Two-Roll Combat.

[Deleriad]

I would use the modifiers on both attack rolls, if my modified chance to hit is 65, I would use a 65 for the second attack roll to. Remember there is no second roll for a failure, and no penalty for missing the second attack roll (if the defender misses his parry you still hit).

See, that's the problem. To a certain extent I'm coming at this from the perspective of teaching new players. With experienced players as part of a regular play group then you do whatever suits you best. But, if there is a hope to weed some people away from D20 then you get people who may be sceptical.
"I attack and hit!"
OK. I'm going to defend. Make your attack roll again and I'll make a parry. I miss.
"Damn I missed my attack as well! Um. What happens now?"
You didn't miss because I missed my parry

Obviously you would try to explain it better but all those extra rolls and extra confusion add up.

For example
"I attack. I'm 71%"
OK, you have +20 because of X and -10% because of Y. So you need 81.
"I roll 74. Um."
That's a hit. I'll try to dodge. Make your attack roll again.
"Um ok. My attack's 71%."
Don't forget to add the modifiers.
"Um. what were they again?"
Well there was X which was +20 and Y for -10 so you were +10. so that's 81
"OK. I roll 22!"
I make a dodge! 42%. I make it too.
"Damn. I hit you twice and you still dodged. What happens now?"

I've done a lot of demoing rpgs and that's how it would end up. When everything's new and you keep having to remember modifiers and you do something which looks like you have to re-roll attack then it's just too much.

It's fine for experienced players playing in their normal group but it will put off new players who may have seen nothing but d20.

 

[Elandyll]

I'm going to go with a 1 roll system, but with a few modifications I think.

First, I'll describe to the player what the opponent seems to intent to do "He raises his bastard sword high facing you and..." but then, I'll ask the player to indicate what he intends to do.
If he decides to dodge/parry, I'll then apply the table with 1 attack roll, and one minor change.
The Fail/Fail result will end up in a big "swoosh" and no one getting hurt.


Given how deadly the system is, a succesful dodge/parry should always superceed a successful attack, and diminish the effects of a crit. success.

The advantage of declaring defensive actions, is that in the later games (when players are comfortable with the combat mechanics), you can add "feints" and have the attacker change his attak at the last moment at the cost of a big penalty.

Fun

 

[algauble]

If you are defending and you've run out of reactions you're out of luck, the attacker rolls with no defence roll in reply.

I do have a house rule that allows a defend action to add a reaction - lose an attack to gain a defence.

Initiative is determined only on the first turn, after that it is up to combat results to change things. I've found it speeds things up.

I do like this method, but I'm wondering how you handle multiple parties in a combat. It seems like it could get problematic if you have more than two involved... how does their changing initiative relate to those not involved in the exchange?

 

[Sigtrygg]

I do like this method, but I'm wondering how you handle multiple parties in a combat. It seems like it could get problematic if you have more than two involved... how does their changing initiative relate to those not involved in the exchange?

Each mini combat within a melee is effectively its own little universe, I keep track of the one or two NPCs that are usually in contact with the PC, while it is the player's job to keep track of his initiative.

Someone joining an ongoing melee would roll for initiative and then fit in where appropriate.

It makes a lot more sense in play, it's just difficult to explain.

I'll try to give an example later.