Active Defense

[Supplement Four]

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:

Where is Improved Mobility located? It's not listed in the skills or Feats of the main rule book (nor in the index), and it's not listed in the master Feat list included in the 2E Player's Guide.

So...I can't find what you're talking about to look it up and see if, indeed, my tweak screws something up.



BTW, I'm considering changing the AoO's by limiting them to non-weapon attacks only (a kick or a punch...maybe a shield bash, but I need to read up on that). That will add those types attacks into the game (which sometimes happens in heroic melee--yet the rules aren't really set up to encourage that sort of thing).

 

[DigitalMage]

Its not a bad idea - allowing a "riposte" if the defender rolls a natural 20 or the attacker rolls a natural 1.

An attacker gets potentially gets a free follow up attack if the defender rolls a natural 1.

This will likely make Combat Reflexes (I assume that is in Conan) a bit more powerful. Also, as with anything like this it could slow combat down (then again it might not do as the fight could end with the same number of attack rolls, just in less actual combat rounds).

Rather than AoOs, it might be nice to have other options that can always apply (irrespective of whether you have extra AoOs left to take). For exampel, ripping off RuneQuest:

A defender who rolls a natural 1 has to give ground, retreating 10 feet in a direction chosen by the attacker - if this is up against a wall or would take a character over a cliff the defender suffers a -2 to Defense and attacks for 1 round.

An attacker who rolls a natural 1 is over extended and suffers a -2 penalty to Defense for 1 round.

These options would also not necessitate more dice rolling (though they would require a little more book keeping to remember any penalties).

 

[Supplement Four]

A defender who rolls a natural 1 has to give ground, retreating 10 feet in a direction chosen by the attacker - if this is up against a wall or would take a character over a cliff the defender suffers a -2 to Defense and attacks for 1 round.

This exact rule is "almost" in Conan, but it is associated with the Dodge throw.

An attacker who rolls a natural 1 is over extended and suffers a -2 penalty to Defense for 1 round.

That's not a bad idea, either. I want there to be some penalty to rolling a natural 1, but I don't necessarily want to use traditional fumble charts.

I'll consider you idea here from RQ. I may change my house rule to suit.

Thinking...

 

[Supplement Four]

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:

Ah.. found Improved Mobility, finally. Wasn't easy to find. Not listed in the index.

Again, Sutek, why do you see a problem?

The Improved Mobility option of the Barbarian class clearly states that it only prevents AoO's when the Barbarian moves 10 feet or more per round.

I could approach this two ways:

1. Use AoO, literally, as written. So, when the Barbarian moves 10 feet or more, he'd be immune to AoO's just like he would be if he moved through a threatened square.

2. Or, the game is full of contradicitons with specific rules. Improved Mobility, itself, is a contradiction of the normal AoO rule. So, I could easily say that Improved Mobility works as written except in the case of attack and defense throws.

I'm partial to option #2, but would weigh an argument for option #1.

Either way, I don't see a "can of worms" being opened with this rule.





You know...the AoO's that I'm adding to the game is really nothing but a version of the Riposte special attack.

 

[Supplement Four]

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:

Ah.. found Improved Mobility, finally. Wasn't easy to find. Not listed in the index.

Again, Sutek, why do you see a problem?

The Improved Mobility option of the Barbarian class clearly states that it only prevents AoO's when the Barbarian moves 10 feet or more per round.

I could approach this two ways:

1. Use AoO, literally, as written. So, when the Barbarian moves 10 feet or more, he'd be immune to AoO's just like he would be if he moved through a threatened square.

2. Or, the game is full of contradicitons with specific rules. Improved Mobility, itself, is a contradiction of the normal AoO rule. So, I could easily say that Improved Mobility works as written except in the case of attack and defense throws.

I'm partial to option #2, but would weigh an argument for option #1.

Either way, I don't see a "can of worms" being opened with this rule.





You know...the AoO's that I'm adding to the game is really nothing but a version of the Riposte special attack. The two are just triggered differently.

 

[Supplement Four]

Here are the current rules for Active Defense. Now, they include rules for combatants moving across the battlefield as the fight progresses (leaving the stagnant, non-realistic skirmishes behind for vibrant, lively battlefield movement).







ACTIVE DEFENSE
Always resolve attacker before defender. Forced Move is handled the same as when an attacker hits and the defender parries below.


Attacker = natural 20? Critical Threat, and Defender forced move.

Attacker = natural 1? Defender gets AoO on Attacker, and Attacker forced move.



Defender = natural 20? Defender gets AoO on Attacker, and Attacker forced to move.

Defender = natural 1? Attacker gets AoO on Defender, and Defender forced to move.







DANCING & DODGING
Apply this rule only when the total attack throw is odd. Anytime a move is required but the character cannot move into a space because the square is already occupied or non-existent (as when the character is up against a wall), allow the character to stay in the same square but apply a -2 circumstance penalty through the character's next turn.



Attacker Hits. Defender Dodges. Defender moves straight back 5 feet.

Attacker Misses. Defender Dodges. Defender moves to any adjacent square, including either square flanking the attacker.



Attacker Hits. Defender Parries. Defender moves laterally to either side, diagonally backwards, or straight backwards.

Attacker Hits. Defender Parries. Defender does not move.

 

[DigitalMage]

Attacker Hits. Defender Parries. Defender does not move.

I assume that last one was meant to be Attacker Misses. Defender Parries.

It looks an interesting system and should result in that toing and froing that you see in movie sword fights. Be prepared for it to be a bit of a learning curve for your players though (and possibly yourself!).

Maybe you could put the rules above with some diagrams of where a character's forced move must be to on handouts and if possible laminate them (so they survive drink spillage and are easily foudn amongst character sheets etc.

Please let us know how it plays out.

 

[Supplement Four]

I assume that last one was meant to be Attacker Misses. Defender Parries.

You are correct in assuming that.

It looks an interesting system and should result in that toing and froing that you see in movie sword fights. Be prepared for it to be a bit of a learning curve for your players though (and possibly yourself!).

We used it in our last Bond game and loved it.

I should note that not all fights are tactical, taking place on a grid. Sometimes, it's just the GM describing things, with the player rolling attacks and defense--no game board to look at combatant positions.

So, this system (I think obviously, but I may need to point this out) would only be used if movement is being plotted on a grid.

If combat is only taking place in the mind's eye, then I would not use this system. (No need to.)

Please let us know how it plays out.

As I said, we loved it with Bond. It really gave the feeling of the gritty hth fights you see in Casino Royale.

It may do the same for Conan melee.

 

[Supplement Four]

I note the grappling attack rules have an Opposed roll option, just like Active Defense.

Wonder why they didn't put the same line in the section about the Attack Throw (because that's all Active Defense is...and Opposed roll).

 

[Supplement Four]

The Dancing & Dodging aspect of Active Defense needs to be re-thought with the Dance Aside and Force Back combat maneuvers in mind.

I've got a lot on my plate with the new game, anyway. I may revist this down the road.

Right now, I'm thinking that aspect of Active Defense is not needed (as it's already covered by Dance Aside and Force Back).