Extending the reach of melee weapons by 5ft

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Extending the reach of melee weapons by 5ft

Post by OgreBattle »

So a thought crossed my mind on how D&D grid based combat feels static, but the fixes to make combat "more dynamic" tend to be fiddly with lots of little back and forth movement that doesn't feel worth the effort.

I figure one of the problems is your reach and the nature of turn based play, it treats the end of your movement as your dude firmly rooting himself to the ground and only hitting dudes without moving his feet.

So as a change, what if we extended the range of most melee weapons by a square/5ft?
A greatsword now has a threat range of 2 squares and can still hit adjacent, a spear has a reach of 3 but penalized for adjacent. Daggers and slams are still 1 square because of how short they are, maybe axes and maces are too if you also give it higher damage than the sword equivalent. This represents the characters shuffling around, lunging and backstepping as the battle goes on.

This also extends the reach of opportunity attacks so more of them are going off, making initial contact stickier.
Korwin
Duke
Posts: 2055
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:49 am
Location: Linz / Austria

Post by Korwin »

So you stand even more firmly, not moving around?
Red_Rob wrote: I mean, I'm pretty sure the Mayans had a prophecy about what would happen if Frank and PL ever agreed on something. PL will argue with Frank that the sky is blue or grass is green, so when they both separately piss on your idea that is definitely something to think about.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

Like, why not make it so you can take a full attack after a move and/or make it so you can break up your attack routine with your movement however you want (like move 10 feet, hit someone, move 10 feet, hit someone else, move 10 feet and use your last attack). You could move/attack/move or attack/move/attack or move/attack/move/attack. As long as you don't move more than your total movement, what's the problem?
-This space intentionally left blank
Blicero
Duke
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 12:07 am

Post by Blicero »

deaddmwalking wrote:Like, why not make it so you can take a full attack after a move and/or make it so you can break up your attack routine with your movement however you want (like move 10 feet, hit someone, move 10 feet, hit someone else, move 10 feet and use your last attack). You could move/attack/move or attack/move/attack or move/attack/move/attack. As long as you don't move more than your total movement, what's the problem?
In ACKS, you can take a 5-foot step after each kill during a cleave sequence. You fight a lot of mobs, so it's pretty fun.

Regarding the main topic, this doesn't seem like it would change all that much. It could be interesting to model weapon reach with more granularity, though, to further differentiate a greatsword and a shortsword. That could end up with people moving around more.
Last edited by Blicero on Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
Omegonthesane
Prince
Posts: 3680
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:55 pm

Post by Omegonthesane »

SIFRP has "advanced reach rules" in which most weapons have a fixed number of squares of reach, suffer a penalty to attack rolls if used 1 square away from their exact reach, and cannot be used against targets not within 1 square of their exact reach.

While the exact maths suffers a bit from being roll & keep, it certainly made us think more about positioning.
Kaelik wrote:Because powerful men get away with terrible shit, and even the public domain ones get ignored, and then, when the floodgates open, it turns out there was a goddam flood behind it.

Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath, Justin Bieber, shitmuffin
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

People stand in one place because there is incentive to not move (full attacks) and there is little incentive to be in one place or another. Having larger threatened areas, and thus having more locations on the battlemat be functionally equivalent, would do nothing for the first and make the second worse.

We have games where people can pretty much attack wherever they want. And the result is that people pretty much don't care about movement at all. Most games of Shadowrun are done without having a battlemat at all, because tactical movement is essentially meaningless and no one cares.

If you want people to move around all the time, you need to give them some incentive for moving around all the time. Like having them leave little light cycle trails of threatened area behind when they move or whatever. Taking away the disincentives for movement would also help. Dropping the full attack penalty on melee attacks would be a good start.

-Username17
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Re: Extending the reach of melee weapons by 5ft

Post by Josh_Kablack »

OgreBattle wrote: So as a change, what if we extended the range of most melee weapons by a square/5ft?
That might be an interesting hotfix for trying to making 3e melee against level-equivalent "bruiser" monsters slightly less suicidal, but it wouldn't do a blessed thing to make meleers want to move around more.

A melee specced-pc is still giving up additional attacks and provoking AoOs with any significant movement. In fact with weapons having larger reach, movement becomes more likely to provoke AoOs as weapon-using monsters now threaten more squares
deaddmwalking wrote: Like, why not make it so you can take a full attack after a move and/or make it so you can break up your attack routine with your movement however you want (like move 10 feet, hit someone, move 10 feet, hit someone else, move 10 feet and use your last attack). You could move/attack/move or attack/move/attack or move/attack/move/attack. As long as you don't move more than your total movement, what's the problem?
The "problems" with this are

1. Some players feel that they should get something for not using all of their movement. A choice between full move and no attack, partial move and partial attack or full attack and no move makes intuitive sense and looks like it's offering interesting tactical choices. You alternate approach of full move + full attack doesn't seem as balanced or interesting to the initial sniff test. Now over a decade of playing 3e games has shown that such an initial assessment is incorrect and that forcing PCs to make those trades mean that they try and avoid those trades whenever and however possible -- from static positioning and full attacks to cheesing pounce builds that hand out full move + full attack routines -- so this is really just a problem of perceptions.


2. A bit more consequential is that allowing character to split up their move and attack routines and intersperse them however is that the at-the-table accounting can slow the actual game play and even become cumbersome. If you options are A> Move then Attack or B> Attack then Move it's really easy to keep track of where you are in resolving your turn. If you can move 10" attack once, move another 5' attack 2 more times, then move 15 at the end you need to maintain counters for both total movement and number of attacks and doing so becomes more complex than tracking things in head when you have to account for potential AoOs, traps, and damage-shield effects interrupting a given character's turn at various points. This issue is not insurmountable but you have to decide if making the in-play accounting more difficult is worth the gains in combat mobility.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Almaz
Knight
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:55 pm

Post by Almaz »

If you really want to make moving in combat interesting, why not just make it your attack action? https://www.atlus.com/rondoofswords/route.html
User avatar
phlapjackage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

Post by phlapjackage »

How about no attacks of opportunity / threatened squares if your character moves? More interesting tactical choice there, maybe? And it seems to fit thematically, either a character stands "rooted" and attacks anything that comes near, or the character moves around striking at specific targets.
Koumei: and if I wanted that, I'd take some mescaline and run into the park after watching a documentary about wasps.
PhoneLobster: DM : Mr Monkey doesn't like it. Eldritch : Mr Monkey can do what he is god damn told.
MGuy: The point is to normalize 'my' point of view. How the fuck do you think civil rights occurred? You think things got this way because people sat down and fucking waited for public opinion to change?
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

phlapjackage wrote:How about no attacks of opportunity / threatened squares if your character moves? More interesting tactical choice there, maybe? And it seems to fit thematically, either a character stands "rooted" and attacks anything that comes near, or the character moves around striking at specific targets.
How about melee character already have no incentive to move, ever and this just makes that worse.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Anything which increases what you can do without moving or decreases what you can when you do move incentivizes not-moving. Because that is fucking obviously how incentives work.

-Username17
User avatar
phlapjackage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

Post by phlapjackage »

deaddmwalking wrote:
phlapjackage wrote:How about no attacks of opportunity / threatened squares if your character moves? More interesting tactical choice there, maybe? And it seems to fit thematically, either a character stands "rooted" and attacks anything that comes near, or the character moves around striking at specific targets.
How about melee character already have no incentive to move, ever and this just makes that worse.
Sorry, meant to include removing the no-move/full-attack requirement as well.
Koumei: and if I wanted that, I'd take some mescaline and run into the park after watching a documentary about wasps.
PhoneLobster: DM : Mr Monkey doesn't like it. Eldritch : Mr Monkey can do what he is god damn told.
MGuy: The point is to normalize 'my' point of view. How the fuck do you think civil rights occurred? You think things got this way because people sat down and fucking waited for public opinion to change?
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

The "closest" solution that I ever thought of for the "problem" of weapon reaches not really feeling authentic would be to have weapons have even more limited, or seperate reach entries, for different reach bands; and use quadriculated paper where 1" = 1', and the 5' square becomes a 4' square to represent more granular weapon reach. A greatsword shouldn't have the same reach as a dagger, for example.

A small weapon like a dagger would be good b/c you could use it in a grapple or when within 1' of a enemy. While a halberd was good b/c it had a reach of 3-5' with it's axe/hook, 5-6' with its point, and 1-3' with its haft-butt; but it doesn't have a reach of "0", so it's no good if you're grappled. So a person with a reach weapon can kill at a distance, but has a worse option (basically a club) if they're close in. While a dagger is murderous if you're close in, but worthless at a distance (unless thrown).

Essentially, making combat horribly overdetailed. I never went through with it b/c it seemed like a lead balloon.

...maybe it might be what's necessary to create the "detailed combat mechanics" Frank said a fantasy heartbreaker mod of After Sundown would require. I think that he probably meant combat options, not overly detailed weapon reach rules.

The problem of turn-based games not feeling "fluid" enough is a different kettle of fish. If you want to have 'give-and-take', and creatures are making Initiative checks to see if their unspent actions from their turn can be spent in response to enemy actions.... you get the 4e situation wherein turns that basically never end due to constant interruptions. If you calculate Initiative every round, combat will always take longer because obviously calculating initiative every round will make combat slower, not faster.

That said, stuff like Attacks of Opportunity in 3e D&D, and the "Free Attacks" from creatures attempting to flee in After Sundown; are the closest to getting 'dynamic' combat. Even then, it's obvious from the fact that AoOs & "free attacks" are relatively uncommon in actual gameplay, means that the more fluid you make combat; the more players will try to mitigate fluidity being leveraged against them.
FrankTrollman wrote: If you want people to move around all the time, you need to give them some incentive for moving around all the time. Like having them leave little light cycle trails of threatened area behind when they move or whatever. Taking away the disincentives for movement would also help. Dropping the full attack penalty on melee attacks would be a good start.

-Username17
What if attacking without moving imposes a (-1? -3?) penalty (i.e. encouraging at least 5' steps even at low levels), xor you can distribute up to your full attacks per round. Perhaps with caveats such as so long as a creature doesn't move more than their Movement Speed per round, and they move at least 5' between each Iterative (but not Two Weapon Fighting) attack.

An other option: allow creatures to perform non standard actions instead of an Iterative attack, allowing them to combine combat actions; like a bullrush attack; an overrunning trip; a feinting disarm; or a grapple submission coup-de-grace (i.e. [Tome] CdG, a critical hit).

It's a well known fact that Iterative attacks weren't thought out past level 6, so allowing more options for them to be spent on might make people do more than just spam "attack with weapon."

Which, I believe is the objective of this thread; make combat have more variety of options that will actually be implemented.
Last edited by Judging__Eagle on Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Almaz wrote:If you really want to make moving in combat interesting, why not just make it your attack action? https://www.atlus.com/rondoofswords/route.html
Wow suprized I overlooked that game! Will check it out.

The problem of turn-based games not feeling "fluid" enough is a different kettle of fish. If you want to have 'give-and-take', and creatures are making Initiative checks to see if their unspent actions from their turn can be spent in response to enemy actions.... you get the 4e situation wherein turns that basically never end due to constant interruptions. If you calculate Initiative every round, combat will always take longer because obviously calculating initiative every round will make combat slower, not faster.
I think that can work if you balance things to end in a few turns, but it's tough to make that work when everyone is rolling up their own characters with different gear and it's not a skirmish game with strict points.

Skirmish games like Mordheim feel good to me with how much you can do in one turn vs how many turns finish an encounter.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

Judging__Eagle wrote: The problem of turn-based games not feeling "fluid" enough is a different kettle of fish. If you want to have 'give-and-take', and creatures are making Initiative checks to see if their unspent actions from their turn can be spent in response to enemy actions.... you get the 4e situation wherein turns that basically never end due to constant interruptions. If you calculate Initiative every round, combat will always take longer because obviously calculating initiative every round will make combat slower, not faster.
I want to quibble here. While you're correct that rolling the dice and announcing initiative counts every round requires an extra step the amount of time it costs can be saved by having people engaging outside of their turn. If you know that everyone is going to take a turn before you get another chance, you have an 'opportunity' to get distracted and might start reading or getting snacks. If you're rolling every round, outside of the person who goes first, you don't know whether everyone will have an action before you take another. You could go last in Round 1 and first in Round 2.

If humans actually focused on the task at hand it would always be true that adding a step slows things down. Anecdotally, that has not been my experience.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

I would probably want to do something like:
  • You can only make one attack per target per round.
  • Damage scales in such a way that one attack is just fine.
  • Extra attacks you might get for BAB (or whatever) are made at the full bonus, but must be made at different targets.
  • You can make full attacks after moving.
  • Probably just get rid of AoOs (at least for moving), just for simplicity.
That would remove the two incentives of not moving for losing full attacks and drawing AoOs. Other than that, granting different maneuvers based on movement could provide incentives. Whether these are available to everyone, or granted as class features/feats is up in the air.
  • Tumble - you get a better AC when you move that round.
  • Juggernaut - free trip attempts on a charge.
  • Spring Attack - move-attack-move to get out behind cover, attack, and get back to cover.
Perhaps giving people reactive movements, like being able to move out of a certain-sized AoE, but end up prone to prevent/reduce damage could be good.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

I'd like to see a combat system that feels diverse, instead of having a master tactic that every combatant uses. In AD&D everybody moved and full attacked, and the system incentivized dual wielding as the best tactic. In 3.X, people try to stay put and full attack, upgrading this to pounce when possible, and the system incentivizes two handed weapons.

If moving more than 5' on your round gave a dodge bonus to AC, while staying put (moving at most 5') gave a shield or block bonus to AC if you carry a shield or is wearing heavy armor, you'd have the tanky characters wanting to stay in place while the agile fighters would have incentives to dash around.

And in a tangent, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced a game like D&D needs some kind of "parry" mechanic to be given to classes whose role is combat is "to be in the team monster's face". It's fluffed as parry, but the implementation could simply be "if the character does X, they gain temporary HP for that round" (for some X they can keep doing all day long, which can be as simple as "make an attack roll"). The problem where fighters and the like are expected to go toe-to-toe against fire giants and the like is diminished if the the PC can ignore some of the damage they will receive every round.

Actually, since the discussion so far took this thread in a "throw your ideas to the wall and see what sticks" regarding D&D combat, I'll add another recent thought here: Changing how an attack is resolved, depending if you're attacking with brute force (adding your Strength to the attack roll) or finesse (adding your Dexterity)

D&D's current attack roll will be used for finesse attacks. Somebody wearing full plate simply deflects more rapier or dagger attacks, but the ones that connect, hurt for full damage (the assumption is that they hit an unarmored point).

Brute attacks are resolved like touch attacks: Armor and natural armor bonuses are ignored when you're trying to hit, but they become DR that the attacker will have to punch through to damage the target.
Last edited by nockermensch on Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

A parry mechanic was implemented in 3e by means of the "Fighting Defensively" and "Total Defence" actions; with Combat Expertise being a more powerful version of these. Race of War then made Combat Expertise available to all PCs; as well as doing the same for Power Attack.

The problem isn't that it's not there, it's that players & Mister Caverns don't make their last attack a defensive one.

If you mean some sort of opposed interrupting "Parry Mechanic", that's going backwards into 3.X Grapple mechanics territory of design. Wherein everyone involved in an action has to roll dice every round one faction of the creatures involved has their turn on the Initiative Order.
Last edited by Judging__Eagle on Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

Judging__Eagle wrote:A parry mechanic was implemented in 3e by means of the "Fighting Defensively" and "Total Defence" actions; with Combat Expertise being a more powerful version of these. Race of War then made Combat Expertise available to all PCs; as well as doing the same for Power Attack.

The problem isn't that it's not there, it's that players & Mister Caverns don't make their last attack a defensive one.

If you mean some sort of opposed interrupting "Parry Mechanic", that's going backwards into 3.X Grapple mechanics territory of design. Wherein everyone involved in an action has to roll dice every round one faction of the creatures involved has their turn on the Initiative Order.
I don't want an opposed parry mechanic. The last things the game needs right now is more opposed rolls and more actions people can decide to take outside of their turns.

I want frontline classes to generate some temporary hit points every round, kind of like the Stone Power feat, but with less hassles.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
User avatar
Stahlseele
King
Posts: 5974
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by Stahlseele »

Would something like the Shadowrun idea of "roll skill, enemy roll skill, who has more hits? you do your damage" be helpfull for what you want?
Welcome, to IronHell.
Shrapnel wrote:
TFwiki wrote:Soon is the name of the region in the time-domain (familiar to all marketing departments, and to the moderators and staff of Fun Publications) which sees release of all BotCon news, club exclusives, and other fan desirables. Soon is when then will become now.

Peculiar properties of spacetime ensure that the perception of the magnitude of Soon is fluid and dependent, not on an individual's time-reference, but on spatial and cultural location. A marketer generally perceives Soon as a finite, known, yet unspeakable time-interval; to a fan, the interval appears greater, and may in fact approach the infinite, becoming Never. Once the interval has passed, however, a certain time-lensing effect seems to occur, and the time-interval becomes vanishingly small. We therefore see the strange result that the same fragment of spacetime may be observed, in quick succession, as Soon, Never, and All Too Quickly.
User avatar
Hicks
Duke
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:36 pm
Location: On the road

Post by Hicks »

If player engagement is really the end goal, you could just push all rolling on PCs and all NPC antagonists would have static DCs. Like a player would roll their Armor Class Save if they were attacked just like thy would roll a reflex save for fireball, and if the players were to cast fireball on an emery the player rolls 1d20 + Spell Level + ability modifier + bonus against the enemy's static Reflex DC. But that system of acting backfires pretty spectacularly in PbP as it slows the game down to a crawl.
Image
"Besides, my strong, cult like faith in the colon of the cards allows me to pull whatever I need out of my posterior!"
-Kid Radd
shadzar wrote:those training harder get more, and training less, don't get the more.
Lokathor wrote:Anything worth sniffing can't be sniffed
Stuff I've Made
Zaranthan
Knight-Baron
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 3:08 pm

Post by Zaranthan »

Hicks wrote:But that system of acting backfires pretty spectacularly in PbP as it slows the game down to a crawl.
Works pretty well the other way around, though. Players declare their actions, GM rolls all the dice and posts the results.
Koumei wrote:...is the dead guy posthumously at fault for his own death and, due to the felony murder law, his own murderer?
hyzmarca wrote:A palace made out of poop is much more impressive than one made out of gold. Stinkier, but more impressive. One is an ostentatious display of wealth. The other is a miraculous engineering feat.
atanycost
NPC
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:53 pm

Post by atanycost »

My understanding is that the value of having attacks of opportunity is that it allows people to prevent enemies from just running by the paladin and or instantly all surrounding him/her
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

atanycost wrote:My understanding is that the value of having attacks of opportunity is that it allows people to prevent enemies from just running by the paladin and or instantly all surrounding him/her
Except not really. First off, most characters only get one attack of opportunity, so if you have more than a single opponent, you can trigger the AoO and then everyone else is free to move with impunity. Further, a lot of creatures aren't particularly worried about the potential damage (which is usually low if you can't activate certain abilities) and may be negated (by high AC, defensive effects like blink, etc). And if you are hit and take damage but aren't killed, you can continue moving without provoking another attack.

In our heartbreaker you have to make a save after taking an AoO to continue moving. That helps a bit.
hyzmarca
Prince
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by hyzmarca »

nockermensch wrote:I'd like to see a combat system that feels diverse, instead of having a master tactic that every combatant uses.
There are two ways to do that. RPS and synergies.

Synergies are the half-assed solution. With synergies you have stand still and attack builds and move and attack builds, both are equally viable. But each build will still have only one tactic it uses, and you're relying on your players to create a diverse group of builds.

RPS is whole-assed. You have an odd number of tactics. Each tactic has an advantage against half the others, a disadvantage against half the others, and ties with itself. This means that characters are going to change their tactics depending on what they believe the enemy is going to do. In a proper RPS setup, a single-tactic build is non-viable. Against a scissors-character, the other guys will just use rock every single time and get an easy win. Players have to mix it up.
Last edited by hyzmarca on Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply