friends slit the orcs throats, loot the bodies, and carry on their merry way.

I like the idea of armor providing just a damage reduction stat, but I think having to balance the number of actions/reactions and assigning them to different targets and such will lead to too much book-keeping during combat.

Also, it seems your "shield check" has the math going the opposite direction from everything else, where high rolls = good things. This was something that bugged a lot of people about 1E/2E D&D. Sometimes high numbers were good, sometimes they were bad. The d20 system (and all of its off-shoots) at least has all the math going in one direction (high roll = good, all the time).

 Psienesis wrote:
I like the idea of armor providing just a damage reduction stat, but I think having to balance the number of actions/reactions and assigning them to different targets and such will lead to too much book-keeping during combat.

Also, it seems your "shield check" has the math going the opposite direction from everything else, where high rolls = good things. This was something that bugged a lot of people about 1E/2E D&D. Sometimes high numbers were good, sometimes they were bad. The d20 system (and all of its off-shoots) at least has all the math going in one direction (high roll = good, all the time).

Yeah, I hear what you are saying about the shield check. I could make it a fixed DC- say, d20+combat bonus>15 is a success.

That or just give shields various bonuses to the test, and require the result of the shield check to beat the attacker's roll.

So if an Orc attacks Bob with a roll of 17, Bob has an attack bonus of +2, and a tavern door he calls a shield strapped to his left arm. This shield grants a +4 bonus on the shield check, so Bob rolls d20 + 2 (combat bonus) + 4 (shield bonus) and is looking to beat a 17.

You could even simplify such mods by basing it on the size of the shield. Target shields= +1, Medium shields= +2, Large shields= +3 and Tower shields= +4. Of course, magic effects, mastercrafted bonuses and so on could further enhance a shield.

That's an idea, however, it doesn't do one thing I want shields to do. That is, it isn't the equalizer that shields should be. By making the shield bearer have to beat its opponents roll, Shields no longer going to allow low-leveled characters to stand against high-level ones.

By making it simply be the characters skill, shields support underdog fights. Say a character is fighting an Ogre, who has one massive attack. This attack is terrifyingly high, so high that most characters will struggle to beat it. However, because a character with a shield does not actually need to beat the ogres roll, they are able to stand toe-to-toe with it. This should hopefully force characters to change their fighting style based on their opponents, as opposed to simply maxing out attack bonus and sticking with one weapon.

It also keeps run-of-the-mill NPC's and Monsters relevant. Your combat bonus can be +100, but as long as you don't have enough attacks too assign 2 to each NPC in the horde, even guys with a simple +2 bonus pose a threat, as they block the one attack against them and hit back unopposed.

Because their success is unrelated to their opponent, shields should enhance combat by aiding with underdog wins against certain types of opponent, and by also increasing the danger hordes of enemies pose to the PC's.

Here's the thing about martial arts (not just kung-fu, but any melee combat style): A skilled opponent is going to defeat an unskilled opponent 99.99999999999% of the time. A peasant who straps a shield to his arm and steps up to a trained knight is going to die so quickly he will not even know what happened until his entrails are falling out.

This, really, is why we invented guns. You don't need anywhere near the training to be acceptably-good with them, and they're a massive force-equalizer.

But to the topic of fantasy-medieval combat, a skilled swordsman, suitably equipped, against a mob of unskilled fighters is going to cut through them like cake, shields or no shields. When you're talking about a guy in steel plate fighting a bunch of guys armed with iron weapons, he's going to wade through them without suffering so much as a scratch, because those iron weapons are inferior to the strength and resilience of steel. We saw this exhibited throughout history when the weapons of one era met the armor of the next. Bronze is not match for Iron, Iron no match for Steel, etc.

So the unskilled guy with the shield can, at best, use the shield to hide behind and hope the skilled guy gets bored and moves on to another target... or hope that the skilled guy gets stabbed in the back by someone else.

This introduces another thing, though: weapons designed, specifically, to work around shields. That would be anything with a chain attached to it. Those footman's flails and morning stars and such are all designed to wrap the business-end of the weapon over the rim of the shield and onto the shield-bearer's head with crushing force.

Short of, to be honest, a skilled opponent has a good chance defeating an unskilled opponent but not an automatic success, chances of victory decrease dramatically if the opponent has cold steel and drop really low when the opponent numbers increase.

These are assuming combatants value their life and not go for a last stand were one can be victorious and dead a few minutes after the dual.

Melee fights are based more in intimidation and fight or flight reactions than the actual combat, training gives an intimidating factor and moral boost, but, something I rarely see factored in, it may also make the trained troops aware of the bad odds they are in and decrease their moral.

In your example a knight in full plate, full chain, the cloth armour under it is realistically invulnerable against an unarmed opponent and has a good chance against an unarmoured but armed opponent but sole against a mob? if the mod does not flee from intimidation he can relatively easy be swarmed brought down and immobilised.

We invented projectile weapons and the evolution of them firearms not because we want force equalisers, but because we want force multipliers, if something can be brought down without the risk of melee then fantastic and since one side gets this advantage the only way to bring it in the same terms is to increase your threat range to an equal level.

Also the whole bronze < iron thing is not supported by history. Iron replaced bronze for largely economic reasons when supply of tin dried up. Iron was known to bronze age cultures. Iron is fine for tools, but iron weapons have numerous problems, and without a way to consistently forge it into steel, the weapons of skilled bronze smiths would be far superior. Once you can forge steel however, things shift dramatically as even lower end steels can be formed into longer blades than bronze and hardened steel is significantly stronger. As steel quality improves, the differential gets larger, though bronze remains useful for other tasks (such as cannons).

As PsychoticStorm points out, numbers can compensate for lack of equipment or skill *if* you can bring those numbers to bear. Being outnumbered is extremely hazardous and any skilled fighter would attempt to avoid such a situation or bluff/intimidate his way out (remember, if he is wealthy enough for armor, there are probably consequences to accosting him). Several mean grappling a armored foe could easily slip a blade between plates, in an eyehole, in the groin, etc. Additionally, heavy armor makes it significantly more difficult to get up if knocked down. especially with bad footing. Polearms are also a great equalizer as they allow attacking from a safe distance and, en masse, become very difficult to close with and take relatively little skill (but become even *more* dangerous with training).

Crossbows should also be worrisome for even heavily armored warriors. While a longbow might be able to pierce at short range, a crossbow often will and requires very little training or physical ability (unlike the longbow).

 Psienesis wrote:
Here's the thing about martial arts (not just kung-fu, but any melee combat style): A skilled opponent is going to defeat an unskilled opponent 99.99999999999% of the time. A peasant who straps a shield to his arm and steps up to a trained knight is going to die so quickly he will not even know what happened until his entrails are falling out.

This, really, is why we invented guns. You don't need anywhere near the training to be acceptably-good with them, and they're a massive force-equalizer.

But to the topic of fantasy-medieval combat, a skilled swordsman, suitably equipped, against a mob of unskilled fighters is going to cut through them like cake, shields or no shields. When you're talking about a guy in steel plate fighting a bunch of guys armed with iron weapons, he's going to wade through them without suffering so much as a scratch, because those iron weapons are inferior to the strength and resilience of steel. We saw this exhibited throughout history when the weapons of one era met the armor of the next. Bronze is not match for Iron, Iron no match for Steel, etc.

So the unskilled guy with the shield can, at best, use the shield to hide behind and hope the skilled guy gets bored and moves on to another target... or hope that the skilled guy gets stabbed in the back by someone else.

This introduces another thing, though: weapons designed, specifically, to work around shields. That would be anything with a chain attached to it. Those footman's flails and morning stars and such are all designed to wrap the business-end of the weapon over the rim of the shield and onto the shield-bearer's head with crushing force.

Thing is, I am not talking about untrained peasant vs knight. I'm talking average footsoldier vs amazing fighter. I am also not counting armour. Looking at actual numbers, low-level fighters would have maybe a +3 bonus, tops. This gives them a 40% chance of blocking an attack, meaning that over half of them are going to die. However, the amazing fighter is maybe a little distracted by killing the first three, so the remaining two have a chance to put a sword in his kidneys. There is a reason that cops don't just go charging solo into a riot- sure, they could easily beat any one person in the riot, but are rather badly outnumbered.

Then, your point about armour. A fair point (yes, a plate harness should confer considerable advantage), but off-topic. I am not saying that a mob of guys with shields should be able to beat a fully armoured knight. I'm saying that shields should confer considerable advantage to a formation. Armour will also be an advantage. A suit of plate which reduces damage by 10 is going to go a long way against someone doing d8+3 damage, for example. So yes, the Knight vs Peasants scenario that you propose would strongly favor the knight. What is not favoured is the naked PC charging into a horde of Orcs.

 Psienesis wrote:
Here's the thing about martial arts (not just kung-fu, but any melee combat style): A skilled opponent is going to defeat an unskilled opponent 99.9 999 999 999 9% of the time.

Outside the movies and plot-armored Mary Sue fanfiction, this is an absolute crock of gak. You gave a number of 10 TRILLION to one, which is nonsense. A skilled opponent is not going to singlehandedly defeat an unlimited number of unskilled opponents. At some point, that skilled opponent is going to stumble or tire or just get unlucky. Or the unskilled opponent is going to get unlucky.

A "fight" between just 100 peasants with shields and polearms in an open field against a lone knight, and I guarantee the day will end with a dead knight. Very early on, he will be unhorsed. Once he's on the ground, those peasants will eventually knock him down. Once he's down, he's dead. They'll crack open his armor with their pole arms. Yes, I expect to lose at least half of my peasants. But I will absolutely have his nuts and his guts on a stick for all to see.

As for iron vs steel, my peasants are inherently very strong just from living the life of a peasant farmer. They will do just fine with iron-banded shields, iron-tipped pikes and iron pole-axes. Hell, I can give the really big fellows heavy iron-shod hardwood staves just to bash big dents and tear gaps in his armor. I don't care what he's armed with, but once he's on the ground, a guy with an 8' iron-shod staff hits with a ton of force, enough to bend or break any sword. Again, I'm losing half of my peasants, but that's acceptable when I'm killing a knight for my trouble.
____

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Thing is, I am not talking about untrained peasant vs knight. I'm talking average footsoldier vs amazing fighter.

For this, you really need to watch this fight between 50 (average) fencers against 3 (amazing) Olympic master fencers:




It goes 7 minutes, and they trade 40+ average guys for 2 of the masters. The masters tire and stumble, and the mooks get lucky.

Within a d20 context, natural 20 Crits and natural 1 Fumbles are very reasonable.

Average skilled guy vs much-better-guy, yes, will have a bit of an advantage with a shield on his arm, and I took that into account with my original formula (d20 + Skill Mod + Shield Mod), but we have to consider that Much-Better-Guy (MBG) is probably going to have been trained to fight guys carrying all sorts of shields... all of which, fundamentally, do the same thing and can be broadly classified into different size-categories (there can be further modifications based on the material of the shield... a wooden roundshield is better than some stretched hides on a frame, but a steel heater shield is going to be better than either of them). So having to beat a static number will, eventually, be so non-challenging for the shield-bearer that I can foresee it being a situation where you simply focus on defense until the attacker misses, and you use your now-free action to launch an offensive of your own... otherwise, you stand behind the shield the whole fight and just tank it.

That's why I tend to lean towards beating the attacker's roll. That way, you don't have PCs getting pissed off that the awesome attack they landed by rolling a 20 got absorbed by some planks nailed to a grip... unless you have an additional rule where a roll of 20 always succeeds or something, which wasn't previously mentioned.