Odd Combat System Idea

[Chaot]

Let's assume that combat is split into Brawn ((Str+Siz)/2)and Finesse ((Dex+Int)/2). Let's assume that Brawn combat skills defaulted to Brawn x 5% and did 1d4 points of damage and that Finesse combat skills defaulted to Finesse x 5% and also did 1d4 points of damage (plus whatever damage bonuses apply). This represents basic unskilled combat ability.

Then let's say that there is a dedicated combat skill that you can develop. I'm just going to call it Style here because it can be multiple weapons together.

Style 01-30% = 1d6 damage and +10 to combat skill
Style 31-60% = 1d8 damage and +20 to combat skill
Style 61-90 = 1d10 damage and +30 to combat skill

The goal is to provide a base damage type while making room for characters who are skilled in combat as well. Is this too fiddly?

My feeling is it might be. Can someone think of a simple alternative that does roughly the same thing?

 

[Lloyd Dupont]

that's interesting. and perhaps a bit high if it added to weapon damage?

Anyway an idea I am toying with.. is to "democratise" magic..

Add a lot of "cantrip" which work like an intensity 1 sorcery spell.. many of them known culturally or racially or professionally and perhaps mesh with other skill..
Many will be ripped off folk magic spell from Mythras

But for combat I created some original one which I am still undecided for the mechanic, do they last 10 round, or do they are cast as a free action before each combat roll?!
- power strike: increase damage bonus by 1 step
- empower strike: damage is magic, for the purpose of overcoming resistance
- stunning strike: if target takes at lest 1 damage, make a POW vs CON roll or be stunned for next round

[Mugen]

On 5/25/2020 at 12:46 AM, Chaot said:

Let's assume that combat is split into Brawn ((Str+Siz)/2)

My first reaction was that your formula gives base skill far above 100% for giants.

I think your idea makes sense, as long as weapon also influence damage.

As for myself, I'd be in favor of using the tens of the skill roll as a basis for damage, treating a critical as a 10. As a result, a character with skill XY would do base damage between 0 and X.

[Chaot]

I should have mentioned, this is for a human centric game! No giants.

I was not going to have weapons influence damage. The concept would be that damage is determined by how skilled the combatant is.

[wombat1]

It is an interesting take, and to answer the direct question, if there are two basic percentages, and the "style" which I am visualizing as a skill, not too fiddly at all.  I would refine it even further, since one has both a Brawn %-ile and a Finesse %-ile (probably radically different) I would advance "Style" separately as Brawn Style and Finesse Style.  (Ranged combat?)

 

 

[olskool]

12 hours ago, Mugen said:

My first reaction was that your formula gives base skill far above 100% for giants.

I think your idea makes sense, as long as weapon also influence damage.

As for myself, I'd be in favor of using the tens of the skill roll as a basis for damage, treating a critical as a 10. As a result, a character with skill XY would do base damage between 0 and X.

I like this but I would count 0 as 10 not zero.  So damage would be from 1 to 10 based on the 10's roll. 

I would also modify this by the weapon type.  I would rate weapons (and you could do this with STR bonuses too) from 0 (for small knives and light clubs) to 4 (for the heaviest axes and hammers).  This number would ADD to the 10's roll resulting in a potential damage of from 1 to 14.  Since the Weapon's Damage Modifier is fixed, it would greatly simplify the attack roll while giving a "minimum floor" for heavier weapon types.   You could also use the same system for determining how much damage was blocked by a Parry.  The defender rolls the parry just like it was an attack and adds the weapon's Parry Modifier to the 10's roll.   You then just subtract the parry total from the Damage Inflicted and if the number is 0 or negative, the parry was a total success.   IF the total is still a positive number, the Attack penetrates the defender's Parry and inflicts the indicated Damage [remaining].     

Edited May 27, 2020 by olskool
clarifying the rules

[NickMiddleton]

On 5/24/2020 at 11:46 PM, Chaot said:

Let's assume that combat is split into Brawn ((Str+Siz)/2)and Finesse ((Dex+Int)/2). Let's assume that Brawn combat skills defaulted to Brawn x 5% and did 1d4 points of damage and that Finesse combat skills defaulted to Finesse x 5% and also did 1d4 points of damage (plus whatever damage bonuses apply). This represents basic unskilled combat ability.

Then let's say that there is a dedicated combat skill that you can develop. I'm just going to call it Style here because it can be multiple weapons together.

Style 01-30% = 1d6 damage and +10 to combat skill
Style 31-60% = 1d8 damage and +20 to combat skill
Style 61-90 = 1d10 damage and +30 to combat skill

The goal is to provide a base damage type while making room for characters who are skilled in combat as well. Is this too fiddly?

My feeling is it might be. Can someone think of a simple alternative that does roughly the same thing?

 

I've been toying with a system where effects derive from a combination of a characters innate qualities (like existing DB, but divided between force and precision); skill rating and "tool" (e.g. weapon) effectiveness.

So for example DB might be +1D4, Skill might grant +1D8, tool / weapon +1D6 for a total roll of 1D4+1D8+1D6 (Specials and crits would allow one to increase the die size in DB). A successful defensive roll would allow the defender to include active defence (parrying object's tool die Parry Skill die OR or Dodge skill die) as well as passive (armour die); a failed defence roll would only allow passive defence.

Not tested it anger yet mind.

Cheers,

Nick

[Mugen]

8 hours ago, olskool said:

I like this but I would count 0 as 10 not zero.  So damage would be from 1 to 10 based on the 10's roll.

Well, crits are considered as a 10, so a "0 "can be either a 0 or a 10, depending on the units result.

And the higher your skill, the most likely it is to be 10 than 0.

I also use Skill/10 as the chance for crits.

8 hours ago, olskool said:

I would also modify this by the weapon type.  I would rate weapons (and you could do this with STR bonuses too) from 0 (for small knives and light clubs) to 4 (for the heaviest axes and hammers).  This number would ADD to the 10's roll resulting in a potential damage of from 1 to 14.  Since the Weapon's Damage Modifier is fixed, it would greatly simplify the attack roll while giving a "minimum floor" for heavier weapon types.   You could also use the same system for determining how much damage was blocked by a Parry.  The defender rolls the parry just like it was an attack and adds the weapon's Parry Modifier to the 10's roll.   You then just subtract the parry total from the Damage Inflicted and if the number is 0 or negative, the parry was a total success.   IF the total is still a positive number, the Attack penetrates the defender's Parry and inflicts the indicated Damage [remaining].     

As I said, it's the base damage value. Final damage works exactly as you describe, including the parry part.
I also consider that when both fail, the highest die wins, but with a quality of 0. It results in damage to the defender simply equal to weapon-armor, which can be 0.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Mugen

[Lloyd Dupont]

The more I mull over it, the more I like it.... it does reward higher skills neatly... and one could easily imaging that skill higher than 100% provide damage bonus the way it works...

[Darius West]

It might be worth having a peek at the current edition of Warhammer Fantasy RPG.  The present WFRPG system has interesting mechanics that definitely reward higher skill quite neatly.

[Kloster]

On that matter, the old TSR Top Secret SI used a simple mechanic for non firearms combat. You roll 1D100. If it is over your skill, you miss, if it is under or equal, the 10's die is the damage (modified by strength and weapon) and the 1's die is the hit location. That way, the higher your skill, the higher your potential damage. No special and no critical, and IIRC, you can not have a skill over 100, but the system can be adapted.

[hix]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

On that matter, the old TSR Top Secret SI used a simple mechanic for non firearms combat. You roll 1D100. If it is over your skill, you miss, if it is under or equal, the 10's die is the damage (modified by strength and weapon) and the 1's die is the hit location. That way, the higher your skill, the higher your potential damage. No special and no critical, and IIRC, you can not have a skill over 100, but the system can be adapted.

The One Roll Engine used in Unknown Armies has a similar way of doing it. While it uses a different HP scale, the ORE reads the percentile roll as the damage, so rolling a 17 under your skill of 50 does 17 damage. This allows the same effect of higher skill=higher damage potential.

[g33k]

On 5/24/2020 at 3:46 PM, Chaot said:

Let's assume that combat is split into Brawn ((Str+Siz)/2)and Finesse ((Dex+Int)/2). Let's assume that Brawn combat skills defaulted to Brawn x 5% and did 1d4 points of damage and that Finesse combat skills defaulted to Finesse x 5% and also did 1d4 points of damage (plus whatever damage bonuses apply). This represents basic unskilled combat ability.

Then let's say that there is a dedicated combat skill that you can develop. I'm just going to call it Style here because it can be multiple weapons together.

Style 01-30% = 1d6 damage and +10 to combat skill
Style 31-60% = 1d8 damage and +20 to combat skill
Style 61-90 = 1d10 damage and +30 to combat skill

The goal is to provide a base damage type while making room for characters who are skilled in combat as well. Is this too fiddly?

My feeling is it might be. Can someone think of a simple alternative that does roughly the same thing?

You gain a multiplication factor with skill here -- you not only hit more often, each hit is (always, not just on special/crit) a bigger hit.

I'm not calling this a problem, just noting it as something worth taking into account, and looking out for "unintended consequences."

I can see, for example, that things might devolve to an arms-race for first-strike / initiative, because the high-damage / high-chance-to-hit strike is so telling.

 

8 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

I've been toying with a system where effects derive from a combination of a characters innate qualities (like existing DB, but divided between force and precision); skill rating and "tool" (e.g. weapon) effectiveness.

So for example DB might be +1D4, Skill might grant +1D8, tool / weapon +1D6 for a total roll of 1D4+1D8+1D6 (Specials and crits would allow one to increase the die size in DB). A successful defensive roll would allow the defender to include active defence (parrying object's tool die Parry Skill die OR or Dodge skill die) as well as passive (armour die); a failed defence roll would only allow passive defence.

I rather like this approach, actually (at least on paper in electrons).  Nice idea!

Damage is much higher, of course, when EVERYONE is rolling 3 dice of damage!  You probably need to go over to HP = CON+SIZ (or something similar), to compensate.

You could say that the parrier gets parallel "antidamage" -- a die for STR/DEX that's blocking the damage or turning it aside, a Skill die, an armor/shield die, all subtracting from HP's of damage taken.

If you wanted.  It might drag things out to  v-e-r-y  s-l-o-w  combats:  lots of dice being rolled.  Lots of sums that will bell-curve strongly toward average values.