Critique of combat house rules requested

[Lost in Space]

Hi there,

This is my first ever go at a house rule so I would be grateful for some constructive criticism, or pointing out if I have missed a crucial point.

These rules are for use with both the new combat tables and the new opposed combat roll.


House rule 1 - Drawn combat matrix results

When the attacker and defender both succeed with either 2 normal success or 2 criticals the opposed roll decides the winner. However, instead of always lowering the losers result on the matrix. This rule is used:

If the attacker wins the opposed roll then the matrix result is always attacker critical and defender normal success

If the defender wins the matrix result is always defender critical and attacker normal success.

This represents the fact that both opponents succeeded in the action they were attempting but the winner of the opposed roll performed their action more effectively, perhaps even out manoeuvering the loser. The advantage of this rule is that weapon APs are still an important factor in parrying. In addition a defender who successfully dodges will no longer dodge himself off a cliff due to the give ground rule.

The disadvantage is that a defender can potentially take more damage from a successfully parried blow where he loses the opposed roll and takes maximum damage –AP, than from a parry that failed resulting in normal damage. This does however have a nice scaling effect where weapon APs really matter. If you successfully use your shield to parry a successful attack from a dagger, but lose the opposed roll, your are still unlikely to take much damage. However the same situation when using a knife to parry a war maul will result in you getting squished, which makes sense to me.


House rule 2 - Combat Actions

A defender always get a combat skill roll when attacked, however if this results in drawn successes, normal or critical, and the defender has run out of reactions then he automatically loses the opposed test.

The advantage of this is that a low dex high skilled defender is not so defenseless against a high dex low skilled attacker, but having a greater number of combat actions still provides a considerable advantage. In addition a high skill defender has a better chance of holding off a number of low skilled attackers.


Thanks

Lost

 

[Rurik]

Welcome to the boards Lost in Space. If you turn left at Orions Belt you should find yoyr way.

Any house rule is fine if you are satisfied with the results at the table.

Your house rule one is similar to one proposed where you upgrade the success rather than downgrade the failure (though stated the way I just mentioned doesn't cover crit/crit results well, and your version does).

So your results pretty much always come down to:

Attacker wins: Max Damage minus AP
Defender Wins: Rolled Damage minus 2xAP

Which works pretty well. My only concern is with the Great Troll scenario. Often you will be better off just plain missing your parry outright than losing the opposed roll. When damage is 2d8+1d12 the average rolled damage is going to be 15-16 (and you could take less if the roll is bad), while max damage is 28. Even with a Kite sheild you are garaunteed to take 18 points if you make your parry but lose the opposed roll.

Making a Critical=Max Damage + Rolled DB (vs. max DB) would help in that situation.

Thats just an observation though. Pretty much all methods have their ups and downs. Do what works for you.

Rule2:
I'm not sure I follow this one - are you saying a defender automatically uses a reaction whenever attacked? Or only if the attack succeeds (even though he rolls in all cases)?

I'm not quite seeing how you intend this to work.

 

[Lost in Space]

Thanks Rurik, just the sort of feedback I was looking for. With regard to the Great Troll scenario, I agree that this is potentially a problem, on the other hand if you really were trying to fight a great troll or to give a real world example something as powerful as a gorilla I would imagine that dodging might be a more viable option than parrying. I was also considering downgrading the critical result from maximum damage to just maximum weapon damage.

The combat actions idea would mean that a defender uses their reactions in the normal way, however if they run out of reactions and they are attacked again they still get a defensive skill roll. However is the attacker will always win if a success - success or critical - critical result occurs.

Example

Baz the Barbarian is a skilled swordsman with 1H Sword 180% and 2 CAs who is attacked by a trollkin with a high Dex, 1H Sword 45% and 4 CAs. In this case the trollkin gets 2 free attacks each round, and despite being clearly outclassed in combat skill. With a defensive roll for every attack at least our master swordsman gets the chance of successful or critical parry. Of course if the trollkin's success is the same as the Baz's then Baz automatically loses the opposed test, but given my first house rule above his parry will make a difference (although not if he's fighting a great troll).


Lost

 

[Rurik]

Thanks Rurik, just the sort of feedback I was looking for. With regard to the Great Troll scenario, I agree that this is potentially a problem, on the other hand if you really were trying to fight a great troll or to give a real world example something as powerful as a gorilla I would imagine that dodging might be a more viable option than parrying. I was also considering downgrading the critical result from maximum damage to just maximum weapon damage.

The combat actions idea would mean that a defender uses their reactions in the normal way, however if they run out of reactions and they are attacked again they still get a defensive skill roll. However is the attacker will always win if a success - success or critical - critical result occurs.

Example

Baz the Barbarian is a skilled swordsman with 1H Sword 180% and 2 CAs who is attacked by a trollkin with a high Dex, 1H Sword 45% and 4 CAs. In this case the trollkin gets 2 free attacks each round, and despite being clearly outclassed in combat skill. With a defensive roll for every attack at least our master swordsman gets the chance of successful or critical parry. Of course if the trollkin's success is the same as the Baz's then Baz automatically loses the opposed test, but given my first house rule above his parry will make a difference (although not if he's fighting a great troll).


Lost

OK, makes sense now.

Baz will most likely make almost all his parries, so this will kind of give him unlimited reactions. This may be too good.

Look at from the players point of view facing someone like Baz - to defeat him the strategy should be to get Baz to use up his reactions by double teaming him while a spellcaster casts spells that are resisted with dodge to try to overwhelm his reactions.

I see dealing with reactions as having an effect on the flavor of a game. I can easily see requiring reaction to be declared before the attack is rolled for a grittier game, while using the reaction after a successful attack only option for a more heroic or swashbuckling game. It is all a matter of preference. If you want your characters to be able to cut through hordes of lesser foes, your houserule will work nicely - but it could cut both ways, making it harder for the players party to overcome 1 or 2 big tough foes.

 

[Lost in Space]

Yes it does cut some of the grittiness out of combat, perhaps I'll rework it as some kind of Legendary ability.