Major and Minor Actions (house rule concept)

[camocoffey]

Apologies, long post follows...

I've been considering some options for changing how Actions work in Legend. I don't really like that the Characteristic step between Int+Dex=24 and Int+Dex=25 is so dramatic. I think your number of Actions per round is too significant: barring lucky rolls or huge differences in skill levels, whoever has the most Actions will almost certainly win. And it's pretty much a death sentence to be outnumbered. So I wanted to moderate the effectiveness of Actions, just to tone them down a little. I wanted also to introduce yet more theatre into the combat system! Here's my suggestion for a slight rethink of the system:

The number of Actions you have remains the same, but one of them is a Major Action and any others are Minor Actions. You can use these in any order you desire. Having a shield or off-hand weapon gives you an additional Minor Action, which is to be used only for parrying, etc, with the appropriate item.

With a Major Action, you can:-

• Run, climb, etc.
• Cast a spell.
• Concentrate on a spell.
• Make a standard attack.
• Make a full defence.
• Outmaneouvre your opponents.

With a Minor Action, you can:-

• Move.
• Continue casting a spell.
• Continue concentrating on a spell.
• Make a minor attack.
• Make a standard defence.
• Draw a weapon, reload, etc.
• Ready an action for later.
• Attempt a combat maneouvre.
• Try for a situational advantage.

With a Free Action, you can:-

• Continue moving.
• Make a minor defence.
• Resist a spell.
• Say a few words.
• Etc...

You can spend two Minor Actions together to make a standard attack, as if spending a Major Action; this is effectively combining a Minor Attack and a Combat Maneouvre. You can combine a Minor Action to move with any other Action; e.g. you could spend your Major Action and 1 Minor Action to charge into combat with a standard attack, or 2 Minor Actions to draw your sword while moving forward.

A standard attack works exactly as it does in Legend; it can result in combat maneouvres and it provokes an optional Minor Action from the defender to parry or evade. With a minor attack, however, no combat maneouvres are gained from any success steps, and the defender can spend a Free Action to respond with a minor defence. If he chooses to spend a Minor Action, he could gain a defensive or neutral maneouvre in response, as normal. Note that spending a Free Action to Evade will likely require a Minor Action to recover, as usual (for moving back into the fight, standing up, etc).

A standard defence works exactly as in Legend. By spending your Major Action to make a full defence, on the other hand, you can choose to apply your parry or evade result to every attack made against you until your next Action. A very effective full defence (e.g. a critical parry roll) might be spotted by attackers (Perception or Weapon skill roll required) who could then choose not to bother attacking you during this cycle of Actions.

You can attempt a combat maneouvre with a Minor Action, by declaring what you're after and making an attack roll as usual; if your attack gains at least one success step, you achieve the maneouvre you were after - but you do not do any damage in the attack. This option is limited to maneouvres like Trip, Bash Opponent, Overextend Opponent, etc; Bleed, Impale, Sunder, etc, require a standard attack (i.e. a Major Action).

Trying for a situational advantage will usually require an opposed test of some form, but you get to declare the terms. You might try to "perceive a weakness in my foe's defence", calling for Perception vs Combat Style; to "use the rutted ground to put my foe on a poor footing", with an Evade vs Athletics test; or to "distract the swordsman with my banter", making an Influence vs Insight check. If successful, you gain a bonus to your next roll, or impose a penalty to your opponent's, equal to the critical chance of whichever skill you've used. In the above cases, the GM might treat the first as giving a bonus to attack, the poor footing giving a defence penalty, and the distraction as an attack penalty. You could also apply your advantage to another, if appropriate. Aiming is effectively a situational advantage, although this does not require a skill roll, opposed or otherwise. Attempting to gain an insight bonus from your Cult would be another example of a trying for a situational advantage (in this case, it's an Own Culture vs Mythic Resonance test, granting up to +30% rather than your critical success chance).

The benefits from the above changes as I see them, are that you get only a single significant attack or spell per round, and that Legend combat will be even more cinematic than it already is.

Comments and criticism will be welcomed with humbled equanimity. Blatant abuse will be met with withering wit and sarcasm. And sharp pointy things.

 

[strega]

If I wanted to play DnD 4e I'd buy DnD 4e or play WoW.

 

[Big Orc]

barring lucky rolls or huge differences in skill levels, whoever has the most Actions will almost certainly win. And it's pretty much a death sentence to be outnumbered.

The Legend system is probably the most realistic combat system I have used. I started roleplaying in 1980 so I have used a few. Have you ever tried LARP? If you get outnumbered you're dead.

 

[DamonJynx]

I understand what you're trying to achieve, but for me it's an added layer of complexity that isn't required. The whole design of CA's is pretty much based around the management of them, and yes when you run out, you are in deep, very deep, excrement. This is how I reckon it should be and it works fine for me.

As strega said, you're basically applying "D&D" actions to Legend and I don't think it's a good mix. As always YLMV. :wink:

 

[camocoffey]

My intent wasn't to copy D&D (and I suspect you mean 3E not 4E, 'cos that's a VERY different animal entirely) but instead to mitigate the importance of Combat Actions in the game a little, which I believe would be to both the players' and the GM's advantage.

Lemnoc asked about "Encounter Metrics" yesterday (about determing what would be an appropriately challenging fight for a group of player characters), and Dan True's response was very telling:

The most important aspect is Combat Actions. Even monsters with massive armour and HP can be taken down by PCs if it only has 3 or 4 CAs.

I would say: If the combat consists of multiple opponents (a group of bandits for instance), then the total number of CAs should be about equal on both sides of the combat. But, you of course also need to taken into consideration surprise, special rules, high skill etc. but it is hard not make this into a formal system.

If the combat is between the party and one single opponent: a vampire, a giant crab, etc., then you need to give it something else in place of those combat actions else the fight quickly becomes easy (though the players might not realise it during the fight):
High Armour: An armour value higher than most average damage rolls, is a good start but not always applicable. The greatest problem is that the monster can still be tripped, and when it is prone it becomes a lot less dangerous.
Immunity to some CMs: Primarily trip, but also the skill penalties for impale etc. stack enough of them on (and some will get through eventually) and the terrifying monster can sometimes be rendered down to a rather silly garden ornament, rolling around on the ground.
High skills: Imperative, to limit the amount of CMs the party gets.
Special rules: This is the road I would focus most on - give it +2 CA which can only be used to evade, make it immune to most CMs, give it a shock ability that takes effect when you hit it, etc.

Mitigating the over-arching importance of Combat Actions limits the need for GMs to tweak encounters (as above) quite so much. Effectively, having everyone get one CA which is as good as RAW but the others be slightly weaker, means that someone with 4 CAs isn't automatically twice as good as someone with only 2 CAs.

Yes, I know skill levels must be considered as well, but your Attributes determine how many CAs you get, whereas everyone can reasonably be expected to begin with roughly similar skills, probably rarely more than 20% difference between any two starting characters. So the guy next to you with just few pips higher in Int and Dex (for only about +10% with his Weapon Style) is actually twice as effective as you in a scrap.

As DamonJynx says, though, my house rule suggestion is an added layer of complexity, but I don't think it's a particularly heavy layer, and it still demands their management, which keeps the tactical storytelling that I value so highly in the Legend combat system. And honest, I do value it very highly! It's my favourite combat system of any RPG I've played (of which there are dozens), but that doesn't mean that I think it's perfect. The difficulty of assigning appropriate challenges demonstrates that, I think.

 

[strega]

It depends on the style of game you want to run. If you want classic Swords and Sorcery (Conan etc) then you want the hero to be able to demolish hordes of minions and having a disparity in CA's works for that.

If you want gritty realism then getting a beat-down due to being outnumbered requires that more minions (with less disparity in CA's) are a formidable enemy.

I don't see that dragging down heroes to the lowest common denominator makes for a fun game YMMV of course.

 

[camocoffey]

It depends on the style of game you want to run. If you want classic Swords and Sorcery (Conan, etc) then you want the hero to be able to demolish hordes of minions and having a disparity in CAs works for that. If you want gritty realism then getting a beat-down due to being outnumbered requires that more minions (with less disparity in CAs) are a formidable enemy. I don't see that dragging down heroes to the lowest common denominator makes for a fun game YMMV of course.

It's not just heroes - I'd be applying this to opponents as well! I want the game to be able to support Conan demolishing hordes of minions; but currently, it doesn't - Conan wouldn't last 30 seconds against 3 or 4 foes with half his skill. I want to be able to throw my heroes against a good, solid baddie; but currently, I can't - even if the creep's wearing plate mail and swinging a greatsword with Bladesharp 6, he isn't going to stay toe-to-toe against 4 guys with broadswords.

If there's any real discrepancy between the number of Combat Actions between two sides of a scrap, the side with fewer is doomed; be he hero or villain. And even if the two sides are evenly matched, as soon as a good hit from either party drops one of the others, you're immediately dealing with a mismatched fight again.

Let's say you have 4 heroes with 3 CAs each, up against 6 creeps with 2 CAs, giving us 12 vs. 12 CAs; if the heroes fell a baddie, you're then at 12 vs. 10, and those 2 CAs should be quite enough to get the next creep down, and so on. If the mooks manage to disable a hero, the fight goes badly for them rather more quickly, 'cos you're on 9 vs. 12, so the baddies have now got 3 extra CAs with which to further upset the goodies.

Yes, everyone's mileage ultimately varies, but I'm really not trying to drag heroes down to the lowest common denominator! I'm trying to sustain combat so that the tactical decisions taken are more important that the simple mathematics of which side has more Combat Actions than the other.

 

[Old timer]

Have to agree with strega and big orc on this, the house rule, IMO would make all fighters a bit 'samey', i see nothing wrong with a fighter having better physical attributes and hence more CA being a better fighter than some one with lower attributes hence lower CA. That is more realistic IMO, and allows legend characters to be just that, legends.

 

[hanszurcher]

One of the bigger obstacles to keeping players in our RQ group has been people are put of by CAs. Gotta say the luster has worn a bit thin for me as well.

I like your idea. How has it worked in play? Have you floated it by BRP Central?

 

[strega]

OK let's take a look at combat currently without your mods.
Hero
Combat Styles
Sword and axe 170%
Weapons
Type Size Reach Damage AP/HP Range
Long sword L VL 1D8+1D6 6/12 —
Hatchet S S 1D6+1D6 3/6 10m

Combat Actions: 3
Damage Modifier: +1D6
Strike Rank: +14 (+16)
Movement: 8m
Typical Armour: Heavy leather hauberk, leather trews (–2 penalty) AP 2 on Chest, Abd, 1 AP on legs.

Three Thugs each
Club 69%
Dagger 69%
CA 3
SR 11
Armour: Leather shirt and trews - AP 1 on Abd, chest, legs and arms

So Round 1 highest SR goes first (I'll assume that the relative SR values stay the same)
Our hero using Sword and axe strikes at 100%
Thug 1 parries at 0% (69% - 70%) auto failure
Hero gets 1 CM unless he rolls a critical success or critical failure.
Thug 2 strikes at 0%
Hero parries with axe (free) at 100%
Hero gets 1 CM - Riposte, another thug goes down.
Thug 3 as thug 2.
Trip or Disarm would work without using a CA.

If using the optional combat for NPCs then with the hero's sword doing 2-14 damage, a critical wound (7 or 8 points) is likely with consequent results.

Personally I think that this gives a fair result for the hero vs. a bunch of thugs despite being outnumbered by 12CA to 4CA. If the hero gets a hit in each round then it's likely the thugs will all be down by the end of turn three. If a thug gets a hit in a vital area the hero is going to go down but that's life.

 

[camocoffey]

You're presenting a superhero vs. a bunch of thugs. 170% is a bit excessive for an example isn't it? I'd also query the poor armour most of your combatants are wearing; if I had 170% attack, I'd almost certainly be in chainmail by now, or (more likely) dosed up with magic.

And why does your superhero get free parries? He still must spend a Combat Action to defend himself, yes? Or is that a change in Legend from RQ2? (I don't actually have the Legend rulebook, but was given to understand that the rules are essentially identical, just with any Glorantha or rune-related stuff removed, for licensing reasons.)

 

[camocoffey]

One of the bigger obstacles to keeping players in our RQ group has been people are put off by CAs. Gotta say the luster has worn a bit thin for me as well. I like your idea. How has it worked in play? Have you floated it by BRP Central?

Thanks, Hans. No, I haven't tried it yet, I was fielding responses here before throwing it to my group. And I was unaware of the BRP Central forum! I've mostly been a lurker before now.

 

[strega]

I just grabbed the stats of Fafhrd out of Lankhmar as being convenient. Who would you put forward as a S&S hero?

Lankhmar doesn't have PC magic and has very little metal armour hence the lack. Bladesharp and metal armour isn't really going to make much difference. You'll get a bigger minus to SR for the armour but the negative for high skills will still occur and you'll take less damage.

You get an free/extra CA with an off-hand weapon so he gets 4 as do the thugs.

You do an example for your house rule so people can compare possibilities.

 

[Loz]

The disparate number of CAs has always, on the face of it, seemed to be a deal-breaker for some people, but if you study the rules, options and, in particular, combat manoeuvres, there are plenty of compensating elements to help balance out the deficits - even when outnumbered.

The Out Manoeuvre Combat Action can be a very effective way of keeping multiple foes at bay.
Choosing CMs that deny, limit or strip away Combat Actions is also an incredibly effective levelling technique. Trip a foe and he's at a double disadvantage: he fights at a penalty and has to spend a CA to regain his footing. Disarm a foe and he had to spend an action to draw another weapon or might be unable to do so, severely limiting his options. Overextend him, and again, his effectiveness is diminished.

Whilst CA are the chief currency of combat they're not the only currency. Good, creative use of CMs can significantly aid a combatant who is lower in CA and/or outnumbered. I don't think that the Major/Minor actions idea is absolutely necessary (of course, your game will vary and it may suit your style of play better than the RAW), but before layering-in the complexity, try some test combats using a variety of different action types and CMs and see how that plays-out.

In a recent RQ6 playtest we had a group of spearmen hopelessly outnumbered by a variety of opponents with varying numbers of CA, Hit Points and armour. Through very clever use of tactics and techniques the characters prevailed (not without injury, but certainly without death) and drove their opponents from the melee.

 

[camocoffey]

I just grabbed the stats of Fafhrd out of Lankhmar as being convenient. Who would you put forward as a S&S hero?

Lankhmar doesn't have PC magic and has very little metal armour hence the lack. Bladesharp and metal armour isn't really going to make much difference. You'll get a bigger minus to SR for the armour but the negative for high skills will still occur and you'll take less damage.

You get an free/extra CA with an off-hand weapon so he gets 4 as do the thugs.

You do an example for your house rule so people can compare possibilities.

Aha, I see - yes, I would consider Fafhrd to be a superhero. I was thinking much more in terms of standard player characters.

Our party is 4 guys with between 70% to 80% attack, wearing 3 or 4-pt armour. Most of us have 4 CAs, including bonuses for dual wielding or carrying shields; the fella with only 3 CAs swings a great hammer, and tends to massacre anyone he hits, usually with called shots to the head. We're usually going up against half a dozen critters (often beastmen, orks, or mutants - we're playing in the Warhammer Old World setting currently) with 3 CAs and about 60% Attack. This has been roughly balanced - until someone falls over and then things suddenly get either very easy (if it was one of the creeps) or very challenging (if it was one of us). And whenever we go up against an "end-level boss" (or what-have-you), we generally waste it in a few rounds, even if it's way tougher than any one of us.

 

[strega]

Combat can be so much more creative than being a tank that waddles along in armour and hits anything that is foolish enough to go toe-to-toe. With the brittle combat skills the two groups you posit have it's no wonder you are finding a need to do something about combat.

I'm not sure that allowing more actions in a turn would actually make things any better, you'll probably still find combat swingy and have extra book-keeping to worry about.

Have they faced mounted opponents? What about opponents that rely on ranged attacks e.g slings. If every PC is interchangeable bar one then finding some way of making things less boring is obviously needed.

If you are seeking more dangerous combat try fighting while crossing a stream or in deep snow with the opposition being less affected or unaffected by the terrain. Think about effects that will push the armoured PCs to give up their armour, shipboard combat - miss the rope, hit the drink or maybe in the desert where fatigue buildup will force them out of armour or they'll die of heat exhaustion or thirst.

I don't know if the background allows gunpowder weapons but those'll give a bunch of enemies a real problem (they'll likely give their friends problems as well).

 

[Dan True]

Our party is 4 guys with between 70% to 80% attack, wearing 3 or 4-pt armour. Most of us have 4 CAs, including bonuses for dual wielding or carrying shields; the fella with only 3 CAs swings a great hammer, and tends to massacre anyone he hits, usually with called shots to the head. We're usually going up against half a dozen critters (often beastmen, orks, or mutants - we're playing in the Warhammer Old World setting currently) with 3 CAs and about 60% Attack. This has been roughly balanced - until someone falls over and then things suddenly get either very easy (if it was one of the creeps) or very challenging (if it was one of us). And whenever we go up against an "end-level boss" (or what-have-you), we generally waste it in a few rounds, even if it's way tougher than any one of us.

In my experience the system breaks down in two situations:

1. You have a single opponent, which should be a challenge against a whole party.. a giant for instance. The lack of CAs can really become the thing that ruins it for the monster. This can be controlled by high skill, special traits (extra CA for defence only for instance), high natural armour etc.

2. When someone figures out to cast Enhance(DEX) + Enhance(INT) on the whole party and gets 6+ CA. This is handled either by adding enemies to provide a greater challenge (the epic road) or houseruling (buffs don't affect attributes, max x actions per round etc).

3. If the enemies are not using their abilities properly. I've had fights where my players waded through a challenge I though was appropriate, only to find afterwards that I hadn't used them optimally: either from forgetting CAs, special rules or simply from playing them stupidly...

If you don't like the system, you are free to change it of course. But I must say I find it way to complex - and I like the current, so that of course makes me less-than-objective. I would take the system as it is (perhaps with house rules used by others and playtested) and then gradually apply your changes as you go. Trying to fix a system by rebuilding it almost from scratch (usually) requires extensive testing and much experience to arrive at a good outcome. It will be much simpler, and probably get a better result if you gradually fix things you don't like in small steps.

Also, it sounds a bit like you are not using the system to its full potential. I would certainly wait and get some more experience with the system, and perhaps some pointers to how best use the system from the guys here at the forum.

Regardless, good luck with whatever you go with.

- Dan

 

[Lemnoc]

I'll just add a small bit here: Hero Points and Heroic Abilities.

While I wouldn't advise burning HPs to gain an extra CA in a round, if a player wanted to do so in a pinch, I'd allow it. Consider it a "push."

If I were styling a Conan level of play, I'd allow an HA or two to be selected in the character generation. Perhaps even create a special one: "Mook-O-Matic," that might blend certain aspects of Battle Fury with Tireless.

 

[Lemnoc]

You have a single opponent, which should be a challenge against a whole party.. a giant for instance. The lack of CAs can really become the thing that ruins it for the monster. This can be controlled by high skill, special traits (extra CA for defence only for instance), high natural armour etc.

Another thought for giant-sized opponents might be to allow them to, based on whatever they're swinging, to strike at multiple targets in a single CA. This would make sense if a giant were swinging an uprooted poplar or a squid had 30-foot slimy tentacles. Just swinging those suckers would affect multiple hexes.

I'm going to play around with this some, and see if it doesn't make sense and power up these single foes.

 

[Redcrow]

WFRP 2e is also a game where CA's can be a valuable commodity during combat. Creatures in WFRP 2e have a variety of different 'Talents' that can help even things out a bit when they are fighting a whole party of adventurers. Heres an example...

Unstoppable Blows
A creature with this talent is so large and strong that its attacks are incredibly difficult to parry. Opponents suffer a -30% penalty to parry attempts.

I think alot of the Talents from WFRP 2e would fit well in Legend for both Characters and Creatures. The Weapon Qualities could also be ported over quite easily to Legend as well.