opinions on a house rule

[Verisimilitude]

Hey there, I have a house rule I am wanting to try out, but wanted to run it past you fine people to get some thoughts on it :
************************************************************
1) Combat perception.

After Strike Ranks are determined, everyone also rolls Perception -40%.
A normal success roll allows you get a general idea of what everyone with lower strike rank will do; wait, attack, move, etc., and adds 1 to strike rank.
A critical roll allows you to determine exactly what the intention of the lower ranked combatants are and react accordingly and adds 2 to strike rank.
Everyone declares actions from lowest strike rank to highest and then combat is reolved normally.

[edit] I ok, hashed it out, this is my final thought on it, what do you think?
************************************************************

My thought is while it may slow up combat, it lends a good “realism” feel to combat also and give people with higher perception an edge in combat besides avoiding an ambush.

 

[Halfbat]

::thinks::
Not sure it will work too well.
::thinks more::
In fact, I think it is a disaster. This may sound strong, but I think the warning needs to be made: forcing all participants to declare their intentions before the start of a melee is not only unrealistic but is a route to turning combat into a rote-driven series of actions and pre-ordained responses. It will remove sponteneity and reactions (not Reactions, note!). Combat is fluid, with participants changing their minds and reacting to what others do all the time.

Actions before any combat starts, such as intentions, etc, should be resolved using different mechanics (Influence, Perception, etc) to see what the general level of hostility is. At this point, outguessing someone's possible tactics (not actual moves) is a Lore(Military Tactics) test. Once in combat, the advantage of first move is to get a drop on your opponents and force _them_ to do something: if it's important to wait to see what they're doing, then that's your character's action.

It might be an idea if you outline the problem you see that you're trying to fix.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I think the concept is driven from my feeling that combat is not only DEX but INT based, it is a thinking process almost as much as it is physical, and I think the whole strike rank system lacks because of it.
*But* I do not want to over-stress it...

The concept as I envisioned it would not force people to act a certain way, but possibly lose an action as they changed their minds in reaction to the outcomes of previous participants. I do see where things will get very messy though...

Here was my original idea that brought it to the fore:

Think of the heat of combat where you start to do something but have nt executed it yet and someone with more skill interprets your moves and responds, forcing you to give up the action and adopt another tact. It happens in fencing all the time. It is a prediction of action, as well as a responce to it.

A totally DEX system does not allow for this situation to happen. You, as the "better" participant, just do what you want to do and hope the slow person doesn't get an opening you create due to that.
It seems to me that this is the opposite of experience. Faster better opponents also "create and predict", not just "respond" to after the fact, that's the role of the slow less skilled, or unskilled.

But I can see that it needs to be done differently to avoid to many hassles. I await further thoughts as I ponder this more myself.

 

[Quire]

I think the concept is driven from my feeling that combat is not only DEX but INT based, it is a thinking process almost as much as it is physical, and I think the whole strike rank system lacks because of it.
*But* I do not want to over-stress it...

I think it's reasonable to consider DEX as encompassing 'combat intelligence'. INT is a purer - more intellectual if you like - quantifier. If you look too far into INT, you could start applying it to every single dice roll a character ever makes, because it's all about being cleverer, right? The fact is, though, you get great warriors who couldn't do maths to save their lives. I think INT should be reserved for stuff that is obviously about INT.

One quick-and-dirty method to resolve your issue is to allow 'Defer' as a combat action, which lets the character wait and turns the action into an additional reaction. This might sound like you are only letting them do more 'responding', but reactions are much more than that - Free Attacks can be conclusive, especially in a busy melee.

- Q

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Another solution used elsewhere is to have characters declare their actions for the round slowest to fastest, but execute them fastest to slowest. This means the fastest characters know what the intention of the slower characters is and allows them to react accordingly

 

[Rurik]

Some thoughts:

INT is already taken into account - it is just as important as DEX for figuring the Strike Rank Modifier. While it is true that CA's are based totally off of DEX, acting first is heavily influenced by INT.

Removing the Statement of Intent part of a combat round was an intentional decision on Mongoos's part and probably the biggest factor in the 'streamlining' of combat. No one has to declare or keep track of intentions for the round. It helps a lot - particularly with large combats (too bad that keeping track of actions/reactions eats up all that freed up record keeping...)

That all being said I like the idea of representing combat awareness - particularly in big fights where there are opponents all around. On a similar thought you could require Perception checks to dodge or block attacks from the flanks, or also to dodge missle attacks if already engaged.

 

[Halfbat]

I think the concept is driven from my feeling that combat is not only DEX but INT based, it is a thinking process almost as much as it is physical

Thanks for explaining. As Quire says, I think DEX covers "Combat Intelligence" as much as anything else as well. For example, by some measurements my IQ (INT) is really high, but by any empirical measurement, my actual, physical responses are awful, even if I think about what I want to do quickly. The INT makes up for the DEX (hmm... an SR calculation! :lol: )

Think of the heat of combat where you start to do something but haven't executed it yet and someone with more skill interprets your moves and responds, forcing you to give up the action and adopt another tact. It happens in fencing all the time. It is a prediction of action, as well as a responce to it. [...] It seems to me that this is the opposite of experience. Faster better opponents also "create and predict", not just "respond" to after the fact, that's the role of the slow less skilled, or unskilled.

The trouble is we're not at that fine a level of detail - in fencing (probably not too good an basis, though) the combatants have already started and engaged. In effect, one says "I'm going to attack him" as his Combat Action and the results of the attack/parry/counter are reflected in the subsequent dice rolls and Combat Action exchanges, with the "better opponent" hitting more of his attack rolls.

Despite being cautious about using fencing as a base, I've been in a situation where a better fencer than me has been caught off guard simply because I was able to act really quickly with a move I'd thought about earlier, having seen him fence. The difference between the skills, though, meant I only got him once, at the start... which seems to me to be modelled nicely in the rules. Any prolonged engagement meant I had the worst of it - which reflects the ongoing, rolling SR and the need to adapt to the combat as it unfolds around you with the better person more likely to win in the end. High SR only has any real effect on the first turn of combat when the high-SR person can seize the initiative and shape things a little.

::thinks:: A commentated example might be useful:

A fast warrior (Game Terms: high SR) could declare he is waiting (Game Terms: a Delay CA) for his attacker to lunge. As his opponent attacks fast warrior senses his intentions and pre-empts it, forcing him to react (Game Terms: Opponent attacks, both perform the opposed skill test, fast warrior wins and rolls for his attack first). The combat continues with a rapid interplay of attack/parry/counterattack (Game Terms: both roll as normal for their attacks with the better warrior making more hits, most likely using up his opponents Reactions).

If the fast warrior charges first he is forcing his opponent to respond/react to his actions first, also a nice, simple modelling. In fact, the fast warrior may even be less skilled than his opponent, just able to force the first (possibly critical) move before the combat evolves. In an ongoing situation he'll struggle. Which seems to me to be reasonable, too.

Incidentally, the approach also means the slower SR'd character does not get a chance to announce he is prepared for his attacker to act in order to gain a reaction. He is still able to parry, though (unless surprised), and take his turn in the combat roll-around.

Hope this helps!

 

[Verisimilitude]

Thank you all for your time and thougts. In the future I shall refrain from posting with 2 hours sleep in two days and therefore shall have more clarity and refinement to my concept and questions. lol

Upon further reading I think the system in place can work as. Any changes I might make will lead to complications I, and my players, will not want to deal with.

.