Attack & Move

[captaincrumbcake]

I've been at this (hobby) since, pretty much, 1980. I have yet to be satisfied with anything about the mechanics of the game, as I see them all as being just--arbitrarily conceived.
My own Dun-Mark supplement is no exception; it derives most of its data from Chain Mail and the original LBBs.
But, never content to just sit back and let things be (not while I have a breath left in my body!) I began rethinking a couple of basic mechanics of the game: combat & movement. I've always hated melee, because it always boiled down to one thing: characters attack, or monsters attack, and if they miss, that's the end of it. There's no defense mechanism--it's all in one's gear, maybe a magical +, or a magic item that helps create an AC, and if your enemy cannot roll the # or above needed to hit your AC, it can stand there all day swinging at you and miss. You don't have to move an inch, and it can miss, and miss, and miss. Now, that's just dumb. So I came up with this, and I would really be keen on testing it out. (BTW, its not unique, at all; variations of it are all over the hobby community.)

I. Characters/Monsters all roll 2d6 in order to attack and defend. Highest roll wins.
II. Attackers add a + 1,2,3,4 etc., depending on the type of weapon they wield; smaller faced weapons (dagger, spear, pike)use the smallest bonus, larger ones (2 handed sword) the largest bonus.
III. Any(one) attack(ed) gets a Defend roll against. A +1, 2,3,4 etc. depending on armor type (padded/leather would be +1, plate armor would be +4; shield would add +1). If the defend roll is higher than the attack, the Defend wins!
IV. Magic bonuses to armor, shield, from rings, whatevah, add the given bonus to the attack or defend.
V. A bonus to attack/defend could be included per level of a given class; 1/lvl. for fighter types; 1:2 for clerics; 1:3 for thieves; 1:4 for magic users. V is totally optional, though.

Using the above system, you can devise a table where every/all character/s get a # of attacks/defends per level according to class; 1:1 for fighter types, etc. This would simulate the Man to Man CM system.

How would it work for monsters?

I. As above.
II. Monsters would be allowed to attack a # of times = to their HD, vs. multiple targets; if all are aimed at one target, the monster would get one attack with a + equal to its HD.
III. Monsters defend against all attacks, with a bonus of + 1,2,3 depending upon type of natural-armor they possess; humanoids wearing artificial armor would abide by character rules in this regard.
IV. As above.

And that's it. High roll wins. If winner is attack, he rolls damage. If winner is defending, he takes no damage.

Somehow, this makes sense to me. Or, am I just nuts in thinking it might work?




I've run out of thought-steam for now. The Move part will have to come later.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 19, 2016 18:10:27 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

I've always hated melee, because it always boiled down to one thing: characters attack, or monsters attack, and if they miss, that's the end of it. There's no defense mechanism--it's all in one's gear, maybe a magical +, or a magic item that helps create an AC, and if your enemy cannot roll the # or above needed to hit your AC, it can stand there all day swinging at you and miss. You don't have to move an inch, and it can miss, and miss, and miss. Now, that's just dumb.

Hmm, I don't think this is an exactly fair portrayal of how OD&D combat really works, CCC.

A handful of casual observations include:

1. There may be surprise, missiles, and magic prior to melee--any of which can be decisive.

2. A miss is a miss, sure, but that isn't necessarily the end of it. Where low level players (i.e. normals) or man to man combat is concerned, figures can often have more than one blow per combat round.

3. There are various defense mechanisms built into the combat rules, including running away, flank/rear attack, and parrying. There are also tactical defenses such as using obstructions, or overbearing where it is advantageous.

4. OD&D has no AC better than 2, and there is no (mundane) circumstance where a figure cannot be hit by a d20 roll of 17 or better (which is 20% likely). I'm pretty sure AC assumes a figure is doing his best to avoid getting hit. If a player were just "standing there" in a battle, his opponents would immediately flank him, ignore his shield, and--at the very least--attack at +2 on the die with no possibility of a return blow.

Jan 19, 2016 18:10:27 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

So I came up with this, and I would really be keen on testing it out.

...

Somehow, this makes sense to me. Or, am I just nuts in thinking it might work?

That seems neat CCC, I'm sure there will be circumstances where it could be very satisfactory. I'll be interested to hear how it goes when you get to test it out

Possibly you might want to consider in your play tests that OD&D combat is abstract so that it is fast to play so that we can run big combats! The game specifies a company of 4-6 players should expect to encounter 2-12 orcs on dungeon level 1, 3-18 orcs on dungeon level 2, 2-24 orcs on dungeon level 3, and so on. For all we know, the players might be accompanied by four dwarves and a charmed hippogriff. The point I'm trying to blunder into is: D&D battles can be BIG, and the combat rules are exactly abstract enough to resolve these expeditiously

More rolls, more adds, more options, more possible outcomes, etc. are all things that may risk slowing combat resolution. Game pace is everything when you have six+ players staring at you, all waiting for "their turn"!

[tetramorph]

captaincrumbcake, I have learned that your approach is called an "opposing check." And I like opposing checks. Rolling for initiative is an opposing check.

I have played using a similar approach before, so when you give it a try, you may find you really like it.

I agree with a lot that waysoftheearth is saying.

I think the point of the simplicity of the combat mechanics is to keep the mechanics so abstract as to allow for interesting role play (like ways listed above, things like: retreat, flanking, use of obstructions, heck, just throwing a chair across the room at them!).

I reward my players for creative role play in combat. And I model it by having the monsters to creative and unexpected things. Goblins crawling on walls and falling from the ceiling is a favorite. I also like swinging from ropes and chandeliers and throwing stools, benches, tables and chairs. Feels more like the kind of bar room brawl I imagine D&D melee to be.

[captaincrumbcake]

Here's a (more) formal write up of my thoughts. (As what might appear in a future publication!)


I ATTACKING



  Weapons score either the same or variable # of points of damage when they successfully strike the intended target. Either option can be applied to the actual combat mechanic described here. When Characters and monsters come into proximity of one another, an "encounter" initiative roll is made to see which side goes first. Going first includes physical attacks via combat/melee, spell attacks, missile attacks, and other special moves or actions. Only physical attacks is the focus of this document.


  Each weapon has a face. This is defined as the amount of surface area that will come into contact with the intended target. For example, something as small as a knife has a very small surface area (say, 1" wide by 8" blade) that will potentially harm its intended prey; a large two-handed sword has a much greater area (say, 3" wide by 5' blade). Thus the ability of a smaller face to interact with the target is less for something like a knife than for a larger faced weapon, like a two handed sword.


  When someone is attacking a target, the type of weapon will increase the chance to hit by a + (plus) factor of 1, 2, 3 or 4, depending on the size of the weapon's face. This is the principle applied to the table that follows.



Attack Roll

Adjustment          Weapon types included                                           Notes

    +1                  Dagger, halberd, pike, spear                                     a.

    +2                  Club, hammer, Handaxe, flail, mace, pole-arm              b.

    +3                  Morning star, sword, voulge

    +4                  Glaive, two-handed sword



a. These are puncturing type weapons; some can be thrown, while the bit on some might be attached to the end of a pole (see halberd, pike).



b. This group includes varying surface faces that more or less fall within the same square dimensions. While some are blunt, and others slicing types, it is the area of the bit that is considered.



Note: the groups of weapon types is arbitrary. You could assign any weapon that you believe belongs in particular category. It is just an example.

[captaincrumbcake]

The same mechanic (previous post) is applied to one's protection. The idea being, AC is removed from the system altogether, replaced by the attack/defend rolls.

For example, the lightest type of armor--padded/leather, would gain the defender +1 to his DEFEND roll; Ring or Scale mail, +2; Chain +3; Plate mail +4; shields, +1. Thus, a dwarf fighter in chain mail and a shield would roll 2d6+4 vs. an attack. 

If a character's/monster's attack or defend roll is, minimally, greater than the opponent can generate, it is an automatic hit/defend.
Of course, all this subsumes the same considerations given the prevailing systems; (IOW) the movement and actions of participants.

A creature's/monster's DEFEND modifiers would be a combination of natural armor/hide (etc.) plus speed.

Example: a house cat would be fast, say +5 to DEF, but its skin-fur would not deflect serious weapon-threat; so it would get no bonus due to natural armor.
A Rhinoceros, can be very fleet footed, say a +3 to DEF, and, its hide is very tough, so it might gain an additional +3.

Naturally, this kind of thinking/approach would require a complete overhaul in animal/monster stats. So, I doubt this would appeal to  many folks.

MOVE/MOVING

For sake of simplicity (and isn't that what OD&D is supposed to embrace?) I have boiled down moving to 2 phases: walk/run, with increments defined within each.

Walking                          Segment        Round        Turn
Casual Walk  1'/Sec.           6'              60'          600'        
Standard      2'/Sec.          12'            120'        1200'
Brisk            3'/Sec.          18'            180'        1800'
March          4'/Sec.          24'            240'        2400'

Running
Jog              3'/Sec.          18'            180'        1800'
Stride           5'/Sec.         30'            300'         3000'
Dash            7'/Sec.          42'            420'        4200'* (cannot really be maintained for 10 rounds/minutes.)

Each armor type, because of weight, will have a Walking & Running distance assigned. C, S, B, M for the former; J, S, D for the latter.
Example: Padded & leather would have Move rates of M and D, while plate armor would have a restricted move rate of C and J.
Animals/creatures and monsters can probably be treated according to established move rates; some adjustments might be required.

The Attack & Move ideas are, naturally, experimental. Play testing will reveal if this approach is an improvement, or failure in actual playing of the game.

[waysoftheearth]

I'll admit that I'm a bit confused whether this is meant to be an adaption from OD&D or from something later, CCC.

The usage of Turn, Round, and Segment above seems to imply fixed periods of game time that look a lot like AD&D. Whereas the same words mean different things in earlier incarnations of the game.


(My present understanding is) the "early" (circa 1974) D&D has:
. One day wilderness exploration turns,
. Ten-minute dungeon exploration turns which comprise two moves,
. One-minute combat turns which comprise various turn segments, possibly including: a surprise segment, a move segment, a missile segment, and a melee segment,
. The melee segment of a combat turn comprises an indeterminate number of combat rounds, each of whatever duration is necessary to fill out the combat turn.


EW (1976) adds ("Alternative Combat System: (Addition)", p5) more detail, including the concept of multiple movement segments within each combat round. The movement table on p6-7 show each 1" of movement rate covering 2ft per move. So a 12" movement rate equates to 24ft moved per combat round, which (compared with realistic movement rates) suggests a combat round represent only a handful of seconds of elapsed time.


Holmes (1977) describes a 100-second combat turn comprising ten combat rounds of 10-seconds each.


Whether or not the above really is a simplification of OD&D is possibly something worth digging into a bit further (if that is indeed the objective?)...

[captaincrumbcake]

I'm not sure its simpler(my mechanic) than OD&D, as all it suggests is rearranging how one adds up the attack and protection bonuses in a different manner. At the worse, its no more complex than OD&D, once one gets used to the nomenclature and how things fit. No different than when learning OD&D for the first time.

[waysoftheearth]

I'm interested to see whether this idea can get legs under it. I kinda-sorta have the feeling that it's a bit too complicated for me, but I'm also interested in the discussion...

Jan 21, 2016 16:32:13 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

the ability of a smaller face to interact with the target is less for something like a knife than for a larger faced weapon, like a two handed sword.

  When someone is attacking a target, the type of weapon will increase the chance to hit by a + (plus) factor of 1, 2, 3 or 4, depending on the size of the weapon's face.

I don't know if I can agree with this starting premise, CCC. The notion that weapon surface area should be proportional to hit probability is, IMHO, a bit tenuous.

From an armchair-bio-mechanics perspective: Bouncing about in my head I have the totally unjustified notion that using a weapon effectively is largely about size-ratios and leverage, weight:strength ratios, and competence/training. My thinking is that a larger weapon is generally going to be heavier, slower, and more difficult to use than a smaller weapon.

From an armchair-physics perspective: I also have the equally unjustified impression that a weapon's ability to penetrate armor is largely about focusing more weight/force into a smaller area. That's why pole-arms got long and spiky; more leverage generates more force, and the spike focuses that force into the smallest possible point of impact.

From an armchair-historian perspective: I have read various sources which promote the idea that daggers/short-swords (basically the same thing) and spears were the most successful/effective weapons of ancient and medieval battles. Arrows from powerful bows were also good. Note how all of these weapons deliver all their force to a singe point? I've also read numerous times that maces were effective against plate armor while swords were not.


I don't actually know anything, of course. It's all just speculating in public

[robkuntz]

The idea of face is tenuous. A dagger thrust is used at close quarters and by force and position and has nothing to do with face, but yet its results are devastating (in the real world) to the unarmored opponent. Attempts to rarify the already severely abstracted combat system (at least D&D's) are doomed for many reasons, IMO.

[captaincrumbcake]

There is merit in your observations--WotE, & RK, and perhaps my choice of "face" as a justifier of the proposed mechanic is flawed, in principle; because it relies entirely on the bit of the weapon and does not take into consideration concentrated attack zone (like a dagger point vs. certain protection), or weapon speed, or character strength, or...a lot of stuff. But doesn't the game already ignore most of those for the sake of abstract?

What I'm aiming for in this mechanic, is something slightly different than just the attack, attack of combat; leaving defense to rely soley on a thing called AC (which IMO is simple, quick and easy, but not necessarily the only game in town). I'm exploring alternatives, in the hope of proposing things that, some, might want to try, and may even prefer.

Dickering about is not going to end; every GM's HR from the beginning (remember GH and BM?) attest to that.

[robkuntz]

C. C. Ck noted, "Dickering about is not going to end..."

As well as it should not. Design is also about a process of elimination. I tend to eliminate things during the inquiry phase, myself, rather than assembling bits here or there for commentary. The latter takes more time than the first and the results are often the same between the two. YMMV.

.

[captaincrumbcake]

House Ruling is a beast unto itself. As I interpret it, it is a matter of taking the game components that one does or doesn't like, twists, eliminates, adapts, etc. And comes up with an alternative to their liking; or not, in which case it is likely eliminated. Continued diddling (which is the term I meant, originally)never ends, because the spirit of the game (as I perceive it) suggests that the concept of the game includes continual diddling. I think I read something alluding to this point in the book itself.
So, for what it's worth, everyone should diddle away!

[robkuntz]

This is deserving, of course, of a thread which incorporates the ideas of diddling and fiddling. The rules suggest making them your own; and thus the process in which one does so is left open for general interpretation and application, diddling being included in that if one so categorizes their own involvement as such, whether that be in private or other.

[captaincrumbcake]

The usage of Turn, Round, and Segment above seems to imply fixed periods of game time that look a lot like AD&D. Whereas the same words mean different things in earlier incarnations of the game.

You are correct, and I must explain the terminology.

I extrapolated those move rates based on what I believe an average (height/speed) person's gait is. In the RW. The 1 second-rule is a great one to build off of. 
The "Segment" "Round" "Turn" terms can be exchanged for anything you like. I used them merely to represent the 1-second Gait x 6(Segment); the 6-second Segment x 10 (Round); the Round x 10(Turn).