Active Defense

[Supplement Four]

Active Defense in the CONAN rpg

I'm surprised this isn't an optional rule in the Conan RPG. It's quite fun and extremely easy to implement.

My group started using opposed defense rolls back when we had our seven year long D6 Star Wars campaign (it was a hoot...one of the best campaigns I've ever run). There's an optional rule with D6 Star Wars. You can throw against static target numbers (like a DC or a Dodge number in Conan), or you can roll an opposed roll against the other player/NPC.

In Conan, this is simple. Drop the 10 point base from all the defense number and keep the modifiers. Then, simply roll d20 + modifiers.

Your attacker rolls first: d20 + attack mods. Then, you roll your defense: d20 + defense mods.

If the attacker wins, the hit is successful.

If the defender wins, then no damage is incurred.

This makes for a damn interesting game. It's very "interactive". Players feel more like they're actively "blocking". I can see Fate Points (with the re-roll option) becoming important too.

I want to stress that the dicing back and forth is extremely fun. You can even use the "1" always fails and the "20" always succeeds rule, if you like, on both the attack and defense throw.



Here's a quickie example:

Evan, the Corinthian, attacks with his arming sword. Evan is a 1st level Soldier.

His attack is--

d20
+1 Base Attack Bonus
+1 STR modifier
+0 Size modifier
----
----
d20 +2 Total Attack.

Evan rolls his attack for a total of 12.



Evan is attack Gramn, the Cimmerian, a 1st level Barbarian.

Gramn's defense is--

d20
+0 Size modifier
+3 DEX modifier
+0 Dodge bonus
----
----
d20 +3 Total Defense.


Gramn rolls a total of 15 on his defense.

So, Gramn beats Evan in the opposed roll and Gramn dodges Evan's blow.

Simple as that.

And...quite fun. Try it in your game.

 

[Thorvang]

You know what's just as easy? Using the perfectly adequate rules in the rulebook, thusly published for running a game of the Conan RPG. :shock:
I'm sure we all appreciate your creativity and innovative thinking, but with all due respect, this ain't Star Wars d6. Why bother to waste good gaming time reworking something that works fine the way it is? Why not try playing the game 'as is' first before infusing a bunch of house rules and imports.

 

[Supplement Four]

You know what's just as easy? Using the perfectly adequate rules in the rulebook, thusly published for running a game of the Conan RPG. :shock:
I'm sure we all appreciate your creativity and innovative thinking, but with all due respect, this ain't Star Wars d6. Why bother to waste good gaming time reworking something that works fine the way it is? Why not try playing the game 'as is' first before infusing a bunch of house rules and imports.

Again, don't use it if you don't want it. Nobody is forcing you to.

I may seem like it, but I haven't "house ruled" the game that much. In fact, I've only changed three things:

1 - I came up with Conan 321 as a way to eliminate the dump stat.

2 - I wrote the hit location charts to help determine where a character is hit once he is reduced to 0 HP or -1 HP to -9 HP (when he is dying).

3 - And, there's this Active Defense rule. It's pretty simple. Roll a d20 and add defense mods instead of adding 10 to defense mods. The average of d20 is 10, so it works perfectly.

And, Active Defense is fun.

 

[Sutek]

But 1 is not really a factor because the "dump stat" only hurts Conan PCs that need good ranks of more skills than one would in D&D, 2 is unnecessary and inappropriate for a system that is already very debilitiating and deadly, and 3 doesn't work in this game because of a number of game mechanics:

• Finesse attacks ignore armor DR when the roll to hit exceeds the target opponent's DV+DR of the armor he's wearing. With an active DV system, poor rolls make Finesse weapons far more powerful and make wearing armor superfluous.
• Multiple Combatants rules state that every cumulative combatant gainst a +1 for each combatant around a foe. Would Active DV be rolled for each attacker, thus negating randomly the tactical advantage this provides, or would a single roll apply to all attackers which, if a poor roll results, makes Finesse attacks even easier.
• Attacks of Opportunity can be provoked from mutiple foes on a single taget in a given turn, and adding so many active rolls for determining DV would slow combats down even further.

Just try[/i] the rules as written man. I doubt you've even tried it yet, and that's why you aren't seeing the ramifications of all these changes.

 

[Supplement Four]

But 1 is not really a factor because the "dump stat" only hurts Conan PCs that need good ranks of more skills than one would in D&D...

Don't know about D&D. Haven't played it in years.

Let me ask you this...if I go with the first attribute generation system straight out of the book (the one that says you roll 4d6, drop lowest, for each stat without the ability to arrange to taste), would you be advising me to use a different rule or house rule it somehow?

Because that method certainly doesn't create a dump stat. And, it is straight out of the book.

If I don't go with Conan 321, then I will go with that rule. There will be no arrange-to-taste.

...2 is unnecessary and inappropriate for a system that is already very debilitiating and deadly...

That's a matter of opinion. Plus, the way I've set this up, it only adds color to what occurs. The rules remain unchanged.

The official rule says to use the suggested Heal times unless the GM deems other effects should be brought upon the wounded character (like hindered move for a leg hit and so on).

All the chart does is help the GM decide how to judge those instances. The dying and Healing rules remain intact.

...and 3 doesn't work in this game because of a number of game mechanics...

Let's see how your objections stand up.

Finesse attacks ignore armor DR when the roll to hit exceeds the target opponent's DV+DR of the armor he's wearing. With an active DV system, poor rolls make Finesse weapons far more powerful and make wearing armor superfluous.

The defender has just as much a chance of rolling really high as he does really low. So, there will be no affect on armor as you say. Hits that would have occurred using the normal system will fail when the defense roll is high. It evens out.

Plus, Active Defense does lean to aiding the defender. Why? Because a defense roll of 20 is always a success. And, since an attack roll of 1 is always a failure (even if the defense roll is also a 1), this provide two instances where the defense automatically wins: When the attack is 20 and the defense is 20, and when the attack is 1 and the defense is 1.

That gives defenders a 2% edge on attackers.

As you say, in this game with little to no magical healing, that's a good thing!

Multiple Combatants rules state that every cumulative combatant gainst a +1 for each combatant around a foe. Would Active DV be rolled for each attacker, thus negating randomly the tactical advantage this provides, or would a single roll apply to all attackers which, if a poor roll results, makes Finesse attacks even easier.

Either way can be used. We will probably counter each attack roll with its own defense roll.

The tactical advantage of multiple combatants isn't negated! They still get their +1 attack! Which gives them a bonus, making it easier for them to overcome the defense roll.

The advantage is the same as it is using the straight rule out of the book.



You see...the Defense numbers for Conan characters are bascially Active Defense rolls where the defender is Taking 10.

I'm removing the "Taking 10" aspect and replacing it with a d20 roll.

The results with average the same using either system. Active Defense is a bit more exciting because you never know what's going to happen.

Attacks of Opportunity can be provoked from mutiple foes on a single taget in a given turn, and adding so many active rolls for determining DV would slow combats down even further.

Whenever you add more dice rolls to the mix, it slows down combat. That's a fact.

But, Active Defense is fun. So, it won't be a hindrance.

"That soldier just swung at you! Roll his attack total or better, or he's doing damage!"

It adds a fun aspect to the game, so it's worth the slow down. (If it wasn't fun, then we wouldn't use it.)

Just try[/i] the rules as written man. I doubt you've even tried it yet, and that's why you aren't seeing the ramifications of all these changes.

I do appreciate your comments. (And, I live in Houston, too!) But, I think I've got a pretty good handle on this.

And...if I find its broke later, I'm not too proud to change it. A fun game is all I'm looking for. Could care less how it makes me look on the forum.

 

[Sutek]

Let me ask you this...if I go with the first attribute generation system straight out of the book (the one that says you roll 4d6, drop lowest, for each stat without the ability to arrange to taste), would you be advising me to use a different rule or house rule it somehow?

lol - no. I keep telling you to just use the rules as written.

Let's see how your objections stand up.

Finesse attacks ignore armor DR when the roll to hit exceeds the target opponent's DV+DR of the armor he's wearing. With an active DV system, poor rolls make Finesse weapons far more powerful and make wearing armor superfluous.

The defender has just as much a chance of rolling really high as he does really low. So, there will be no affect on armor as you say. Hits that would have occurred using the normal system will fail when the defense roll is high. It evens out.

Plus, Active Defense does lean to aiding the defender. Why? Because a defense roll of 20 is always a success. And, since an attack roll of 1 is always a failure (even if the defense roll is also a 1), this provide two instances where the defense automatically wins: When the attack is 20 and the defense is 20, and when the attack is 1 and the defense is 1.

That gives defenders a 2% edge on attackers.

What if both the attacker and defender roll a natural 20? Do both succeed? Or do you meta rule again and say that ties for absolute success go to the defender?

Multiple Combatants rules state that every cumulative combatant gainst a +1 for each combatant around a foe. Would Active DV be rolled for each attacker, thus negating randomly the tactical advantage this provides, or would a single roll apply to all attackers which, if a poor roll results, makes Finesse attacks even easier.

Either way can be used. We will probably counter each attack roll with its own defense roll.

That's an aweful lot of rolling...

The tactical advantage of multiple combatants isn't negated! They still get their +1 attack! Which gives them a bonus, making it easier for them to overcome the defense roll.

Not if I roll my active deffense LOW against foe#1 that has +2 to hit because of a mere Flank bonus, but roll really high when it goes arounf the group to the foe that gets +9 because of the multiple attacks rules. It negates the advantage.

Attacks of Opportunity can be provoked from mutiple foes on a single taget in a given turn, and adding so many active rolls for determining DV would slow combats down even further.

Whenever you add more dice rolls to the mix, it slows down combat. That's a fact.

But, Active Defense is fun. So, it won't be a hindrance.

Erm...okay.

Just try[/i] the rules as written man. I doubt you've even tried it yet, and that's why you aren't seeing the ramifications of all these changes.

I do appreciate your comments. (And, I live in Houston, too!) But, I think I've got a pretty good handle on this.

And...if I find its broke later, I'm not too proud to change it. A fun game is all I'm looking for. Could care less how it makes me look on the forum.

So you don't mind if I laugh and point? :lol:

 

[Supplement Four]

lol - no. I keep telling you to just use the rules as written.

Well, I could easily go with the offical 4d6, drop lowest, with no arrange method. But, I wanted to give my players at least some way to arrange stats and still not created a dump stat...thus Conan 321 was born.

What if both the attacker and defender roll a natural 20?

See, this is why I'm wondering if you really read my posts. I addressed that exact issue.

If both attacker and defender roll a 20, it goes to the defender. If both attacker and defender roll a 1, it goes to the defender. Otherwise, ties go to the attacker.

That's an aweful lot of rolling...

We've done it before, with hands full of six siders, for the D6 Star Wars game. It was a blast (a 7 year Star Wars campaign with the same players throughout).

Rolling a single d20 will actually be easier.

And...did I mention Active Defense is fun?

The only reason to use Active Defense is because...it's realy, really fun!

Not if I roll my active deffense LOW against foe#1 that has +2 to hit because of a mere Flank bonus, but roll really high when it goes arounf the group to the foe that gets +9 because of the multiple attacks rules. It negates the advantage.

The may happen, sure. And the PC who pulled that off will be jumping up and down in his chair (I told you active defense was fun).

If its the bad guy pulling it off, then this will add some character to him during the fight.

Either way, it all evens out. Remember, Active Defense is like rolling a task instead of taking 10.

So, it won't be a hindrance.

Erm...okay.

It will slow the game down, but you won't notice, because you'll be sweating your next Defence roll.

Trust me. If Active Defense turns out to be no fun, then I'll drop it like a hot potatoe and go back to the normal method.

So you don't mind if I laugh and point? :lol:

Sure...if you don't mind me thinking you're a jerk! :shock:

 

[DigitalMage]

I am sorry to see your idea being so rudely responded to, it hardly makes this forum welcoming.

I think your idea is fine if you are okay with the extra dice rolling, like you say it is just like rolling rather than Taking 10 so the rules should not break as such, results will just become more varied.

You will also need to clarify what happens in ties, and ensure you explain to your players that a natural 20 on defense trumps a natural 20 attack.

One variant I use in other d20 games is always have the player roll and the NPC take 10. E.g. as per RAW when player attacking, but NPCs have static Attack and player rolls defense. No extra rolls but players feel more in control of their PCs. It also gives them a bit more of an edge.

 

[Sutek]

Sorry, didn't mean to come off as rude, but people coming in new to the game and wanting to change it basd on preconceptions due to other d20 experiences without playing the RAW is just huge pet peave of mine.

Perhaps the "point and laugh" comment was a bit over the top, but I meant it as freindly ribbing and wasn't intending to be a jerk.

 

[Supplement Four]

Sorry, didn't mean to come off as rude, but people coming in new to the game and wanting to change it basd on preconceptions due to other d20 experiences without playing the RAW is just huge pet peave of mine.

Just to be clear, I haven't played d20 in years and years. It's been at least 15 years.

Back in the day, AD&D was the thing before I branched off into other games. I played a lot of AD&D and AD&D 2E.

I haven't played a lot of 3E +, but I understand it (from studying it and playing computer games like KotOR and Baldur's Gate).

So...my "other d20 experiences" really aren't influencing any change in the rules I may make.

 

[Thorvang]

I am sorry to see your idea being so rudely responded to, it hardly makes this forum welcoming.

I don't think anyone is trying to be rude here. Supp4 is offering ( a huge amount of) information that is outside the bounds of the game as intended, for critique or otherwise. I'm offering my opinion, as is everyone else, on how I feel about his interpretation of the game and its mechanics. That being said, take a look at the topic listings and tell me how many times you see his screen name......
Post whatever you want. Just be prepared for the responses. That's the name of the game, right?

 

[DigitalMage]

I don't think anyone is trying to be rude here. Supp4 is offering ( a huge amount of) information that is outside the bounds of the game as intended, for critique or otherwise. I'm offering my opinion

I would have expected more polite answers to be honest. Something along the lines of:
I personally wouldn't use it, but if you do try it out you might want to bear in mind the following;
-What happens in the case of a tie?
-Do natural 20s still count as automatic hits?
-Adding an extra roll to each attack will make combat last longer
etc

That sort of thing. Instead of a critical review of the suggestion he gets a rather rudely worded (IMHO) statement to just play the rules as written.

 

[Krushnak]

I use active defense in my game but only when its a one on one fight of a pc vs an important npc.

-What happens in the case of a tie?
-Do natural 20s still count as automatic hits?

normal ties for parry dv are worked out as a successful sunder and a hit for dodge dv, if both sides roll a nat 20 then the pc wins and can confirm a crit but only on another nat 20.

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't think anyone is trying to be rude here. Supp4 is offering ( a huge amount of) information that is outside the bounds of the game as intended, for critique or otherwise. I'm offering my opinion

I would have expected more polite answers to be honest. Something along the lines of:
I personally wouldn't use it, but if you do try it out you might want to bear in mind the following;
-What happens in the case of a tie?
-Do natural 20s still count as automatic hits?
-Adding an extra roll to each attack will make combat last longer
etc

That sort of thing. Instead of a critical review of the suggestion he gets a rather rudely worded (IMHO) statement to just play the rules as written.

Thanks, DigitalMage. I kinda feel the same way, to be honest. It just rolls off my back, because I'm a game forum veteran. There's something about hiding behind screen names and blurting out whatever you want no matter how rude it might come across that is encouraging to people to respond with a "mean" tone rather than what you suggest above.

I try to keep my responses polite and rarely get rude unless someone else does first. There's no need, and life's too short.

But, I appreciate you recognizing the responses.

 

[Supplement Four]

I use active defense in my game but only when its a one on one fight of a pc vs an important npc.

-What happens in the case of a tie?
-Do natural 20s still count as automatic hits?

normal ties for parry dv are worked out as a successful sunder and a hit for dodge dv, if both sides roll a nat 20 then the pc wins and can confirm a crit but only on another nat 20.

Here's what I'm going to do with Active Defense.



Attack Roll

Natural 20 = Critical Hit Threat (as per official rules).

Natural 1 = Opens an Attack of Opportunity on the Attacker, subject to official AoO rules.



Active Defense Roll

Natural 20 = Finds an Attack of Opportunity on the Attacker, subject to official AoO rules.

Natural 1 = Opens an Attack of Opportunity on the Defender, subject to AoO rules.







So, if the attacker rolls a 20, it will be a critical threat as normal.

If the defender rolls a 20, it will allow an attack of opportunity on the combatant the defender is defending from. If Thom rolls 15 to hit Jake, and Jakes defends with a natural 20, then Thom's attack misses and Jake is allowed an Attack of Opportunityh on Thom.

Note that normal AoO rules apply, which usually means a character can only benefit from one AoO per round (unless he has a feat that says otherwise).



If the attacker rolls a natural 1, then he has exposed himself with his attack. The attacker is not subject to an AoO from the defender.

If the defender rolls a natural 1, the same thing happens. The attacker's original attack will succeed followed by an AoO that the defender just caused on himself when the Defense of 1 was rolled.



If the attacker and defender both roll 20, then both results occur. That attacker hits with the usual critical thread. Once the attacker is resolved, the defender (if still standing) is allowed an AoO on the attacker.

If the attacker and defender both roll 1, then they get AoO's on each other (they trade AoOs).



Always resolve the attacker first, then the defender.

Attacker wins all ties (with the 20-20 and 1-1 combinations detailed above).

 

[Sutek]

What if two natural 20s between the attacker and defender each roll Threat, and that's both (a) the tie break, and (b) if they both activate a Critical then each weapon deals damage to the other...WEAPON BREAKAGE!

 

[Supplement Four]

What if two natural 20s between the attacker and defender each roll Threat, and that's both (a) the tie break, and (b) if they both activate a Critical then each weapon deals damage to the other...WEAPON BREAKAGE!

I think you're saying: Attacker rolls natural 20. Then, defender rolls natural 20. How do I handle this?

I covered this above, but I will recount it here again. You add the Optional Weapon Break rule to the mix, which is fine, because I plan on using that rule as well.

First off, as detailed above, the attacker is handled first. So, the critical threat would be resolved.

The Weapon Break rule is only in effect when the exact attack throw equals the exact Parry roll. So, for this to happen, both attack and defense rolls must equal the exact same including modifiers. So, it won't automatically happen when natural 20s are thrown unless the attack and parry modifiers are the exact same as well.

Let's say they are the same.

In this case...we still resolve the attacker first. And, since the weapon break takes precedence over the critical threat, we will resolve the weapon break (and the critical threat doesn't occur, just like in the official rules).

If the defender's weapon breaks, then the GM will have to bar or limit the AoO the defender earned with the 20 defense roll. Remember, a Akbitanan weapon may still be useful even if it breaks (per the official rules).

Most likely, though, the encounter you ask about would play out like this...





Torach attacks Breen, rolling a natural 20. Breen parries, also rolling a natural 20.

We always address the attacker first, so we look at Torach. He's either going to roll a Critical Threat, or the Weapon Break rule will be used.

In order for the Weapon Break rule to be used, we have to look at the total throws of both attacker and defender. Torach is +5 to hit. Breen is +5 with his parry. So, indeed, both attacker and defender rolled exactly 25, meaning the Weapon Break rule is in force.

The sunder attempt against the defender's weapon is carried out, and as fate would have it, the defender's weapon is broken.

At this point, Torach's part of the combat has been resolved, and now we look at the defender.

Breen would normally have been allowed an Attack of Opportunity against Torach, earned with the natural 20 defense roll was made. But, as fate would have it, Torach broke Breen's weapon.

Breen can still make the AoO by dropping whats left of his weapon (free action) and taking the AoO with his fist.

This would end Torach's attack (which has taken longer to resolve than in the normal game...but this is a rare instance we're discussing), and at this point, it would either be the end of the round or Breen's turn to act, depending on initiative throws.





I will add that this would be an unusal, interesting combat round.

 

[Sutek]

Telling a player that he's taking an AoA for rolling a natural 20 is going to rub people the wrong way, I'd imaging, but...maybe your players will love it.

I jsut thought my double 20 solution was simpler, and gives both attacker and defender a success without more attack rolls.

 

[Supplement Four]

Telling a player that he's taking an AoA for rolling a natural 20 is going to rub people the wrong way..

It's an attack of "opportunity". The player doesn't have to take advantage of it if he doesn't want to.

And, I fail to see how you would think it would rub people the wrong way.



Attacker rolls a natural 1, this is like a fumble. Except, instead of a fumble, the natural 1 means that the attacker failed to damage his opponent and did so in such a way as to open himself up to an attack.

All AoO rules are still in force. Each character only gets to take advantage of of 1 AoO per round unless he's got a feat that allows him to do otherwise. So, not all natural 1 attacks will result in the defender getting an AoO on the attacker--just most of them.



Defender rolls a natural 20, it means his defense (Dodge or Parry) went so well that he was able to follow it up with a quick jab at his enemy. It allows him a free attack on his attacker.

Defender rolls a natural 1, it's just like attacker rolling one. It's akin to a fumble. The defense was weak, and the defender exposed himself to a free attack.

I don't see that rubbing anybody the wrong way, especially if they know that those are the rules going into the campaign.



I will say this, though. I tolerate very few arguments in my game. Everybody has to understand that the GM's word is the law of the game. I strive to make the best calls possible, but I may not see it the same way as a player does--and the player has to accept that sometimes he won't agree with my calls.

That's the price of admission. I do my best to be fair (and typically my calls lean towards keeping the PCs alive), but I also encourage a gritty, realistic environment. I do this because, when the players succeed, they really feel like they've accomplished something. It takes my games to a real "high".

If you were in my game, Sutek, I'd have to admit that I'd have a talk with you. If we couldn't see eye-to-eye on this type of play style, I would recommend something like, "It's probably best we part friends and you find a group that is more suited to the game you're looking to play."

 

[Sutek]

If I weer in your group I'd answer anything you had to say with exactly what I'm saying now, out of your group...

...how about just using the rules as written?

I could reinforce that opinion with a treatise on the can of worms you're opening with adding more instances of AoAs (not to mention negation of them by Improved Mobility).

:wink: