Combat mechanics thoughts

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Combat mechanics thoughts

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Just a thought that came to me some time last week, was to simply allow BaB to be used for more types of checks; thus making having a full/partial/minor BaB slide in commensurate value to those who have it the most, and the least.

Originally I only considered Knowledge skills; but skills that the character has say at least 1/2 (i.e. crossclass) ranks in being able to qualify for "Base Attack Bonus" could also make sense.

I'm not really sure if it's a good idea; and frankly I find it hard to care for d20 engine stuff anymore. However the idea struck me as being a way to think of ways aside from RoW's "Edge" check on BaB. Mostly because it's a flexible way to have non-casters be able to cobble together a plan on the fly, and have some prayer of executing it; however it's reliance upon the hyper-focused and adrenaline-charged seconds that fill combat makes it hard to be used leisurely.
Last edited by Judging__Eagle on Tue May 31, 2016 3:48 pm, edited 2 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
Hicks
Duke
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:36 pm
Location: On the road

Post by Hicks »

Honestly, a better fix would be to gestalt the 3.x rogue and fighter together into some sort of Warrior or Knave class, and even then it would only get by because of Abuse Magic Device. Spells rule and muscle drools in 3.x, but a Knave could be just under the Sorcerer in t3rms of playability, contributing to adventures, and being much closer to how "fighters" operate in fiction.
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
MGuy
Prince
Posts: 4774
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Indiana

Post by MGuy »

Please. Not another fighter thread.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.
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 »

Hicks wrote:Honestly, a better fix would be to gestalt the 3.x rogue and fighter together into some sort of Warrior or Knave class, and even then it would only get by because of Abuse Magic Device. Spells rule and muscle drools in 3.x, but a Knave could be just under the Sorcerer in t3rms of playability, contributing to adventures, and being much closer to how "fighters" operate in fiction.
Yeah; the reason I think the concept is salvageable; was that things were different enough in 2e, that its hard to forget they're not.

The scaling of fundamental game numbers with level is one thing; but the increasing scale of complications and obstacles in a campaign make having everyone in the party able to throw down magic (or at least be a [Tome] class).

The level system also makes simply limiting "dumb melee fighter" to the level 1-5 bracket have advantages (obvious demarkation between mortal (lvl 1-5) and supernatural lvl 6+) characters. Your DMF can't fight a dragon or browbeat an Efreet; but their levels in Cloud Rider or Planar Wrestler allow them to do so. However disadvantages could include not knowing how it will affect the percentage of characters who take fullcaster roles.
Mguy wrote:Please. Not another fighter thread.
Maybe not about fixing fighters; or even caring about fixing them. If you want "fixes" for D&D DMFs, use the [Tome] stuff that's out there, I've never seen it fail at a tabletop.

I guess I'm just trying to think about combat mechanics in different engines than d6TN5 dice pool ones that I'm finding myself in favour of. I'm sufficiently emotionally distant from the d20 engine that it's easier to think about it abstractly about it's main purpose as a wargame engine.

Specifically how does the situation of combat affect people; how should people who are trained for it should be able to do better than those without it. The After Sundown description of the Combat score being equated with 'initiative' being vague, when the Danger chapter uses Agility + Intuition as its measure of actual combat initiative; being an other reason to better clarify what the Combat skill translates as narratively.

Which is why I'm trying to examine what might happen in terms of player use of options when things are changed; why make such changes; and what might be the flaws of such a change. Even if I have no emotional investment in making d20 engine DMFs fit in at all, there might be aspects of how they function that could be applicable to a d6TN5 engine.

As well as trying to determine what sort of narrative game mechanics could use to portray non-obvious spellcasters; who are obviously supernatural (ie. pretty much any mythical non-caster).

In the end; I feel that Warp Cult might still be a better place to look for combat mechanics than d20 wargame engine.
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.
Post Reply