Variable combat actions

[Deleriad]

This could be a very simple and effective solution. 5 actions for all, to be divided among actions and reactions, but you cannot normally do more than 2 attacks per round. Each of the following conditions allow to add one more attack, at the cost of one reaction:

- having DEX of 13+
- having two weapons (or more than 2 limbs if unarmed)
- having 100%+ in the skill you use to attack

I would be tempted to say that you get 3 actions per round with a maximum of 1 attack but allow a flurry attack which uses up all 3 actions in a single go to get two attacks. As you say, the basic system is sound but...

... the disadvantage of this is that it probably requires more accurate book-keeping from the GM because you have to track who has spent their attack action(s) and who hasn't as well as the number of other actions left. Ironically, this is getting more like old RQ.

 

[casamordius]

I suspect the problem with it would be the potential for characters with low quickness to get absolutely hammered. There's also likely to be multiple cases of people attacking only to realise 5 minutes later that their quickness was too low.

on average there is no real difference to 2 CAs compared to 4CAs in the standard rules. if you calculate quickness in a way that it always ranges from 50%-90% it is even less harsh then 2CA <> 4CA.
The main difference is that the die roll makes it somewhat unpredictable.

 

[Denalor]

All very interesting comments and inputs

casamordius suggestions:
IMHO that goes too far in changing the existing system. It's unlikely that you can see all the impacts on e.g. spellcasting etc. That is of course assuming that the system as is is really thought through...

I totally agree that any attempt to factor in size, weapon size and so on into number of attacks ends up as a book-keeping exercise

Me too

(Notet hat I deleted "armour" from the quote !)
I like the ideas concerning skill and armour in relation to available no of CAs.
I'm currently playing with follwoing ideas:
1) add
(Weapon skill above 100%)/10 (round down)
to your table.
I.e. a fighter with Warsword 123% and DEX 12 would add 2 due to his expertise, thus end at DEX14 and get 3 CAs rather than 2 CAs
2) substract
Armour penalty / 10 (round down)
to the same table.
The fighter above wears a plate, AP of -12%, thus -1. Okay, he still has 3 CAs.
However, if he's switching to a chain mail shirt, he'll get -2, thus he's back at 2 CAs.
Sigh, but then wearing heavy armour penalizes twice as it would both reduce your skill and you number of actions :evil: .
I suppose for #1 I'd use real skill, not the one adjusted by armour.
Sigh, but it's still not working: your knight in plate armour and DEX10 will only have 1 CA :evil: ! Not good, not good at all !

I also go with the "exchange Action vs Reaction", I like that, it leaves you a nice option (and thus tactical choice) when you've run out of reactions.

As for book-keeping. Well, it's really only a matter of organisation. Annyoing, yes, but manageable. I also tend to group several opponents together, mostly the rank and file guys or the same creatures. Thus it becomes less effort. I also demand a certain book-keeping from my players.

I must admit that I've changed my opinion about this issue several times now.
I guess the real difference you'll actually encounter will be only 1 CA, as most opponents should have DEX between 7 and 18. I'm not sure about monsters/creatures though as I prefer combat between humans (and the other races of course).
So if you have a shield you can compensate for that 3rd attack your foe might have.
I stilll have the nagging problem of DEX becoming too powerful. And it's not only in hand-to-hand. That spellflinger will also profit a lot from high DEX (most certainly the sorcerers among those).
I guess I'll take the same formula as for Strike Rank, i.e. (INT+DEX)/2 rather than only DEX. Spreads the emphasis of attribute allocation somewhat.

 

[Deleriad]

The thing about using CAs as a resource to model armour, skill etc is, as you have found, that there's not much scope for variability. Dropping from 3 CAs to 2 CAs (including the loss of a defensive reaction) is a massive penalty.

I think that SR is a better resource for modelling armour encumbrance. E.g. rather than reducing combat skills I would be tempted to reduce SR by Armour Penalty over 10.

Once you start letting skills directly affect CAs then you get the question; if I have 80% sword and +30% modifier for some reason, does that count? If so, what happens if I start the round with a +30% modifier but then lose it, does my number of CAs change? If not, what about magic effects, do they count and so it goes.

Basically you get all sorts of knotty problems. They're not unsolvable but they start becoming complicated and I do prefer fairly light touch rules systems. I think people find it easier to house-rule in extra complexity to suit their needs rather than having to house-rule out complexity.

 

[Rurik]

I must admit that starting this thread has strengthened my objection to variable numbers of combat actions based purely on DEX. Just to reprise, someone with DEX 19+ gets 4 CAs while someone with DEX 7-12 gets 2 CAs.

I have always used the Actions/Reactions based on DEX as in the RAW. I have however gone back to declaring reactions only to successful attacks and think the Variable Action system works better that way.

I may well use the actions based on Strike Rank Roll method next time at the tabletop but will continue to use the Dex based CA's for PBP as I only roll strike rank once per combat in PBP.

I know a lot of people hated the declare reaction after a successful attack - and I was one of them at first until I used it for a while - and I know that the official RAW has gone to declare reaction before attack roll, but I like only needing to use them against successful attacks. One reason is for flow of play - you don't have to wait for a response from the target to decide if they want to use a reaction before rolling an attack (this helps a LOT to speed up PBP but streamlines combat at the table as well).

So with the disclaimer that my answers are all in the context of using variable CA's but with a (now) houserule that you only need to declare reactions to successful attacks my responses are:

It's often been mentioned that having variable CAs simulates the nimble thief with a dagger who attacks more quickly than a big slow person with a maul. Thing is, it doesn't. A Great Troll with DEX 19 (DEX = 3D6 same as a human) and a great maul at 40% attacks just as quickly with its maul as a human thief with DEX 19 and 120% in their dagger. It is just as easy for a Great Troll PC to reach DEX 19 as it is for a human PC.]

Dex IS a big part of any martial style, and anyone who wants to make a living at fighting had best be agile. How many professional boxers, martial artists or fencers are known for being clumsy oafs? If a PC wants to be a decent fighter they should make sure their Dex is 13 or close enough that they can get their with a few improvement chances. You can make up for this by being big and strong, or hard work (i.e. skill), but all other factors being equal the quicker more agile fighter has an edge.

Infinite Free attacks. If you have 4CAs and are facing someone with 2CAs and you start more than 10m away then, both parties run for 2CAs and then Mr 4CA throws 2 daggers that can't be dodged. Repeat ad infinitum.

As has been mentioned the 2 CA person actually has 2 reactions for the daggers. He should be carrying some of his own, then he can throw while the fast guy is running . Seriously though, I have always felt that the fighting withdrawal is broken according to the rules as well for similar reasons - so long as the two combatants are on a flat surface that goes on indefinitely. In fact these type of flaws have never actually come up as a problem in play yet for me.

Skill doesn't matter. Skill 120% with DEX 12 compared to skill 40% with DEX 19. The latter gets two undefendable attacks each round.

Pete pointed out the advantages the 120% skill has even with declaring reactions before the attack roll, but obviously the 120% skill may well only need to use 1-2 reactions against the 40% skill if you declare them after the roll.

Weapon doesn't matter. A Great Troll can hit you as quickly with a bear as it can with a dagger.

Attempting to model reach and weapon speed is arbitrary and will complicate combats. Reach is an advantage when trying to prevent someone with shorter reach from closing but a liability when they do close. Either way, going to fixed actions does not address weapon speed either or reach either in and of themselves.

SIZ doesn't matter. Bigger creatures often have relatively low DEX but not always.

While it is true that size and bulk do affect speed and agility, this is a problem with chargen and not variable actions. And usually a character is not going to have all four combat stats (str, siz, dex and int - the latter is half of SR) to be an uber fighter. Once in agreat while someone will be blessed in all areas, and they should be dominant (Mohamed Ali anyone?).

Armour doesn't matter. If you have DEX 19 you have 4 CAs regardless of whether you are wearing a loin cloth or full gothic plate.

RQ has never modeled this - MRQ is much harsher on armor wearing than any previous version. That being said a DEX penalty is a perfectly reasonable house rule.

Extra types of attack don't matter. If you are an 8-armed goddess with 12 DEX you have 2 CAs. If you are a one-armed Fachan with 19 DEX you have 4 combat actions.

Well according to the rules you get a bonus CA for an offhand weapon, so the goddess would have at least three attacks available. The rules don't explicitly cover 7 off hands though. Personally I have always allowed 1 bonus CA for each additional natural weapon for non-humans. A Scorpion man with two swords and 2 CA's would get 4 attacks - His normal 2, the off hand sword and the tail. A 2 CA manticore would get 5 (normal two, and since they have 4 total attacks (bite claw claw tail) I give 3 off hand CAs. So I would give the Shiva 9 attacks total, her normal 2 plus 7 off hand CA's.

There is nothing better than an attack that can't be defended against. E.g. consider two average humans who are identical in all respects except one has +6 STR and one has +6 DEX. The guy with STR gets +6% to all his close combat skills and does +1d2 extra damage twice a turn. The guy with +6 DEX gets +6% close combat weapons and missile weapons and does an extra weapon damage once per turn and can defend against one extra attack per turn and has +3 SR modifier.

The extra damage might be huge though. In MRQ you need to but a single location above a wound threshold to disable or kill an opponent - doing a lot of little itty bitty wounds won't do the trick like in RQ 2/3. So 1-2 extra points of damage goes a long way to get a location below 0, especially against armored foes. One 6 point would can get the job done while 3 different 4 point wounds to different locations won't.

Taking all this into consideration I find myself hard pressed to find any good reason for having combat actions be variable and be based purely on DEX.

In the end it is all a matter of preference, and you make good points. It is all a matter of what rules recreate the type of combat you want to play best while hitting the sweet spot for crunch and playability. These are all subjective targets. After having used the CA's as in the RAW I can say they haven't really ever caused problems for me.

 

[Rurik]

Once you start letting skills directly affect CAs then you get the question; if I have 80% sword and +30% modifier for some reason, does that count? If so, what happens if I start the round with a +30% modifier but then lose it, does my number of CAs change? If not, what about magic effects, do they count and so it goes.

Basically you get all sorts of knotty problems. They're not unsolvable but they start becoming complicated and I do prefer fairly light touch rules systems. I think people find it easier to house-rule in extra complexity to suit their needs rather than having to house-rule out complexity.

This I agree whith whole=heartedly.

In addition a problem with using skill as a determination for CA's is that you often don't want to use all CA's on one action. Theoretically it is fine if you base CA's on weapon skill if someone just attacks all round, but what about casting a quick spell with one action, moving with the next, and attacking with the third (assuming you are a lucky 3 CA bastard of course...).

 

[Rurik]

However, as an aside, has anyone here seen one of their players actually use improvement rolls to increase a characteristic?

I have. Though it was a matter of raising a low stat, not boosting one beyond human average. So do not assume you will not have many DEX 19+ characters. In fact I have a Vronkali one in a PBP!

While Boosting a stat that is at, say a 9, is a risky proposition using 3 improvement points for a 55% chance of improvement (trust me - I know), it is very risky to use 3 IR's for a mere 10% chance to go from an 18 stat to a 19 if one is hunting that 4th CA.

 

[Deleriad]

Going back to declaring reactions after you know the effect of an attack certainly shifts the combat system back towards skill over number of combat actions.

As you say, I suspect we've reached a point where it comes down to personal preference now and a lot of the discussion spins off into other areas of the game system.

On the skill based SR system I tried briefly. Basically, the GM started counting down from a high number. Whenever a player wanted to do something they simply waited until an appropriate SR. E.g. If someone wanted to cast a spell they waited until their spell skill SR, if they wanted to hit someone they waited until their attack skill and so on. Non-skill based actions (e.g. moving) used their DEX as their SR. In the spirit world they used their POW as their SR. (I did for a while consider using Athletics skill for movement SR and Persistence for spirit world.)

It had some elegance but demanded quite skilled players (not characters) as I ruled that if you waited too long because you changed your mind or miscalculated a skill then you didn't roll back to the right SR, you acted at the current SR. It also meant that you had to use learned skill because modifiers played merry havoc with SR otherwise. Possibly more 'realistic' but a pain.

 

[Inspector Zero]

Basically, the GM started counting down from a high number

This of course is how the Hero System works. After a while the players get the hang of thinking ahead and getting ready when its their turn.

Going back to declaring reactions after you know the effect of an attack certainly shifts the combat system back towards skill over number of combat actions.

I have a slight variant to this which solves the why parry an unsuccessful attack conundrum. The player still needs to make a statement of intent but this can be complex and contain alternatives. To whit: "I'll parry the troll's mace unless it misses in which case I will dodge out of the way of the trollkin with the spear" In this way the character still needs to commit to having a plan (rather than just be reactive) but it doesn't burn reactions needlessly.

This would be great in the 120% swordsman vs 40% swordsman scenario Deleriad posed some while back where the master has 2 CAs and the novice has 4 CAs. The master can elect to parry the attacks but can also hold onto them if the novice misses (which given the respective scores is highly likely).

I'm not sure its any more realistic but it plays well.