Toward more dynamic combat

[Christopher R Taylor]

I've been toying around with ideas for a while now, but I'm not sure they are valuable or any use.  My intent is to get people to be more active and do more in combat than use their best ability to blast people.  I find that mixing up the setting, having foes with unusual abilities, etc an help but I'd like to see even more exciting and unusual actions from players and I think more options can help with this.

 

The first is loosening up the "attack ends your phase" rule which if I ever run a Hero game again is going bye bye.  You should be able to act after attacking.  I know GMs that have used this and it works fine for them.

 

The second is letting people break up their move however they want through the phase rather than in two half moves.  So, a 12m runner could move 3m, attack, move 6m, check around a corner, then move 3m more.

 

The third is letting people use defensive martial arts maneuvers off their phase at a penalty.  So blocks, dodges, riposte, etc.  This one is probably the most sketchy but I feel that it would make combat more exciting and dynamic if people didn't need to sacrifice a phase to throw in more blocks.  When its your phase, which is better: hitting your foe or blocking them to set up another hit?  Almost never is the second choice tactically useful, but in real combat its almost constant.

 

Does this stuff sound crazy or is it doable?  I really don't know, its just something off the top of my head.

[Nolgroth]

Let me think....

 

Higher movement speeds would have an advantage. I mean, they should since their movement is higher but the utility might prove very cost effective.

 

Things like cover are going to become very important, as people attack and then run behind a desk or pillar or something.

 

Instead of muddying the Speed Chart up, I would let people attack on the Phase that they've Aborted, but the Abort counts as the first attack in a Multiple Attack Penalty string. Example, Phase 7, Grogg the Barbarian has to Abort to Dodge. On Grogg's next Phase (8), Grogg may attack with his war axe but at -2 OCV. If he tries to push for more attacks, the OCV penalty rises. I might even add an additional penalty because the character is a little unbalanced. Maybe -4 to OCV. I would have to think deeper on it.

 

So, in short, this stuff sounds crazy if you're a grognard. Is it doable? I'd say yes, as long as you understand that the dynamic shifts in favor of those with more movement speed. It would need some pretty extensive testing and tweaking before going "live" in a game. To me it sounds like fun.

[Doc Democracy]

I think there is a balance to be drawn other than where effective combat is considered. I think of how things would play out in my group and I think additional options in combat will result in combats taking more time. Now, if the fighting is more fun, then that balances. If your players already think HERO combat takes too long, then it does not.

 

Like Nolgroth, I think there is value in thinking it out. I would appreciate anything that better exploits the speed chart or thinks of innovative ways of using it. I had the scratchings of an idea in my brain that drops everything to segment by segment play. Everyone can do stuff each segment but you accumulate penalties, you can move and attack in the same segment but draws an immediate penalty as well as increasing the penalty to the next roll/action. Phase markers (based on the speed chart) indicate when these penalties are removed (or reduced). It might require more thought to make it work - I can see this working better for SPD 6 characters than SPD 3 ones but there should be some value in buying SPD now that it does not provide access to more actions.

 

Doc

[Nolgroth]

One of the things I like about this concept is that you don't have everybody standing around slugging it out. Characters are going to by dynamically moving across the battlefield in order to put or close distance, get that perfect aim with their ranged weapon, or strike and retreat. Like DEX in pre-6th edition, Movement powers are going to become king and may need a price hike. Certain combinations like Attack and then drop a Barrier (or go Invisible/Desolid/whatever) are going to become tactical norms. Terrain will be queen, as some Movement powers are going to create an enormous advantage. Think of Flight along a cliff side path or Swimming around a dingy or a dock. 

 

I see the potential for abuse but I also see the potential for battles, like the Obi-Wan/Darth Vader fight on Mustafar, to become a tabletop reality.

[doccowie]

I'd be very careful about free blocks:

Firstly it makes HtH combat less effective than ranged.

With matched opponents half the successful attacks will be blocked, making everything just take twice as long.

Deflection and Martial Block become much more valuable.

It shifts the odds even more in favour of the more more skilled opponent (this may be a feature rather than a bug, but again, increases the value of skill levels)

 

Games that routinely use attack/parry rules like Runequest tend to have more ways to bypass the parry, or do damage even on a successful parry.

We actually tried using parrying rules a long time ago, and abandoned it as combats became tedious attack/parry, attack/parry snoozefests.

[Doc Democracy]

It does fundamentally change things.  Like non-combat movement - I dont think I would allow the concept in this - you can move your full allowance every segment.  That means a SPD 4 Brick with 6m running suddenly goes from running at 2m/s (72km/h) to running at 6m/s (216km/h).  I dont think he needs the doubling rule to get him up to doing high speeds.  Not sure what effect the penalties are going to have but he will be accumulating 8 a turn!! :-)

 

I like the fact it is easy to get up high in velocity but I think that the core running will have to be reduced (or the penalties for running so recklessly become severe enough that it is not worth using every segment unless you need to).

 

Doc

[Christougher]

An idea I've toyed with in terms of 'dynamic', was to add a minor penalty for repeating the same action in a following phase.  It was born out of LARP fighting (Amtgard specifically), where if I survived you making the same attack twice in a row, I saw an opening, and the next time, I used it against you.

 

In theory, maybe it's just results in describing your strikes as punch, elbow, knee, but maybe it also leads to punch, double-fisted overhand smash Haymaker, Grab and slam into the nearest wall or object.

 

Chris.

[doccowie]

An idea I've toyed with in terms of 'dynamic', was to add a minor penalty for repeating the same action in a following phase....

Chris.

 

This is a great idea - would give some benefits to more versatile heroes, perhaps some penalties for agents and norms with blasters - but that sounds OK.

The only thing is that penalties are always more depressing than bonuses.

Perhaps you could just use +1 surprise move bonuses for people who use a different attack?

[Christopher R Taylor]

One of the things I like about this concept is that you don't have everybody standing around slugging it out. 

 

 

Well yeah, that's kind of what I'm trying to get to, so its not just everyone stands there and hits each other with their best attack over and over.  I want to see more movement and more going on.  But I do think the -1 OCV penalty for a half move in a phase should be brought back to offset some of the benefits of mobility.

 

An idea I've toyed with in terms of 'dynamic', was to add a minor penalty for repeating the same action in a following phase.

 

 

I like this idea a lot, maybe -1 DCV if you use the same attack twice in a row.

 

If people block, dodge, and parry more, that actually makes more sense, its going to look more like combat does in movies or real life.  Its almost never just two people hammering each other with their best attack over and over again until one falls over.

[Joe Walsh]

I usually try make sure the bad guys are doing what makes sense in the scene. If the hero's doing something predictable, I let them anticipate and do what they would think to do. Sometimes that means ducking behind cover, sometimes it means fouling Our Hero's attack, coordinating an attack on him or her and using predictability to their advantage when setting it up, etc.

 

Sometimes I'll roll against the villain's INT when a PC is being predictable, to see if the they figure out what the character's up to. Then either I let things happen automatically (e.g. ducking for cover when at range and with cover nearby) or give a +1 to +3 bonus to, for example, the villain's DCV when the PC attacks or to the villain's attempt to Block.

[Cantriped]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue, but it seems like the crux of your problem is that you don't like the fact that players are inclined to spam whatever the effective tactic available to them is. This isn't really a problem you can fix with house rules (or that is fixed by any of the house-rules presented thus far). Changing the mechanics of combat (such as by removing the "Attack Actions End Your Phase" rule) will simply change what the most effective tactics are, it won't prevent players from gravitating to them, or using them over and over again once they've figured them out.

 

The only way to really force players to temporarily adopt new tactics (aka, 'shake things up') is to render their usual tactics temporarily ineffective by whatever means is most reasonable under the circumstances.

For example:

If a player's best tactic is to remain stationary and blast at range, have enemies take cover and make Snap Shots, or perform evasive maneuvers (Half-Move + Dodge) to force the player to waste time (and END/Charges), or charge into Hand-To-Hand and Grab the Point of Origin for their Blast.

​If a player's best tactic is to make high-velocity Passing Strikes, have the enemy back themselves against a wall so that the character doesn't have enough room to decelerate or veer after their Strike, or Abort or Hold Action to Dive For Cover over and over, or Hold an Action to create a Barrier (or just move an obstacle) into their path after it is too late to veer. Note: A Held Action used to perform an Attack or Move can interrupt a character's phase if the holder succeeds a DEX (or EGO) Versus DEX (or EGO) Contest* (6e2 20)**.

*Using EGO if the Interrupted/Interrupting is a Mental Action.

**I would usually quote CC, but that rule isn't in CC.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well the name of the topic helps make sense of my thoughts: "Dynamic combat."  I would think that so does things like "more like real life" and "more like movie combat."

 

So the idea here isn't "make players stop using the most effective tactics" but rather "shift what is effective to ways that are more like real life and martial arts"

 

Does that help make sense?

[Surrealone]

Suddenly, a high-speed, high-movement character based on multiple move by attacks ... becomes stupidly cost effective.  (And they're already pretty darn cost effective.)

 

These characters can, today, under RAW, cruise onto the scene from around a corner, slam into several opponents or one opponent multiple times (multiple move bys), and then dart around another corner for cover.  Imagine what they could do If they could also abort and attack (in that order) in the same phase ... or worse, attack and then abort (in that order) in the same phase.  Now layer in defensive martial arts in any off-phases and suddenly, you can achieve the same effect ... at much lower SPD.

 

Umm, yea ... that's what I see happening.  A rare but highly efficient character build would become stupidly powerful ... on fewer points ... at lower SPDs.

[Old Man]

Game-wise, the one thing I might do is penalize characters for doing the same thing two phases in a row.  Call it a predictability penalty or something, such that each repeated strike or technique against the same target either gives an OCV penalty or gives the target a bonus to block or dodge.  This is somewhat unrealistic, especially for ranged attacks where walking shots onto the target is a perfectly valid tactic.  But if you're simulating a highly tactical Ninja Hero type of campaign, it fits.

 

I don't know about allowing movement after an attack--that seems like it would be too easy to abuse, even though "in and out" at ranges of one or two paces is, again, a perfectly valid attack in real life.

[Surrealone]

I don't know about allowing movement after an attack--that seems like it would be too easy to abuse, even though "in and out" at ranges of one or two paces is, again, a perfectly valid attack in real life.

The same net effect is already in the game.  See the Move-By and Strafe maneuvers wherein an attack is permitted along with a full move.  Both entail plotting the full movement path prior to making the attack roll, and both also allow for moving behind cover, around corners, etc. after the attacker attacks his/her target using the maneuver -- regardless of hit/miss status of the attack made during the maneuver.

 

Consider these maneuvers in the context of a character with 30m of flight or running ... and you suddenly see how they can be darn tough to take out since you can't abort to an offensive action against them under current RAW ... and likely don't see them coming from around that corner over there.  Thus, someone typically needs to use a held action to peg a character like this ... which, under Christopher's proposed rules, our high movement, high speed character could just abort (mid-movement/attack) to avoid whereas per RAW, s/he presently can't.  AoE is the other usual route to make life tough for these archetypes... and, again, Christopher's proposed rules would allow for an abort (mid-movement/attack) to Dive for Cover to avoid being caught in an AoE's area ... which under RAW, today, isn't possible mid-attack.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I would really like to playtest some of this, to see how it played out.  I think it probably would lead to a lot of things we aren't thinking about.  I used to have this guy who instinctively found ways to break and cheat things, he wasn't really calculating so much as he easily saw flaws and took advantage of them.  He was the ideal playtester.

[Beast]

I'd say an attack is a 1/2 action so you can do it to 1st or last
breaking a move up any more just adds too much
 

you pretty much would need to hold a 1/2 phase
just get flying dodge full move +4 DCV

 

I've been toying around with ideas for a while now, but I'm not sure they are valuable or any use.  My intent is to get people to be more active and do more in combat than use their best ability to blast people.  I find that mixing up the setting, having foes with unusual abilities, etc an help but I'd like to see even more exciting and unusual actions from players and I think more options can help with this.

 

The first is loosening up the "attack ends your phase" rule which if I ever run a Hero game again is going bye bye.  You should be able to act after attacking.  I know GMs that have used this and it works fine for them.

 

The second is letting people break up their move however they want through the phase rather than in two half moves.  So, a 12m runner could move 3m, attack, move 6m, check around a corner, then move 3m more.

 

The third is letting people use defensive martial arts maneuvers off their phase at a penalty.  So blocks, dodges, riposte, etc.  This one is probably the most sketchy but I feel that it would make combat more exciting and dynamic if people didn't need to sacrifice a phase to throw in more blocks.  When its your phase, which is better: hitting your foe or blocking them to set up another hit?  Almost never is the second choice tactically useful, but in real combat its almost constant.

 

Does this stuff sound crazy or is it doable?  I really don't know, its just something off the top of my head.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think allowing Block/Dodge etc. included in the phase is likely to draw out combat by resulting in fewer hits per turn, although simply buying +3 DCV "only when character does not dodge" creates the effect of a character who never stops dodging. I wonder whether players would compensate by buying up OCV.

 

To the high movement character, I'm not sure he's any more of a problem if the other characters can also Dodge or Block his attack without losing their own phase. Not sure anyone said anything about DFC, but if I DFC out of his attack, he doesn't hit either.

[DasBroot]

Given the existence of passing strikes (and their rise in popularity in my gaming group) I'm leaning towards allowing a move after an attack (but not breaking up movement - that will still be the domain of the 'passing' style attacks).

 

But only a move.  Nothing else .. including zero phase or no time actions (such pool assignment or any non-movement power activation of any kind). Something like "Any planned zero phase or no time actions, such as power activation, must be taken at any point in the segment before an attack action."

[Chris Goodwin]

If your players are doing the "I attack.  <roll>  I hit, in location <roll>, for <roll> damage" thing over and over, you the GM could probably have your NPCs be a little more dynamic in their tactics.  Don't just let the players monotonously roll; force them to use some tactics, by using some tactics yourself.  For instance, if one of your orcs or agents or villains or whatever is being pounded on, have another one move up to assist.  Have some of them delay phases in order to stagger their attacks or have actions available to assist.  If one of them has just been pounded on, but isn't Stunned, have them move back to let an uninjured comrade hit.  Let them take advantage of terrain, objects in the environment, and so on, for cover, improvised attacks, things to Knockback their opponents into, etc. 

[Ninja-Bear]

I've said before what if you just allow move and attack to be interchanged. I remember mentioning that in DnD 4th allowed it. And you can do that in WEG Star Wars and I had no problem with it.

[bigdamnhero]

The first is loosening up the "attack ends your phase" rule which if I ever run a Hero game again is going bye bye.  You should be able to act after attacking.  I know GMs that have used this and it works fine for them.

I've been playing this way for 20+ years, and I literally can't think of a single time it's been a problem. If someone abuses it to attack and then run for cover that's 6m away, I will sometimes let the Bad Guy take a parting shot at their backs, stressing the fact that this is not a board game and most of this is happening nearly simultaneously.

 

The second is letting people break up their move however they want through the phase rather than in two half moves.  So, a 12m runner could move 3m, attack, move 6m, check around a corner, then move 3m more.

Hmm..Never thought of this, but it makes some sense. I would still say that attacking takes a 1/2 Phase action, so your 12m runner could move 3m, attack, and then move 3m more, but they would still normally be limited to 6m of movement. In other words attacking still means they're limited to a 1/2 move, but they can split up that 1/2 move however they like.

 

I do sometimes let my players take a "Free 5-foot Step" like in D&D if they want to adjust their position a bit while making a Full Phase attack or the like.

 

The third is letting people use defensive martial arts maneuvers off their phase at a penalty.  So blocks, dodges, riposte, etc.  This one is probably the most sketchy but I feel that it would make combat more exciting and dynamic if people didn't need to sacrifice a phase to throw in more blocks.

Seems like that would really slow down combat significantly. Not just because of the extra die roll, but because so many more attacks will be blocked. If everyone gets to block every Phase, you haven't really mixed things up, you've just made the "standard" attack more complicated.

 

One thing we did try a few years back was opposed rolls: essentially the attacker rolls OCV+3d6, the defender rolls DCV+3d6, and high roll wins. Sounded good in theory, but we felt like all it did was add another layer of randomness to combat results and we ditched it after I think 2 sessions.

 

I had the scratchings of an idea in my brain that drops everything to segment by segment play.

I would recommend you resist scratching that particular itch. We tried that too once, and quickly decided it was a complete PITA that added no value. IIRC, that one lasted 1 session...

 

An idea I've toyed with in terms of 'dynamic', was to add a minor penalty for repeating the same action in a following phase.

Yeah, I'll sometimes give their opponent a small DCV boost if the players are getting repetitive of unimaginative, basically a Predictability Penalty, the opposite of a Surprise Bonus. (Making it a bonus to the NPC's DCV rather than a penalty to the PC's OCV "feels" less like punishing the player, even tho the math is of course the same.)

 

But I do think the -1 OCV penalty for a half move in a phase should be brought back to offset some of the benefits of mobility.

Personally I dislike this because it discourages exactly the sort of dynamic combat you're trying to encourage. I would much rather assume that moving is the norm, and characters can always Brace for a penalty if they want it. YMMV of course.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm pretty sure Savage Worlds you can move after attacking and break up your movement however you want as well, but its a super simplified, abstracted system so its probably not helpful in this analysis.

 

I haven't ever had players balk at the -1 OCV for half move penalty, unless they really had to make a very hard shot or were trying something really tricky.  Its probably not appropriate for superhero or wild martial arts stuff but in more realistic games it just makes sense.  Not like people can't buy a penalty level to offset that if they want to be extra mobile.

[Doc Democracy]

I would recommend you resist scratching that particular itch. We tried that too once, and quickly decided it was a complete PITA that added no value. IIRC, that one lasted 1 session...

 

 

What?  You gave everyone 12 Speed and imposed penalties for multiple actions until refreshed by an Action Phase?  Or did you split up the current actions down to segments??

 

Doc

[bigdamnhero]

What?  You gave everyone 12 Speed and imposed penalties for multiple actions until refreshed by an Action Phase?  Or did you split up the current actions down to segments??

The latter: Movement & Actions apportioned per Segment instead of per Phase. So normally a SPD 3 Character with 16m Running "stands still" on Phases 1, 2 & 3, and then on Phase 4 moves 8m & attacks. Under our system, they'd move 2m on each of Segments 1, 2, 3 & 4, and attack on Phase 4. Two non-movement 1/2 Phase Actions would be spaced out similarly.

 

Even as I type this, a small part of my brain thinks "Yeah, that actually makes sense..." But then the part of my brain kicks in that remembers what an unmitigated pain it was, and how much complexity it added for no discernible benefit...