Is automatically hitting nonsensical?

[GnomeWorks]

So, in working on my game, I ran into what may be a problem. It doesn't seem to be a mechanical problem, more of a conceptual one, but I'm interested in thoughts on it anyway.

All features of a character are expressed in dice; average human has a d6 Strength, for example. Attack rolls are [stat] + [skill]. Static modifiers exist, but are supposed to be relatively uncommon and difficult to get in large numbers.

Armor provides a static, relatively low number for an AC-equivalent. For instance, standard plate provides a 6. If you roll under your target's armor value, you hit their armor instead (dealing damage to the armor). Clothes have an AC of 1. There is no number added to this; your armor gives you your AC, and that's it.

When attacked, a character has the option to parry (if wielding a weapon), block (if wielding a shield), or dodge (no caveat, but takes more time).

Ranged attacks give penalties for range increments, so we can safely say that a 0 or lower is an actual, literal miss (doesn't even hit armor, if any).

What falls out of this is that it is impossible for someone to miss an attack if the target takes no defensive actions. If you are completely untrained and walk up to someone who isn't expecting it, you can punch them in the head and have a 0% chance to miss that attack, because you will always have at least a d2 in a stat, which means you have to roll at least a 1 - so you always hit.

Is this conceptually problematic? I'm going for a more simulation-y vibe, so I'm more concerned about whether or not this makes sense from the standpoint of versimilitude than I am from a mechanical standpoint (mechanics-wise, it seems to work out alright so far in playtests, to the point where we hadn't noticed this was a problem). Does it make sense that anyone can automatically punch a creature or object that isn't actively avoiding the attack?

[Josh_Kablack]

In the real world, Sucker-punching a fool who isn't ready is a highly effective tactic. It's probably not 100% effective, but close enough that I wouldn't worry if the rest of the system shakes out. As an added benefit, if anyone objects that your rule isn't realistic you can win the argument by randomly punching them in the face in the middle of the game session .

[Ice9]

I don't think it's a conceptual problem - the same result happens in many systems, once you get to a moderate level of skill. To be accurate, you could say that it doesn't literally represent a 100% chance, it's just that the chance of failure is much smaller than the granularity of your RNG.

There's one issue I could see, but it may not be a problem. If:
A) Dodging/parrying take an action.
B) You want to support the unarmored warrior concept.

Then you'd want to have some kind of auto-dodge ability available to get. But if they can already auto-parry, and/or unarmored is not supposed to be a serious fighting style, then you're good.

[GnomeWorks]

To be accurate, you could say that it doesn't literally represent a 100% chance, it's just that the chance of failure is much smaller than the granularity of your RNG.

That's pretty much the approach I've taken. It seems like there is a chance of randomly missing your stationary target when you try to punch it, but... it seems minimal, and our RNG is pretty small.

There's one issue I could see, but it may not be a problem. If:
A) Dodging/parrying take an action.
B) You want to support the unarmored warrior concept.

Then you'd want to have some kind of auto-dodge ability available to get. But if they can already auto-parry, and/or unarmored is not supposed to be a serious fighting style, then you're good.

Any kind of active defense - dodge, parry, block - takes an action. Basically what happens is that anyone can do those things an indefinite number of times (at the moment, theoretically infinite), but each time you do, it puts off your next actual action by some amount of time. So a guy could just sit there and dodge a dozen attacks, but his next opportunity to take an actual action will be incredibly far in the future.

We want to support the unarmored warrior concept. Having an ability available that makes auto-dodging a thing, or that gives you a base armor value higher than 0, is definitely a possibility. I'm more looking at basic plebes at the moment, rather than someone trained.

[Laertes]

I'm a big fan of autohits and static damage values (generally not at the same time, though) because they speed play up. Anything that makes combat move faster without sacrificing excitement is a good thing.

It's also a good rule because it means that the coup de grace is emergent, rather than having to be a special case. If you attack a helpless dude, you hit that dude and that's all there is to it.

All in all, kudos.

Your dodging thing sounds problematic, though, because you can dodge an infinite number of attacks simply by accepting that you will never have another turn during this combat. Perhaps you should put a limit on how many future actions can be spent in this way?

[GnomeWorks]

Your dodging thing sounds problematic, though, because you can dodge an infinite number of attacks simply by accepting that you will never have another turn during this combat. Perhaps you should put a limit on how many future actions can be spent in this way?

It's a known problem, and we're working on finding a solution. I'm not particularly happy with a lot of the ideas we've had on it, to date, but I'm sure we'll find something. It's too much of a loophole to just let go.

[violence in the media]

Your dodging thing sounds problematic, though, because you can dodge an infinite number of attacks simply by accepting that you will never have another turn during this combat. Perhaps you should put a limit on how many future actions can be spent in this way?

It's a known problem, and we're working on finding a solution. I'm not particularly happy with a lot of the ideas we've had on it, to date, but I'm sure we'll find something. It's too much of a loophole to just let go.

Wouldn't the number of attacks coming your way be an innate limit to how many attacks you can attempt to dodge? I'm not seeing where your problem is, assuming you are actually burning actions of the immediate future to dodge right now.

Are you trying to prevent players from screwing themselves into irrelevance/defeat because they spent too much time dodging or blocking?

[GnomeWorks]

Wouldn't the number of attacks coming your way be an innate limit to how many attacks you can attempt to dodge?

Yes, but that's an external limit, not an internal one.

The problem is that a character can take a theoretically arbitrarily large number of reactions off-turn, with no limit on how many they can do. Yes, it takes time and makes their next turn come later, but that doesn't change the fact that they can just do a bunch of stuff right now with no real repercussions.

It does awkward things to the design space. Like, right now, I wouldn't write an ability that gives a character the ability to make an attack as a reaction: there would be no reason to not ever just use that, as it circumvents how turn order progresses right now, and would potentially be just better. If we figure out how to limit reactions in a way that is sensible and consistent with the rest of the rules, it will open up reactions that aren't just defensive in nature.

I'm not seeing where your problem is, assuming you are actually burning actions of the immediate future to dodge right now.

You're not burning actions of the future so much as making that future farther into the future. While not numerically identical, it is probably functionally similar.

Are you trying to prevent players from screwing themselves into irrelevance/defeat because they spent too much time dodging or blocking?

What usually happens is that a PC will actively defend against an attack or two, then start seriously weighing the ability to defend against more vs. being able to go again soon. Our playtests to date have been done at low "level," though, so not sure if that's a thing that continues to happen.

Players screwing themselves into irrelevance because they dodge all the time is a thing that can happen that I'm not overly worried about. It becomes rapidly apparent to players that this is happening long before it becomes a problem, so they figure out how to deal with it pretty quick.

[Laertes]

Players screwing themselves into irrelevance because they dodge all the time is a thing that can happen that I'm not overly worried about. It becomes rapidly apparent to players that this is happening long before it becomes a problem, so they figure out how to deal with it pretty quick.

Thinking about it, that's actually a fairly good model for suppressive fire.

[momothefiddler]

Now, if a defensive action is the only way to avoid getting hit, and taking a defensive action postpones your chance at a counterattack, doesn't that mean that whoever wins initiative must necessarily get in a hit before taking any retaliation, just by continuing to swing? That is, the only way to avoid a hit is to give the enemy the chance to make another attempt, so you take damage for fighting back?

[Ice9]

That's true - with one dodge per attack, then anyone with an attack that's equally fast as a dodge can just keep spamming it until their opponent takes the hit.

If no attack is as fast as a dodge, then it wouldn't be a problem with one on one, but it could still be a problem for someone who's outnumbered. If you're going for "numbers win" that's fine, but if you want "one badass vs whole gang", not so much.

Possible solution - dodge applies on all attacks until your next turn. So a duel with two people would look something like:
1) A attacks, B dodges.
2) A gets to attack again, B still dodging.
3) B gets to act, the above now occurs in reverse.
Which seems reasonable.

[GnomeWorks]

Now, if a defensive action is the only way to avoid getting hit, and taking a defensive action postpones your chance at a counterattack, doesn't that mean that whoever wins initiative must necessarily get in a hit before taking any retaliation, just by continuing to swing?

Not necessarily.

There are - at present - five ways to work on getting better at defending yourself.

• Armor: You can focus on improving your passive defense skill, as well as investing in better armor. If you go this route, you won't take defensive actions, but you'll rely on your armor value, which starts small and doesn't go up as fast as active defenses. Also, decent armor will slow you down by a significant margin.
• Parrying: You can focus on parrying. Getting awesome at parrying lets you actively defend against attacks from any direction, but is terrible at dealing with missile weapons. However, parried attacks deal their damage to your weapon, so this can backfire.
• Blocking: You can focus on blocking. Blocking doesn't give you all-round active defense (the hex on your non-shield side, at the very least), but you can block missile weapons. Shields take damage they block, but shields are typically a lot sturdier than weapons.
• Dodging: You can focus on dodging. You can dodge any attack you're aware of, but dodging missile weapons requires you to be pretty good. You can also dodge out of AoEs, so that can be rather useful. However, of the active defense options, dodging is the slowest and eats up the most time.
• Hit Points: You can just focus on hit points, and try to be as resilient as possible. Improving this one is the hardest of the lot, slowest to progress, and almost assuredly won't let you last as long as any of the other ways. But it is a valid method, and getting to the point where you can soak wounds that would kill most other people is something you can aspire to. This is kind of similar to focusing on armor, but trading longevity for speed.

To put some numbers to things, the base for a standard attack is 12 ticks; parrying and blocking are 2, while dodging is 4. So if you go on 6 and make an attack, you will go again on 18; if you dodge in 8, you'll instead go in 22 (assuming your math is such that you are right on the baseline, which is probably not going to happen, but is sufficient for this example).

In order for someone to be fast enough that someone would have to take at least one attack to the face so they can get a swing in edge-wise, the attacker would have to be ridiculously fast. This is typically not going to happen for beings that use weapons; monsters, on the other hand, may very well do so. That's intentional, as I wanted to make the idea of fighting monsters and such a lot scarier than in D&D.

That's true - with one dodge per attack, then anyone with an attack that's equally fast as a dodge can just keep spamming it until their opponent takes the hit.

Yep, but unlikely to happen. And if it does, it's probably because someone focused quite a bit on being that fast, so I don't see it as a problem.

If you're going for "numbers win" that's fine, but if you want "one badass vs whole gang", not so much.

I want starting characters to be in trouble if they get outnumbered. Right now in playtesting, 1:1 seems to work out pretty well, even if most of the PCs aren't combat-centric characters. We've only done "1st-level" characters, though, and maybe a bit above that, so no idea if a serious combat-focused character can handle multiple opponents.

Possible solution - dodge applies on all attacks until your next turn.

Eh... don't know if I like that. We try to aim for a high level of correspondence between actions taken and dice rolls: if you dodge one attack, the roll there is meant to represent that one dodge attempt, not that you're dodging the entire time until your next turn.

[TarkisFlux]

I'll join the chorus here - no, auto hitting someone who is standing there is not conceptually problematic in most circumstances. Any edge cases that I can construct where it might be (like trying to hit a guy while standing on jello or in an oil slick or in zero gravity or whatever) seem like issues with balance or movement that should be offloaded onto other aspects of the system anyway.

As for the unlimited dodge thing... it's hard to say without sufficient initiative details. It sounds like you have some sort of initiative count that gets delayed when you do off turn stuff like blocking or dodging, but I don't know. Assuming that's the case you could just declare some maximum allowable delay. Or you could add in a die penalty when you exceed a initiative delay threshold, and repeat the penalty after additional thresholds of the same or different size. Either way there are a finite number of attacks you can dodge before you reach a point where you can't dodge as well or at all. These penalties could regenerate as time passes (more dodging, but possible steady stat infinite mostly dodge) or not at all until your turn, depending on what you're going for.

Both solutions encourage dog piles of course, though given your stated simulation goal that might be fine. You can fine tune the delay values or penalty caps based on how many attacks you want them to dodge before the penalties occur, and probably should to determine how big a dog pile is too big to deal with effectively. Blocking and parrying taking less time than dodging (per your original post) already sound like they'd allow more defensive actions before hitting the cap, for example, making them better against piles.

[Nihnoz]

Your dodging thing sounds problematic, though, because you can dodge an infinite number of attacks simply by accepting that you will never have another turn during this combat. Perhaps you should put a limit on how many future actions can be spent in this way?

It's a known problem, and we're working on finding a solution. I'm not particularly happy with a lot of the ideas we've had on it, to date, but I'm sure we'll find something. It's too much of a loophole to just let go.

What's wrong with making it cost a resource, like endurance or whatever, dodging that much is tiring work.

[GnomeWorks]

What's wrong with making it cost a resource, like endurance or whatever, dodging that much is tiring work.

We've tossed that idea around, but the question is when to start making it cost that resource, and how to cost it, and such.

[OgreBattle]

Ninjas & Superspies (RIFTS) had two main categories of active defense

one was where you took a single action to get a high chance of canceling out one attack, like parrying a punch from a worthy rival.

the other was where you took a single action to get a low chance to defend against all attacks coming at you, like a 'circle parry' where you spin your arms and deflect all the ninja mooks away, but a grandmaster's strike could still hit you.

The intention of this mechanic was to let higher level characters with lots of actions not have all their actions eaten up by parrying goons so they could spend their actions punching goons, but a fight against someone strong/stronger than you would require more actions spent protecting yourself.

[GnomeWorks]

the other was where you took a single action to get a low chance to defend against all attacks coming at you, like a 'circle parry' where you spin your arms and deflect all the ninja mooks away, but a grandmaster's strike could still hit you.

I can definitely see including something along these lines.

It wouldn't be something easily gained early on, of course, but I don't see a problem with this concept for a more powerful character.

[Username17]

Honestly, this system sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare and it doesn't sound like it's going to be all that realistic. There are a lot of parries in fencing, but very few people manage to break each others' swords. You do know that you parry an ax swing by deflecting it rather than by putting your own weapon in the path of the blade and awaiting the big crunch, right? More generally, people who are wearing armor don't "not parry" and it is deeply anti-immersive if your game system suggests that this should happen.

If your game includes fantasy elements at all, you're basically certain to have more verisimilitude problems trying to track individual parries than you are with abstract defense. Because the way people might defend themselves against a swarm of bees or a blast of fire or a giant's hammer are conceptually quite different from the way people might defend themselves against a sword thrust or a crossbow bolt - but game mechanically those kinds of attacks aren't going to be all that special and you can't afford the word count to provide different defense options for each one.

It's not unrealistic for a sucker punch to necessarily hit a dude. But the system you are designing sounds like a god damn train wreck from the way you've described it so far.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

If your game includes fantasy elements at all, you're basically certain to have more verisimilitude problems trying to track individual parries than you are with abstract defense. Because the way people might defend themselves against a swarm of bees or a blast of fire or a giant's hammer are conceptually quite different from the way people might defend themselves against a sword thrust or a crossbow bolt - but game mechanically those kinds of attacks aren't going to be all that special and you can't afford the word count to provide different defense options for each one.

This.

I would encourage you to look up Tom of Steel's thread and look at my criticisms there. If your game is going to have Big old Giants, and Bee Swarms, and Fire Breathing Dragons, and Giant Mushroom men, and such, you are going to very very quickly discover that all your fiddly realistic fighting mechanics break down into either useless or tremendously bullshit fun ruining.

[GnomeWorks]

Honestly, this system sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare and it doesn't sound like it's going to be all that realistic.

I don't feel very well equipped at the moment to argue either of these points. Other than to say that realism is not necessarily a goal; grounded in what seems reasonable, sure, but going beyond that is not problematic and is expected. So long as it's internally-consistent and makes at least a degree of sense.

There are a lot of parries in fencing, but very few people manage to break each others' swords.

Most real-world examples also probably don't involve ogres, or guys who can jump 30 feet, or guys who stab dragons to death with swords.

You do know that you parry an ax swing by deflecting it rather than by putting your own weapon in the path of the blade and awaiting the big crunch, right?

Honestly? Not really. I like the "traditional" imagery of doing it in the apparently-not-realistic way.

You make a valid point, though, and that is probably way more sensible than the way I'd been envisioning parrying working. It bears considering changing the way blocking and parrying work, at any rate.

More generally, people who are wearing armor don't "not parry" and it is deeply anti-immersive if your game system suggests that this should happen.

Nope, wasn't suggesting that at all, and was just pointing out the different ways in which an individual can defend themselves in the system as it stands. It is as reasonable to work with multiple ways of defense as it is just one. They all operate a bit differently, though, because choices are good.

Because the way people might defend themselves against a swarm of bees or a blast of fire or a giant's hammer are conceptually quite different from the way people might defend themselves against a sword thrust or a crossbow bolt - but game mechanically those kinds of attacks aren't going to be all that special and you can't afford the word count to provide different defense options for each one.

Swarms of critters are weird in general, and behave less like a single attack anyway. I really can't say more than that general reaction because it's not something we've modeled yet: I've thought about it a bit, but not put pen to paper.

Blasts of fire - or what-have-you - aren't supposed to be covered by these rules. You can't parry a fireball. You could parry a scorching ray.

A giant's hammer, though? Why would you react differently to that than a weapon used by a normal-sized person? Unless it's being modeled as an AoE, in which case it's not (generally) parry-able or block-able; I see nothing wrong with the idea of a fighter parrying a giant hammer. Realistic, no; awesome, probably.

It's not unrealistic for a sucker punch to necessarily hit a dude.

Thanks, I'd gathered that. Other discussions had led me to think that it might be, but from posts here, it sounds like it's pretty reasonable.

But the system you are designing sounds like a god damn train wreck from the way you've described it so far.

Whether or not that is the case remains to be seen, I guess.

[Username17]

Wow. Yeah, if you don't understand how parrying works, you shouldn't make it a subsystem in your game. I am extremely serious about this.


Wax on. Wax off.

-Username17

[GnomeWorks]

Wow. Yeah, if you don't understand how parrying works, you shouldn't make it a subsystem in your game. I am extremely serious about this.

Thanks for the super-helpful advice.

[Stahlseele]

i don't see how auto hit would help making combat faster at all . . .
that's just taking away the success roll on the attackers part right?
all that probably would achieve would be rising defence pools O.o
because if i know that being hit is more or less automatic, i make sure to put more points into making sure i don't get hit.
or if that does not work, i put more points into stuff that allows me to make sure that i can soak more damage so it does not matter as much anymore.

and if i know that hitting stuff will be easy/trivial/automagical, then why would i put much into abilities that allow me to hit stuff instead of putting as much as i can into raw damage?

how do AOE attacks work with this?
If i have an Arms-Length of 1m and a sword of 1m do i automatically hit everybody in 1.5m distance from me?

what am i not getting here?

[darkmaster]

• Armor: You can focus on improving your passive defense skill, as well as investing in better armor. If you go this route, you won't take defensive actions, but you'll rely on your armor value, which starts small and doesn't go up as fast as active defenses. Also, decent armor will slow you down by a significant margin.
• Parrying: You can focus on parrying. Getting awesome at parrying lets you actively defend against attacks from any direction, but is terrible at dealing with missile weapons. However, parried attacks deal their damage to your weapon, so this can backfire.
• Blocking: You can focus on blocking. Blocking doesn't give you all-round active defense (the hex on your non-shield side, at the very least), but you can block missile weapons. Shields take damage they block, but shields are typically a lot sturdier than weapons.
• Dodging: You can focus on dodging. You can dodge any attack you're aware of, but dodging missile weapons requires you to be pretty good. You can also dodge out of AoEs, so that can be rather useful. However, of the active defense options, dodging is the slowest and eats up the most time.
• Hit Points: You can just focus on hit points, and try to be as resilient as possible. Improving this one is the hardest of the lot, slowest to progress, and almost assuredly won't let you last as long as any of the other ways. But it is a valid method, and getting to the point where you can soak wounds that would kill most other people is something you can aspire to. This is kind of similar to focusing on armor, but trading longevity for speed.

To put some numbers to things, the base for a standard attack is 12 ticks; parrying and blocking are 2, while dodging is 4. So if you go on 6 and make an attack, you will go again on 18; if you dodge in 8, you'll instead go in 22 (assuming your math is such that you are right on the baseline, which is probably not going to happen, but is sufficient for this example).

Here are the problems I see, first, passive armor is just plain better than dodging and blocking because you've fallen into the same sort of Trap M&M did. If dodging characters have to take an action to dodge or what have you then they have two choices, attempt to avoid an attack or don't and eat the hit because fuck them while guys in armor can attack and still have the same chance to not eat an attack which is always going to be better better unless you cripple armor but that is not really a good solution. Further because you've made HP progression slow every hit will probably have serious implications.

Secondly, shields are different from swords from a blocking stand point only in that they're wider, the actual mechanics are almost the same as blocking with a sword even if you get hit head on with a war hammer or a kanabo your shield is much less likely to break than your arm and even then your arm is not a steal girder welded to an immobile platform your arm and body will naturally give and bounce back. Shields do break, but certainly not enough for it to be a regular thing you have to keep track of constantly.

Thirdly, it is blankly ridiculous to say that blocking and dodging can't be an unconscious reaction. Anyone who has been to a modern high school can tell you when someone starts to take a swing at you you'll flinch or put your hands up, that's your body instinctively moving to defend itself without conscious input. Maybe not effectively but that's a matter of practice and not blocking as a reaction being impossible or impractical.

Fourthly, in actual sword fights parries are not separate things from attacks. You are always attempting to keep your enemy from putting their sword in your important bits and usually what happens will be binding up your opponent's blade and then trying to stab the hell out of them watch this it's a video about why you should never assume your opponent is dead until they hit the ground but I just linked to the bit at the end with the demonstration and the idea very clearly is to never let your guard down or stop defending yourself, unless you're not fond of your intestines in which case your opponent would be glad to help you get rid of them. So you're treating things that are very much the same action as discreet things when you shouldn't be.

[DEBO]

Thirdly, it is blankly ridiculous to say that blocking and dodging can't be an unconscious reaction. Anyone who has been to a modern high school can tell you when someone starts to take a swing at you you'll flinch or put your hands up, that's your body instinctively moving to defend itself without conscious input. Maybe not effectively but that's a matter of practice and not blocking as a reaction being impossible or impractical.

You can't react, conciously or unconciously, to an attack you aren't aware of.

Auto-hitting is fine, and depending on the power level, auto-takedowns might even be appropriate. King Hits kill people.