Using INT in Combat

[The Main Man]

Background: I play in a group of eight-eleven people, so sometimes combat gets bogged down for various reasons, one of which can be disorganization as each player tries to figure out what they want to do. I concocted the following idea as a way to possibly fix at least that, while also making INT count point per point as it would happen.

 

The Theory: Every combat segment is the same second of time for everyone, but some can process more information in that second than others (i.e. higher INT) and thusly respond accordingly to the action.

 

The Rule: Characters announce their actions in ascending order of INT and then, like normal, execute their actions in descending of order of DEX.

 

Players may not changed announced actions unless they make an appropriate roll of the GM's choice - usually a DEX, INT, or PER roll should do, maybe whichever CHAR is highest.

 

Note: I do have the idea that a player may cancel their action or choose to hold instead at no penalty.

 

Example: Three men are in a brawl: Fast-Stupid Man (DEX 30, INT 5), Clumsy-Smart Man (DEX 5, INT 30), and Average-Average Man (DEX 10, DEX 10). It is Segment 12.

 

Fast-Stupid Man decides his action first because he has the lowest INT. He wants to punch Clumsy-Smart Man right in the face and break his glasses.

 

Average-Average Man decides his action next. He wants to Trip both Fast-Stupid Man and Clumsy-Smart Man in a Multiple Attack.

 

Clumsy-Smart Man, having the highest INT, gets to decide his action last. He will decide to Block both of his opponents' attacks.

 

Fast-Stupid Man, having the highest DEX, gets to go first. He rolls to attack Clumsy-Smart Man, who, having Aborted to Block, rolls to Block Fast-Stupid Man's punch. He fails, and Fast-Stupid Man knocks him back a few meters.

 

Average-Average Man goes next, but his player wants to change his action to a single Trip against Fast-Stupid Man, so the GM tells him to make a DEX roll to change his action. Average-Average Man succeeds, and then makes his attack roll to Trip Fast-Stupid Man, and succeeds, knocking him to the ground.

 

 

 

That's the idea, so what are people's thoughts?

[Christopher]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

Star Wars D6 used a similar aproach. They used the Perception-Characterstic (not Intelligence) for it too.

 

However there the faster one can choose who he wants to declare first. So Clumsy-Smart Man could decide to declare first (in order to "dominate" that segment with his action), or at least before any one with lower INT(Average-Average Man or Fast-Stupid Man). Same goes for Average-Average Man, he could at least let Fast-Stupid Man go first, or declare before him (but only before Clumsy-Smart Man when later let's him to).

Note however that the entire turn- and rulesystem of SW d6 is build around that Idea and that those who declare first also go first (but one turn there is also closer to an entire 12 Second turn in HERO).

 

Could there be Problems with haymakers (when the smart, agile one one can just declare "I hold my action to move 1 Meter" once he learned of it)?

[The Main Man]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

Star Wars D6 used a similar aproach. They used the Perception-Characterstic (not Intelligence) for it too.

 

However there the faster one can choose who he wants to declare first. So Clumsy-Smart Man could decide to declare first (in order to "dominate" that segment with his action), or at least before any one with lower INT(Average-Average Man or Fast-Stupid Man). Same goes for Average-Average Man, he could at least let Fast-Stupid Man go first, or declare before him (but only before Clumsy-Smart Man when later let's him to).

Note however that the entire turn- and rulesystem of SW d6 is build around that Idea and that those who declare first also go first (but one turn there is also closer to an entire 12 Second turn in HERO).

 

Could there be Problems with haymakers (when the smart, agile one one can just declare "I hold my action to move 1 Meter" once he learned of it)?

1. Interesting. I've never played SW D6, but luckily I have a friend who can hook me up, because now I want to read more about that.

 

2. True, Haymakers could be a little trickier. I think that it may come down to whether one has both a higher DEX and a higher INT than the one using the Haymaker, where it would be easiest to avoid the attack in the first place, because a lower INT would mean avoiding the Haymaker requires a DEX/INT/PER roll to change action, while a lower DEX would require an Aborted action to avoid it.

 

And of course, Haymakers last for that extra segment in order for targets to have a chance to abort their action to defend.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

So, how should this impact Aborting?

 

Let's say:

 

(a) Fast Stupid declares he's going to Grab Clumsy Smart

( Average Average declares he's going to Blast Fast Stupid

© Clumsy Smart declares he's going to blast Average Average

(d) Fast Stupid misses Clumsy Smart and has his DCV reduced

(e) Can Average Average "Abort" to dodge Clumsy Smart's blast?

 

Or

 

(d) Fast Stupid Grabs Clumsy Smart

(e) Average Average misses

(f) Can Clumsy Smart try to Break Free or Teleport, instead of Blasting? Why should he make a DEX roll, rather than an INT roll, to change his action, if the choice of action is dictated by INT rather than DEX?

 

Why shouldn't Fast Stupid say "I will reserve"? How will reserving work under this model?

[dmjalund]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

you cant RAW abort to attack so © is a standard blast and standard abort rules say (e) yes he can dodge

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

OOPS - typo'd my post. Fixed now - he wants to dodge instead of blast after declaring he would blast, but before blasting.

 

May as well always declare an attack and change your mind if it becomes advisable to take a defensive action instead. In fact, why not announce "I will delay as long as possible and then Blast". If I have the highest DEX, and the lowest INT, I announce that first, but I can always change to a defensive maneuver if need be.

 

There's no question this approach would make DEX much more valuable. If my target is KO'd or knocked well back before my action, I now need to make a DEX roll to change my target.

[Christopher]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

1. Interesting. I've never played SW D6' date=' but luckily I have a friend who can hook me up, because now I want to read more about that.[/quote']

When you want, I could make a thread in the General Roleplaying Area. It's an intersting game system and an interesting aproach to initiative. Having it written down might come in handy over the time with other iniative based ideas.

[The Main Man]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

OOPS - typo'd my post. Fixed now - he wants to dodge instead of blast after declaring he would blast, but before blasting.

 

May as well always declare an attack and change your mind if it becomes advisable to take a defensive action instead. In fact, why not announce "I will delay as long as possible and then Blast". If I have the highest DEX, and the lowest INT, I announce that first, but I can always change to a defensive maneuver if need be.

 

There's no question this approach would make DEX much more valuable. If my target is KO'd or knocked well back before my action, I now need to make a DEX roll to change my target.

 

I used a DEX roll in the example to avoid verbosity - I cut to the chase IOW. I stated that the GM may choose between DEX, INT, or PER rolls, depending on the situation or perhaps whichever is highest.

 

 

I'd like to discuss your other position though. Am I correct that your central point is that higher DEX characters can game the process by holding their actions?

 

That is, if a character happens to have a lower INT but a higher DEX, they can declare that they will hold their action, wait for higher INT characters to declare their actions, and then declare their own action? That's what you're saying, right?

 

Sorry for the delay by the way. I lack internet access from home and I prefer not to make long posts from a cell phone.

[CBikle]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

The Star Wars RPG had a similar mechanic of declaring actions vs. performing actions; it's an interesting idea, but it tends to bog down the game even more than it already is and I can't imagine that working too well in a game with 8-11 people.

[The Main Man]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

The Star Wars RPG had a similar mechanic of declaring actions vs. performing actions; it's an interesting idea' date=' but it tends to bog down the game even more than it already is and I can't imagine that working too well in a game with 8-11 people.[/quote']

Yep, going into the idea that's one of the first things I thought of. I will say, again, that the original intention is to help organize combat. Perhaps something different would work better.

 

And I still intend to check out that SW RPG.

[Vondy]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

What if circumstances change between the time I announce my intention and my turn comes up?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

I used a DEX roll in the example to avoid verbosity - I cut to the chase IOW. I stated that the GM may choose between DEX' date=' INT, or PER rolls, depending on the situation or perhaps whichever is highest.[/quote']

 

As a player, I'd want to know the type of roll that's relevant, or the criteria for choosing which roll is relevant, as I design my character. I dislike the idea that there will be a determination made at the time of each roll. That is one more decision to be made during play, and creates the potential for inconsistencies and arguments.

 

I'd like to discuss your other position though. Am I correct that your central point is that higher DEX characters can game the process by holding their actions?

 

How will holding actions work? Delaying your actions is one perk of a higher DEX. If the high DEX, low INT character must declare his action early on, and is then bound by it, the value of his high DEX has been eroded. If he can simply say "delay", then the benefit otherwise attributed to a high INT under your system is eroded.

 

That is' date=' if a character happens to have a lower INT but a higher DEX, they can declare that they will hold their action, wait for higher INT characters to declare their actions, and then declare their own action? That's what you're saying, right?[/quote']

 

If he can say "I'm going to delay", then he'll be declaring his action some time after his DEX comes up in the phase, rather than at his INT. If that's legal, why should any of the characters declare? If the low INT character declares "I'll delay", I see no reason the mid- and high-INT characters would not declare the same thing, so we're back to declaration in DEX order, where the high DEX can choose, again, to delay waiting to see what the lower DEX characters do.

 

What if circumstances change between the time I announce my intention and my turn comes up?

 

As I read the structure, you have to make a roll (DEX, INT or PER - see above) in order to change your action. So instead of the present structure where you decide you won't attack your planned target after all (because he turtled up, fled, or got KO'd, or because a better target of opportunity has presented itself), you have to make a roll to change your action. I'm unclear what happens if the roll fails - ie whether you are bound by your previous action (notwithstanding that he has revealed himself to be a double agent, and is really on our side, I still take that Called Head Shot) or just take no action at all.

[Vondy]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

As I read the structure' date=' you have to make a roll (DEX, INT or PER - see above) in order to change your action. So instead of the present structure where you decide you won't attack your planned target after all (because he turtled up, fled, or got KO'd, or because a better target of opportunity has presented itself), you have to make a roll to change your action. I'm unclear what happens if the roll fails - ie whether you are bound by your previous action (notwithstanding that he has revealed himself to be a double agent, and is really on our side, I still take that Called Head Shot) or just take no action at all.[/quote']

 

If that is the case, and as the OP stated this is about speeding combat, I prefer the egg-timer approach. Requiring a die-roll to apply common sense to potentially changing circumstances is not common sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

I could see the "roll to change your action" approach if the objective is to simulate actions occurring rapidly or even simultaneously, but I think the better approach might be announcing actions in reverse DEX order, then resolving all together (ie if I announced I would fire blast you, and you indicated you would Punch me, we both roll to hit and damage, and get Knocked back at the same time). Not sure that would be very manageable.

[Christopher]

Re: Using INT in Combat

 

I have another, most likely to complex way to solve the "delay action declaration" problem

- set the throw to switch actions to INT

- you can hold an action to intercept a specified event as normal; opposing DEX-Rolls are in effect

- when you hold your declartaion (not delcaring to hold until X, but declaring that you want to wait what higher-INT's declare first) and then decide to hold against a specified action, you must make an "switch action" roll to change you action from "undeclared/delayed declaration" to whatever you want.

- when your newly declared action requires opposing dex rolls, they aply normaly.

 

Example:

HiLd: High Int, Low Dex

LiHd: Low Int, High Dex

LiHd has to declare first, but dicides to hold his declaration until he knows what the other guy does.

HiLd declares an attack.

Now LiHd decides to block that attack; He has to make an INT roll to change the action in time. If he fails, the Block counts as aborting his next Phase. If he succeds, it's the action from this phase.

 

If LiHd instead dicides to intercept the attack with a disarm or non-defense action (like teleportign behind him), he has to make an INT and DEX roll to make it in time.

 

Totally different aproach:

Honestly, I still think that the above is still unwieldy. Maybe chaging the rules isn't the best way to optimize Initative. Here is an aproach from my Dark Heresy GM used to organise two really big battles (ones with more than one dozen NPC's and 4 PC's):

- Use clearly discernible Minitures (he is Warhammer Tabletop player, but different colored Smarties work too. Rather use permanent solutions then temporary ones here)

- Have an initiative chart.

- Number everyone in the game. Also mark things like STUN with tokens at the target and Lost Body/Stun by the miniature.

- He recapitulated what hapened after every Turn. So do the same after every phase. It helps a lot if the player are reminded of what hapened and it gives you a chance to describe the battle as cinematic as the die rolls make possible.

It's overall a lot more work in setting up (getting miniatures, making room to use them, the extra time to recapitulate) but it's totally worth it and seriously helps your players to have an overview of the battle.