>opposed combat rolls
This is the only way to do melee fight correctly, change my mind.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>opposed combat rolls
>opposed combat rolls
This is the only way to do melee fight correctly, change my mind.
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It adds little over one roll against a fixed number.
This can provide more than just a single roll if it affects block, parry and dodge mechanics. But I already understood that you are a dndron and on an organic level you cannot think in non-dnd categories.
>This can provide even more slowdown and even more opposite checks without adding anything to the gameplay itself
ftfy
>rrrreeee, slow down
Have you tried not playing dnd? In my practice, playing Dark Heresy with this mechanic has never caused a slowdown, maybe the problem is with you and your system, which represents your slow brain?
The system in use doesn't matter if the combat:
- forces to fight enemies one-by-one
- every single attack requires an extra roll on behalf of the target
Have you tried playing games at all, rather than screeching like a madman about D&D?
>forces to fight enemies one-by-one
That's rich to hear it from you if we consider the fact that dnd does exactly this. Well, if you want a realistic system, then yes, this is the only way. And if do realistic system, then yes, defeating even one opponent is already an achievement, build an encounters based on this fact. And if you want a more epic system about the destruction of millions of enemies, then the question loses its meaning, because here you must first decide at what level of power the PC and enemies should be, without this the conversation has no meaning.
>Combat goes from "attack, then maybe damage roll" (which can be done at once, saving time) to "attack, counter-roll, then maybe damage roll" (which can't be done at once, extending time used on a single action)
>Not slowing things down
>Not adding nothing of actual value to the game
Do you have even the most vague idea how TTRPGs look like and how they are being played? Or just posting for the sake of it?
How about having both opponents roll at the same time? I know this is an incredible thought that no one has thought before, but try to understand it.
>moron still unable to grasp that two people rolling in the same time isn't speeding up the fact EACH AND EVERY PAIR of combatants has to roll against each other
The fact you try to be smug while being utterly clueless about the most basic problem such combat model brings is just mind-numbing.
>Rolls cant' represent decision points with various possible choices that have different effects on the combat
>No sir, everything has to be just flat checks, so more rolls can't add anything of value.
Have you considered you'd avoid all possible slowdown by rolling "Combat" against the encounter TN to see if you win?
Aff2e literally has a single opposed 3d6 roll that accounts for attacking, parrying, dodging, damage and armour all at once under normal circumstances and you can pick a bunch of stances or maneuvers that modify any of these outcomes.
You've never played Dark Heresy.
t. Dark Heresy player
>t. the smartest contrarian D&D hater on /tg/
NTA, but off the top of my head:
> WoD
> Fragged Empires
> Genesys
Also, at least D&D 3.X had an explanation where the default "10" on AC was actually a "take 10" thing, and players could roll 1d20 instead.
People sometimes just want something streamlined... and not to fumble their defenses.
NTA, I've played Numenera and run Savage Worlds and FFG Star Wars, totally different to DnD and they only have the 1 roll for the attack.
Savage Worlds uses Parry for melee range which is a stat derived from the characters fighting skill +shield/held weapon and ranged attacks are based on range+cover+abilities. Armor only factors in to toughness that needs to be overcome with the damage roll.
Are you sure the one stuck in the DnD mindset is not yourself who thinks Armor Class and saving throws are the only way games represent defense?
If characters attack and defend separately, a static defense is quicker and easier and therefore better. Opposed rolls are good if a roll represents not a single strike but an exchange of strikes where one combatant or another always comes ahead. All in all opposed rolls where something always happens, whoever wins, would probably be better for most games than just rolling against defense with nothing at all happening on failure. It depends on the broader context of the system, though. If there are abilities that do interesting things with attack and defense separately, then having attack and defense be handled separately us good. In that case I'd go back to my first point and use static defense over opposed rolls for the sake of speed and ease of use.
Frick off dndrons, cure your dnd brain rot first then open your mouth. And yes, HP sponges is the problem exclusively in the dnd and the dnd clones, other systems do not have this problem.
>If you don't want moronic mechanics, you must be a DnDrone
I never in my life played a single session of DnD. I'm in this hobby since 1997. Were you even born back then?
Combat build on opposite checks is simply inefficient and super-slow, without adding ANYTHING of value to the game.
>I never in my life played a single session of DnD
>Combat build on opposite checks is simply inefficient and super-slow, without adding ANYTHING of value to the game.
Why are you lying? You are clearly a dndron. And so, not to be blunt, the opposed combat rolls will add more variability to the game if the decision (to be in defense or try to counter attack, retreat or try to stand your ground, etc.) of the player and the enemy will affect the numbers. But I already understood that you are just a munchkin who is only interested in the stat check of your broken build, dndrons like you just hate thinking about tactics and making decisions in battle.
>It adds to the combat, because I say so
>If you can't see my flawless argument, you are a DnDrone
Here is the (You) are after
There are NO tactics in opposite rolls, you dingus. It's just a resolution technique. Do you even know what the words you are using mean, or are simply a text processor successfully pretending to be a moron?
>the opposed combat rolls will add more variability to the game if the decision (to be in defense or try to counter attack, retreat or try to stand your ground, etc.) of the player and the enemy will affect the number
That has absolutely nothing to do with opposite rolls. It's about how the combat itself is structured in the game, and can be achieved both with and without opposite checks. Not to mention the obvious: things you've listed don't even require rolls in the first place, even less so an opposite one. Or the fact that THE most common dodge/parry resolutions are precisely that - opposite rolls.
It's like you are having an argument with voices in your heads, rather than what people are saying, on top of having no idea what an opposite check even is.
>That has absolutely nothing to do with opposite rolls.
You can't have these mechanics if the opponent just stands there and does nothing. And it is what AC mechanically, opponet simply does not react to your actions. But yes, it is enough to try to convince that such fun has no place in shity system like dnd, we already understood that.
And what's stopping defender's actions from modifying his defense if that defense is handled as a static value instead of being rolled?
>what's stopping defender's actions from modifying his defense
>static value
If you can change something, it is no longer static, moron.
You're free to suggest an alternative term for an unrolled but modifiable stat. Regardless, the point stands that whether defense is rolled or not has no bearing on whether the defender's actions matter
>has no bearing on whether the defender's actions matter
In dnd yes, but dnd is not the only system that you knew. But I have already understood that this nobody is full of stupid dndrons who are too stupid to understand that alternatives exist.
I have mentioned Pendragon, ORE, WHFRP, Eclipse Phase and WoD so far in this thread, and answered one question about Exalted 3E. I know plenty of systems better than DnD, and honestly don't know the latest edition of DnD particularly well. Do you have a point, though? Why do you think actions can't affect unrolled values? Explain yourself, please.
Please do, anon, there are some anons genuinely interested in discussion here.
I like WoD a lot but it doesn't do anything elegantly. It's sometimes charming in its clunkiness, but it's not a great example of good game design. Good writing, maybe, at least at times, but not good mechanical design
>but it's not a great example of good game design
Perhaps for those who are more interested in playing with numbers than playing a character, for people who actually want to roleplay or show ingenuity in battle system is ideal. The problem is with you.
Roleplaying is pretty much system-independent. WoD is pretty good at building an atmosphere and offering fodder for roleplaying - which is why I, you know, said it has good writing - but at the end of the say people who're into roleplaying will roleplay no matter the system, or even completely freeform. As for ingenuity, WoD doesn't encourage or reward it any more than any other system. WoD has appeal despite its system, not because of it.
>As for ingenuity, WoD doesn't encourage or reward it any more than any other system.
This is not the responsibility of the system, it is the responsibility of the DM! What did I say, dnd brain rot is the worst in the world, people like you are so used to the system holding their hands and leading them along a pre-prepared path that you don't even think to go off the rails and think for yourself. I swear, the closest analogue of dnd in the world of video games is not role-playing games like TES, but "cinematic roller coaster shooters" like Call of Duty. And the audience is appropriate.
Yes, so why even mention the whole thing? It's system-neutral, not something WoD is particularly suited for. I've no idea why you imagine me saying that WoD doesn't particularly encourage or reward ingenuity to mean that I'm incapabke of ingenuity. I've also no idea why you insist on talking about DnD every chance you get, even when discussing the flaws and merits of WoD.
Wod is great for improvisation, the problem is people like you are waiting to be told what to do, dndrons like you would never think of intimidating npcs using the firearmsl+intimidation skills combo because the system didn't tell you that directly. Seriously, stick to dnd, systems that give you a freedom clearly not for you.
Almost every system is great for improvisation. Talking about how you can do system-neutral things in WoD as wellas in any other system is not very high praise for WoD.
Dnd is a very strict system that clearly tells you what is possible and what is not. And if you still haven't figured it out... just stick to dnd, okay.
I've probably played about as much WoD as DnD, and it's been years since I've played DnD. I'm fully capable of improvising in DnD, as weĺl, sad if you're not. Regsrdless, it's not any particular strength of WoD if it can do the same system-neutral things any system can.
Bot posting it is, then
... that still has nothing to do with opposite rolls.
I'm done. There is bait posting and then there are situations like this, where you get the uncomfortable impression you are dealing with a genuine schizo.
>opposite rolls.
>both opponents choose their actions
>static AC
>only the attacker can choose
>still has nothing to do with opposite rolls
Every time I think that dndrons can't surprise me anymore with their stupidity, they still find a way.
>You can't have these mechanics if the opponent just stands there and does nothing. And it is what AC mechanically, opponet simply does not react to your actions.
Behold, Mental Barrier from Expanded Psionics Handbook:
>You project a field of improbability around yourself, creating a fleeting protective shell. You gain a +4 deflection bonus to Armor Class.
>You can manifest this power instantly, quickly enough to gain its benefits in an emergency. Manifesting the power is an immediate action, like manifesting a quickened power, and it counts toward the normal limit of one quickened power per round. You can use this power even when it’s not your turn; however, you must manifest it prior to an opponent’s attack roll in order to gain this power’s benefit against that attack.
AC is not a static number in the first place, as it can vary conditionally or responsively. Fighting Defensively, Combat Expertise, Defending weapons, Immediate Actions improving AC, there's quite a lot. Your Dexterity bonus to AC is how good you are at dodging as a baseline mechanic, with Fighting Defensively conferring a further Dodge bonus for trying to avoid attacks to the point of compromising your own.
Both of these fail to apply when you genuinely aren't responding, represented by the pre-calculated Flatfooted AC, and similarly how defended you are against things that only require contact is pre-calculated into Touch AC.
Oh, did you think 5e was the only "D&D" that exists? Did you think "number isn't changing" necessarily meant "you're standing around blank-eyed"?
Sorry, when was allowed to be cast DURING an enemy attacks? I don't see the word REACTION in the description you dumb moron.
>Manifesting Time: 1 immediate action
>Manifesting the power is an immediate action.
>You can use this power even when it’s not your turn
Again, 5e is not the only D&D.
D&D's layout is peculiarly resistant to speeding up play between the turn structure and resolution layering, but simply adding another layer in the form of replacing the set target number with an opposed roll can only slow down that particular operation.
"Solving" this with extreme lethality requires said lethality actually be reliable else you end up with soul-crushing outliers like
and locks the system to cases where high lethality makes sense, whereas D&D's scaling allows one to escape by enabling lethality to vary depending on level.
As an aside, combat being a slog is very much source-dependent in D&D, 5e can't really get out of it without crapping on the encounter structure and consequently bricking the attempts at class balance, whereas one can downright accidentally optimize to the point of evaporating the encounter in no more than twelve rolls, damage included, in 3.5, and over in OSR it remains high-lethality almost universally.
>optimize to the point of evaporating the encounter
This is the main goal of all dndrons, but since it is not impressive if the standard grinding is not looming in the background, all dndrons resist any changes. It is obvious that the mechanics from the OP post have no place in the dnd, but it is also obvious that you can have a system completely built on these mechanics. And the very probability of this leads dnrons to existential horror. Basically, if you want to emulate something like this https://youtu.be/wsS1zr2le24?t=121 in your tabletop rpg, you should have an opposed combat rolls, dnd creators was never interested in melee combat, so mechanic is very stupid and all you get is two fighters who just stand against each other and beat each other until XP one of them drops to 0 HP. Boring.
You literally don't understand what abstraction is. Besides, no tabletop game will ever emulate anime or any other audiovisual production for that matter.
Many systems have been named in this thread that show what I mean, dndron, you should probably just go back to your contingency thread, lol
Your iq is very low but that isn't surprising becaus you have been brain damage by playing dnd, lol
Making two rolls doesn't emulate the video you posted.
>oh no the rules don't tell me exactly what to do I do not understand
lol, you really are brain damaged, just go back to your contingency thread and play with your baby game dndron
Thinking is too difficult for you, lol
I don't play D&D, zoomer. Judging from your posts you don't even play any games at all and just imagine playing games about your favorite children's cartoons.
>what abstraction is
No, you don't understand that "abstraction" is just an excuse why dnd sucks, bad mechanics have nothing to do with abstraction and have only one explanation - dnd creators are only interested in magic, while melee combat has always been the lowest priority and has always been at the most primitive level.
Abstraction is abstraction and doesn't affect the quality of a game in itself. Yes, D&D's combat has always been highly abstract, but the reason why 5e is shit is it focuses on combat so much unlike the earlier games where combat was best avoided. In a game where combat was not a desired outcome for an encounter the abstract model works very well. 5e (and WoTC D&D in general) is bad because of its overall design and leaning on combat, not because D&D's combat has always been very abstract.
Forgot to add that the only game where WoTC got combat right was 4e, but that's a whole another story and the game is flawed in multiple other ways.
>Abstraction is abstraction and doesn't affect the quality of a game in itself.
When you can use abstractions as an excuse then yes, it has to do with quality of the game.
>This is the main goal of all dndrons
What part of "accidentally" do you not understand? Literally just "on a mount with a lance" ends up screwing with the damage scaling hard enough to trivialize encounters. People rarely do that because mounts have trouble in dungeons and are hard to scale the durability of, but tripled damage is a bit of an issue.
>Basically, if you want to emulate something like this https://youtu.be/wsS1zr2le24?t=121 in your tabletop rpg, you should have an opposed combat rolls
Looks like perfect material for a Desert Wind Counter, to me. Whether it's as an opposed attack roll like Disarming is, a flat AC bonus like Mental Barrier, or something else, it's perfectly able to be implemented in D&D. There just aren't appropriate responsive actions printed for one reason or another, likely due to experience with MtG's stack convincing WotC that it's too likely to implode sessions around a single spellcaster duel.
No, D&D combat has seen limited change because it's expected that it continue working like a wargame. Brand identity stuff, very important for the bean-counters. You could actually just swap spells to single roll vs. many saves and switch to phase-based actions and immediately see 5e's combat fly by against far larger numbers of enemies than anyone would dare field in it currently.
Lance chargers are actually a problem because they DON'T trivialize combat despite being so narrow in application. They stop oneshotting at CR 4 and never pick it back up.
Why on Earth would decisions like whether to retreat or stand your ground be in any way dependent on whether opposed rolls or static defenses are used? Static values can be modified by circumstaces and tactics the same way rolls can.
Op is a gay, more at ten
Why the frick are you calling a guy advocating opposed rolls a DnDrone? Where's the DnD brainroy, exactly? Why are you talking about HP sponges when neither of the posts you're replying to says anything about them? And sreyou genuinely trying to use oWoD, a system I'm very much familiar with, thank you, as an example of opposed rolls being handled well? I hope you just accidentally replied to different posts you intended to instead of schizoposting.
HP sponge is a meme. As the DM you have total control over the HP and the damage of NPCs.
It's also a meme because enemies do tons of damage. So either the PCs win in 3 rounds by dealing even more damage or they die because they're built poorly.
All games are memes. The GM has total control over HP and damage because the GM has total control over what game he wants to run.
I dunno, I kind of broke Star Wars FFG by making a character that started with 5 brawn. Trandoshans and Nautolans can both do this. And they can still be effective Jedi characters.
I literally tanked rooms full of blaster equipped goons and survived multiple grenades.
I was playing sort of a samwise gamgee character to another Nautolan at the table, it was a fun character. I had him focus on Electronics-related force power, Force Leap, the Armorer tree, and endurance. Wish that subgroup hadn't fallen apart when half the people moved. I assembled the remaining members form two different groups into our current sunday games
Genesys is eminently breakable by stacking one attribute and getting talents that enhance your ability to exploit it. Force powers add extra ways to break the game.
The Agility-stack Jedi sniper is another example.
Storyteller combat can become interminably long and that's by design. It's possible for a character to cleanly evade another character *forever* in fact.
>Uses dice
frick of dnd drone. stop larping like you arent one.
Genuinely, clinically, diagnosably obsessed. d&dchads live rent free in this poor cuckold's brain.
>Combat now takes twice as long
>And can't be sped up
>For no actual benefit
Go home, Andrzej, you're drunk again
maybe if you have 579HP.
if you only have 10 its no biggie
Explain to us how the size of the HP pool changes the fact you CAN'T do simultaneous rolls, you CAN'T do shorthands and you HAVE TO make a re-roll to every single roll done.
Or you're just saying you never played anything and have no idea how fricking time consuming endless opposite checks are.
Pic related tried that. The HP pool was 18 on average (24 was the total cap, near impossible to get). The combat was a complete fricking slog, despite consisting of both sides simply throwing 2d6 and add their Combat rating to it. Oh, and mass combat rules? They made the "mass" enemy near impossible to fight, along with not solving the default issue of how slow the mechanics were, despite being literally just 2d6 rolls without any modifiers, aiming, special moves or whatever - just two sides whacking at each other in pure abstraction
The trade-off of this method is that you have to make damage super-lethal or it becomes a endless series of rolls that drags down the game. So generally and bit ironically the system that goes with this often have less combat as a focal point... Or the players realistically go for the weapons that the opponent can't do shit against (i.e. Firearms).
Some good systems that goes with it by adding subsystems like body locations:
One-roll-engine lineages
Basic Roll Playing lineages (Mythras in particular)
Sorta of the Warhammer Fantasy Battle lineages? (Including FFG's 40k ones that uses a heavily modified system).
>The trade-off of this method is that you have to make damage super-lethal
It's not even solving the issue.
has absurd lethality, and yet you could reliably get a situation where a pushover enemy that should go down in a single hit in THEORY was still there 4 rounds later, because RNG is a b***h and you kept dealing 1 damage each time instead of "almost guaranteed" 6. I mean frick, I remember a near TPK done by a Bat mid-way through Yarra module in '19. Bat has just 6 HP, and each party member was doing d6 damage - but people kept missing it, it kept winning the opposite checks and the combat went for half an hour, with 1 PC reduced from 21 to 2 HP and rest of the party being below 5 when they FINALLY killed the fricking bat.
Let me reitterate: they were unable to win sufficient number of opposite checks against a common fodder enemy with virtually no HP, while having an option to deal more than enough damage that even by pure statistics should get the thing down in a single round of combat. Instead, it was just rolling loads of dice for 30 minutes.
>oh no, my character can't tank a six demons, what a bad game this is
We have already understood that you like dnd and that it does not suit such stupid system as dnd, you can already get lost. Also, it's my fault that I didn't immediately understand that stupid dnd drones won't understand that the opposed combat rolls determines the result of the round immediately, you don't need to do stupid dnd practice when everyone makes their attacks in turn, you can leave it to the moronic system like dnd.
>Things nobody said
>Schizoid attempt at refuting them follows
>None of which about the topic of the opposed rolls
... so you are, in fact, having an argument with the voices in your head
Most systems with opposed rolls, like WHFRP or WH40K RPGs or Eclipse phase or older Storyteller games, still have people make their attacks in turn. The exceptions to this that come to my mind are ORE and Pendragon. I had these games in mind when I advocated opposed rolls in
, but somehow that position was apparently, at least according to, "DnD brainrot".
*according to
, that is.
Anon that wrote:
I see your point and I do see these things happen often in 6e Call of Cthulhu as well: the Parry/Dodge marathon (hence why in CoC you best avoid combat or get the tommy gun and dynamite).
One-thing that I restudied after writing the above post is that opposed combat rolls works best in games that "uses it as a means to decrease damage," with some sub-systems like Hit-Locations and Riposte to make it interesting . Just adding it in a hit/miss binary increases combat time without much benefit.
>Sorta of the Warhammer Fantasy Battle lineages? (Including FFG's 40k ones that uses a heavily modified system).
Other than in Fantasy 4E, you can only oppose one or two attack rolls per turn at best. After that, if the enemy hits, he hits. You also don't roll at the same time, so if the enemy misses, there's only one roll. Doesn't get to be as endless.
>can not roll attacks for over one enemy at a time
Your system is completely useless.
Why? The point of rolling is to provide a reasonable degree of uncertainty. That much is achieved with one party rolling. Why over engineer the game?
What's even the point of this thread? Seriously mate, what the frick are you trying to achieve? Are you under impression you are riling people up? Insulting them? Dunno, so terminally bored, you are content with blatant baitposting?
Seriously, what's the fricking end goal here?
It's a shame, because I'd like to discuss the thread's ostensible topic. Especially opposed rolls like the ones in Pendragon, where rather than there being separate attack and defense rolls, the winner of the roll manages to both defend himseld and strike at his opponent. I've often thought that a similar system where something always happens when vombat rolls are made would work for a lot of games, though obviously not all games.
Same here. Unfortunately, OP turned out to be a gameless homosexual.
I mean opposite rolls work as a side rule for duels and such, but as default they are bound to just slow the shit out of the gameplay loop and there is no way around it.
ITT
>OP: I dislike dnd
>OP: Therefor dnd is bad
>OP: dnd has single roll against a static dc to hit
>OP: Therefor single roll is bad!
>OP: Opposed checks is the only way to do combat and you're all homosexuals!
So in conclusion, OP is, as usual, a homosexual who bases their entire understanding of ttrpgs on dnd while at the same time attacking those who play the game, and so is a nogame shitlord.
Doesn't Exalted 3e have a mechanic somewhat like this?
No, it mostly has static defenses. There are opposed rolls when two combatants have the same Initiative and attack each other, though.
Ah, that's it. Also, the way you don't actually do damage with regular attacks, but basically keep building up position until you can unleash a major blow. Those two things made it feel more like what's be described here.
... and then you have to do a mass combat moment, where there are 5 players in the party and 7 NPCs they are facing, so one hour later it's finally 3rd round of combat.
And then you make a system with high lethality and everyone only has one roll per round. Problem solved, but the problem is that it means you have to stop using dnd for what this system is not intended for, you stupid moron.
>change my mind.
You'd have to have one first.
I was going to talk about a system that handles it pretty elegantly (If a bit swingy), but given the tone of this thread, I'm just not going to.
WoD/Chronicles of Darkness
>homebrew a d10 opposed roll system
>do some playtesting
>they didn't like it, but said "at least the combat is fast"
On the other hand, WFRP 4e is my main game, that has opposed rolls during combat and combat tends to take very long. But that is also because of counting successes and these things. A d100 is for sure more granular, but very unwieldy.
Got a write up for it? I am interested.
I was working on something similar but more of a ground up system but I lost it all because I am stupid.
There isn't much to it when it comes to the bare mechanics. Attackers d10 + relevant attribute (depending on the weapon) - defenders d10 + relevant attribute (depending on the defensive action). When the result is a 0 or above, the attacker wins and does his weapons base damage + relevant attribute + his additional successes from the roll. If the defender rolls higher, it's negated, cue whatever else that defensive action does.
It's probably influenced by WFRP, taking the successes into account, but just less granular with its d10.
It goes mainly relatively quickly because the math isn't too complicated and the damage numbers on both sides are high.
>There isn't much to it when it comes to the bare mechanics
From my personal experience, the less mechanics the more options players have and the more fun from playing the game. It is a myth that the more mechanics make better game, on the contrary, more mechanics means more restrictions, which in turn leads to monotonous and boring gameplay.
That just means to more asking the GM if you may do things and him just making shit up on the spot depending on his current whims.
There is actually a lot to the combat of this game, it's most of the focus. Just the standard resolution mechanic for attacking and defending isn't that complicated.
Pretty similar to what I was doing. Mine was influenced by warhammer as well. I added the ability to counter attack though. There was some back and forth with the rolls but you start building negatives with every counter attack. So the more you counter the more risk you take. If that makes sense.
Forgot to add I had an active and passive defense. The active defense is the opposed roll with your weapon. Your number 1 defense. Then you would need a certain degrees of success to get passed the passive defense which is the armor.
One would need to see how that works out when played, because that sounds like everyone would be very tanky and fight would drag on.
I never got to playtest any of it. It all got deleted in a computer mishap. And I was too busy at the time to bother rewriting what I could from memory. Might remake a playtest sheet to give it a shot.
>because that sounds like everyone would be very tanky and fight would drag on.
I had thought about this and the idea is that various weapons would add a degree of success (Flat out) or so for armor penetration. You need to keep mind that having full armor is expensive and a rarity. So yes, fully plated knights would be hard to kill. But this is where grappling would come into play more often especially with weapons not designed to go against armor. It is supposed to emphasize having the right tool for the job.
Also, people won't be wearing armor all the time. You would only ever see it among the guards or during a campaign. The idea is medieval simulationist. But I had some write ups on other settings and different armors. I know this is all vague but it is what I could remember of what I had made. If you have any opinions or adjustments, I would like to hear them.
anon, you're kind of describing Savage Worlds. The Pathfinder for Savage Worlds book has armor based on body part. Different weapons have armor piercing that can negate armor toughness but not Vigor-derived toughness. You can make called shots to different body parts to ignore the main torso's armor.
And SW doesn't use armor class, it uses Parry + Toughness to resolve melee attacks. The better you are at the fighting trait, the better your parry is. Armor is added to your 1/2 your vigor stat to get your toughness. There's no hitpoints, there's a wound track instead. You have to roll high enough damage to overcome the toughness in order to deal 1 wound. Most enemies have 1 wound. Special enemies have 3.
Never played savage worlds. From what you describe it isn't 1/1 of what I was talking about in terms of the back and forth aspect to an engagement. The armor sounds like it. Might look into savage worlds, get some ideas.
All these complaints about slowning combat are easily fixed by the rule "The number is twice greater then X". If the result of the initiative roll is twice greater the opponent cannot make opposed combat rolls. If someone roll number twice greater during opposed combat rolls then the opponent's actions are completely stopped and the damage is critical. The problem is solved, but I understand that dnd fans are clearly not used to this.
That doesn't actual fix the issue and it creates another by turning initiative into a god stat.
Even the most basic of single rolls can take some time based on the complexity of the system. Opposed rolls increase the time to resolve because now the results of a roll are determined by another roll that needs to be resolved first. Statistically there is no real difference between "d100 vs d100 high roll wins second roller wins ties" and "d100, roll over 50 to succeed" but the former takes longer to resolve than the later.
>urning initiative into a god stat.
>issue
I don't see where the problem is. Also, initiatives builds will speed up the game and make it more realistic, I'm all for it.
>opposed rolls are the only way to do combat correctly
>you can fix the problems with opposed rolls but not rolling sometimes
Your "solution" also seems to be very specific to D&D, despite criticising others for not knowing other systems exist.
>Your "solution" also seems to be very specific to D&D
>post is a response to the dndrons' complains
No shit, Sherlock.
No one but you has even mentioned D&D.
>everyone pointing out flaws in my argument is just a D&Drone
Man you're as sad as the 'worst troll' schizo. Weird he hasn't found this thread yet.
Yeah, I have to ignore that all the complaints boil down to "oh no, the fight will take too long". Spoiler alert - battles take too much time only in dnd.
>battles take too much time only in dnd
This is just blatantly wrong.
Oh no, I forgot to clarify that Pathfinder is a dnd clone. And name another 100500 crap dnd clones, now the autists caught me at wording. Frick off.
Replying to my own post:
I also remember Shadowrun fights taking ages.
Exalted 3E, too, just to mention another non-DnD game.
There are exactly two ways to do melee fights correctly and that isn't one of them.
May you share the two (2) correct ways?
He's a dndron, lol, he doesn't actually have argument or discus he just seethes at people who are not brain damages
Is funny that apparently dndrons find math "too slow", perhaps playing brain-dead system cause brain damage over years, lol
Nah, it's just that they choose dnd because it's the only system their brain can understand.
This thread has been the biggest disappointment of my day so far. Which I guess means I've had a pretty good day all in all, but still. I was pretty happy to see a non-general thread that didn't seem like blatant shitposting at first and discussed a spehific game mechanic I had an interest in. It's become aoparent that OP not only has absolutely no interest in discussing his own thread's subject but is actively trying to sabotage other people's attempts at discussion. I hope causing a stranger a modicum of disappointment at least gives you some form of satisfaction, OP.
Ok dndron. Now back to your contingency thread
.
As a general rule of thumb nowadays, go in with the idea that all threads that aren't generals (and even then) are shitposts, therefore you are forearmed for any idiocy and moronation and can be pleasantly surprised when it turns into something decent to talk about. This entire thread is just a bait thread to attract D&D players to oppose his opinion from a pathetic eurocuck (or even worse a vatnik) desperate for some kind of anger based social connection. Really kind of pathetic. And yet his thread has only brought out players of just about anything but D&D. Which makes his desperate attempts to call everyone a dndrone doubly pathetic.
That's probably a good though depressing piece of advice. Man, I just wanted to shill Pendragon a bit and maybe discuss the pros and cons of FFG's WH40K RPGs - which in my opinion do opposed rolls pretty well, even do dliw down combat.
Yeah, it's a shame. The topic itself is genuinely interesting.
Maybe because theres nothing to "discus", anyone who is not brain damage dndron knows that this is a good thing, there is no discus to be had here, lol
Discus? I didn't realize we were in Ganker.
Do you think you are funny, lol, lmao, you are just skitzoid dndron seething because you are being called out
Go back to your contingency thread
That sucks because then you have to pay attention instead of gooning to BBC thug shakee pov!
I only play because CR is hella epic!!
You have both, a static defense to roll against or players may roll their dodge to evade your attack at the cost of lowering their initiative
GURPS being close to perfect, as usual.
Opposed roll, albeit active defense vs active attack.
Bell curve.
Hitpoints reasonable.
Can die easily.
Can easily die not easily if wanted, too.
(HT 14 for example is pretty damn forgiving)
When I was a kid, (we couldn't afford D&D, and it wasn't readily available for sale in our town) we had a homebrew system that everyone in our friend group played that was opposed 2d6 rolls. Attacker and defender would roll simultaneously. The attacker would choose which method of attack they were doing: swing or stab. And the defender would choose to dodge or block. Attacks were generally slightly higher than defense, and blocking meant you may be subject to additional effects of attack like bleed or fatigue. But a failed dodge just meant you were fricked.
Also, I seem to remember their being some shenanigans about multi-attack, but it's been so long ago.
OP, pretending to be moronic just makes you look moronic.
>trained combatants totally just wing it dude!
>they more or less close their eyes and swing wildly!
>that's why we use dice to emulate their best effort!
take the card pill, anon. it's superior to dice in every way imaginable.
You tried to make a joke, but you pointed out exactly why dnd is a crap. Mechanically the fighters are played as you said - close their eyes and swing wildly, the players have total no control over the outcome, all the player can do is select a target and say "I'm attacking", lol.
I didn't make a joke, I'm serious about using cards in place of dice. I've been running games that way since 1998 and will never go back.
what system are you using?
>he doesn't know about bell curve dice systems
still inferior to cards.
i agree.
Play the Chad Burning Wheel where of you both strike in a fight at the same time you don't have opposed rolls you both just roll against a very low difficulty and are likely to both injure each other.
Opposed rolls, done right, save a lot of time, but they're super unsatisfying
>my turn, I attack
>I take damage from my own action
Perceived player agency is a pretty big deal
Whenever there's more than 1 enemy opposed rolls start slowing down the game immensely.
If you jump on more than one equal opponent you should be dead immensely. But you are a dndron and you never asked why PC can defend against several opponents as easily as against one.
In WFRP 4e, if you fail your opposed roll during your attack, you only fail and don't take any damage. The defender rolls to defend, not to also attack. The only exceptions are if the defender rolls a crit or a certain rare talent for really strong enemies.
My only experience of opposed melee rolls is from Shadowrun 3e
>>I take damage from my own action
>the fact that the enemy can also act did not even occur to you
Yeap, this is what dnd brain rot is all about.
Mechanically, the action is yours. The enemy literally cannot hurt you, in that moment, if you did not swing at them. This makes always-on opposed rolls feel bad. The answer is an action economy that allows the opponent to respond with a counter-attack, which will be competing with their best ways of avoiding damage, and thus trying to attack them rarely changes their opportunities to hurt you.
Firstly, what entails more than one peer opponent being IMMEDIATE death, why is it not ALLOWED to be a futile struggle over a few rounds? Secondly, why can't it be a volume of lesser opponents trying to defeat you with weight of numbers? Thirdly, there are in fact rules that reduce your ability to defend yourself against several opponents and enhance their ability to harm you.
>The enemy literally cannot hurt you, in that moment, if you did not swing at them
Rolls means you swing at the same time, drone, your inactivity will just make it easier for the enemy.
Not so fast! If we're talking SR-style melee combat, he's probably equally fricked attacking me
No, we not talking about SR-style melee combat, opposed combat rolls means that opponents try to kill each other in real time.
Uuhhh... but that's how 3e SR did it. 4e and forward seem to be different.
...To be clear, the scenario I'm talking about is as follows:
1. It's your turn, meaning you HAVE an entity-specific turn structure
2. You have declared you are making an attack, on your turn
3. The opposed roll allows the enemy to harm you, in the action you took
Given this structure, how is the enemy harming you when you do not take an action provoking the opposed roll?
My own desired direction would be something along these lines:
1. It's your party's turn in the phase including melee attacks, so the Necromancer's 20 skeletons are resolved AS the rest of the party plays
2. The enemies have response options some of which raise their defensive target numbers, so Fireballs and Whirlwind Attacks aren't provoking 20 rolls
3. Some of these response options are off-turn attacks which MAY turn into opposed rolls, so the Wizard just trying to run isn't rolling for each of the dozen pike-gobs
This structure aims to properly minimize resolution steps so that it can scale back up to the original wargame implementation of D&D's systems, so as to service the high-level power fantasy by handling the utter annihilation of outscaled mooks or throwing armies of your own minions at the armies of those around you in a reasonable amount of time.
>It's your turn, meaning you HAVE an entity-specific turn structure
It sucks and is the main reason why most combat systems suck. I know a turn-based combat can be good, but I've yet to see a ttrpg pull it off. So I admit only the narrative driving combat system, this aspect makes ttrpg really stand out from video games for the better.
>1. It's your turn, meaning you HAVE an entity-specific turn structure
But this does not mean that I have to follow a stupid dnd scheme when everyone attacks in turn. So this means that everyone attacks at the same time, the higher score wins, and the loser receives damage.
>2. You have declared you are making an attack, on your turn
No, you decide what tactics your character chose, bonuses/penalties and everything depend on it, and that's it.
>3. The opposed roll allows the enemy to harm you, in the action you took
You both do the action at the same time, how hard is that for you to grasp, dnron?
>1. It's your party's turn in the phase including melee attacks, so the Necromancer's 20 skeletons are resolved AS the rest of the party plays
Cool, now the party has to maneuver and avoid being surrounded by skeletons or instant death. Oh wait, the dnd doesn't allow you to do hit and run tactics or even have normal maneuvers, so it's no wonder that such dndrons can't think of anything other than having high stats just not to die. And again the problem is with you, you're so used to dnd shit that you can't even think about elementary tactics that humanity has been using for thousands of years. Also, the skeletons should have shity stata and do not trigger the opposed combat rolls, otherwise it is stupid to throw so many enemies against players.
>This structure aims to properly minimize resolution steps so that it can scale back up to the original wargame implementation of D&D's systems, so as to service the high-level power fantasy by handling the utter annihilation of outscaled mooks or throwing armies of your own minions at the armies of those around you in a reasonable amount of time.
If you want to throw armies against the players, the players must have the appropriate power and ability to do so. Obviously, dnd has no mechanisms for this, why the hell are you trying to use dnd for everything, morons?
>But this does not mean that I have to follow a stupid dnd scheme when everyone attacks in turn.
Not a "stupid dnd scheme", plenty of dicepools doing opposed rolls on a turn structure.
>No, you decide what tactics your character chose, bonuses/penalties and everything depend on it, and that's it.
So there's no continued responsiveness for moment-to-moment decision making?
>You both do the action at the same time, how hard is that for you to grasp, dnron?
You did not previously specify the action structure, anon. Even most systems using opposed rolls are turn-based, not phase-based.
>Cool, now the party has to maneuver and avoid being surrounded by skeletons or instant death
How the frick did you fail to parse that the 20 skeletons belong to the necromancer in the party?
>Obviously, dnd has no mechanisms for this, why the hell are you trying to use dnd for everything, morons?
5e does so deliberately as part of its Bounded Accuracy design principal. Back in 3.5, it's quite straightforward to escalate your AC so that only natural 20s hit every five levels or so, while also doubling your HP, demanding several dozen of that five-levels-ago enemy to threaten you appreciably.
"Fantasy so high you go to outer space" has been quite literal in D&D. Realism went out the window the moment the Wizard walked in the door. You're SUPPOSED to 4v1 house-sized flying firebreathing reptiles.
>Not a "stupid dnd scheme", plenty of dicepools doing opposed rolls on a turn structure.
It doesn't matter, stupid idea let everyone attack in turn is a stupid idea that just drags the game on.
>So there's no continued responsiveness for moment-to-moment decision making?
The first is that dnd does not have this either. Second - I thinked you want to speed up the battle? Finally decide what you want. Otherwise, you can go very deep, it all depends on how deep you want to go.
>You did not previously specify the action structure, anon.
The structure is there opposed combat rolls and nothing else.
>"Fantasy so high you go to outer space" has been quite literal in D&D
This only applies to WotC favorites - mages, the rest of the classes remain on the sinful earth even at level 20. Dnd is simply Jack of all trades, master of none.
>It doesn't matter, stupid idea let everyone attack in turn is a stupid idea that just drags the game on.
>The first is that dnd does not have this either.
Again, the turn structure allows it, and there's more than 5e with more sizable content than just Attacks of Opportunity.
>Second - I thinked you want to speed up the battle?
All the WotC editions have had some level of off-turn response already, and handling them as a "sub-phase" is faster than case-by-case triggers
>The structure is there opposed combat rolls and nothing else.
So basically you've been talking right out of your ass the whole time? Because there's not remotely realistic choices to just "opposed rolls". Realistic choices is stances with differing values against specific angles of attack depending on how you "flow" into different counter-actions, requiring a bare minimum of two separate phases to handle the irreducible sequential interaction.
>This only applies to WotC favorites - mages, the rest of the classes remain on the sinful earth even at level 20.
AD&D Fighters were specifically given an extra attack each level vs. single HD enemies, and 3.0 had Supreme Cleave to kill as far across a crowd as it took to roll a 1, which back then triggered off each individual kill of a Whirlwind Attack.
It has long been noted that WotC's 1dx+Con HP every level results in laughable absurdities out of the core game mechanics, and the previously-mentioned AC escalation furthers the incredible escalation of killable targets.
Yet again, there is more to "dnd" than 5e, you dense sub-literate moron.
>opposed rolls slow down combat
How so? In a traget number system the player rolls to attack, then the enemy rolls to attack (if they're still alive). In an opposed roll system player and enemy roll to attack the same time. You have the same number of rolls.
Unless people are thinking of an opposed roll to attack followed by a different opposed roll to attack for every character, which, yes is dumb. That's how some older systems used to work. Early Shadowrun had roll to hit roll to dodge roll to damage roll to soak for every attack.
Play some Play-by-Post games, and you'll see what is a mild annoyance in an IRL game becomes completely crippling.
You also get this effect with inexperienced players, or those who might be excellent roleplayers and out-of-the-box thinkers yet not handy with the rules. Personally, I prefer narratively picking a defense, but I so completely get the desire to streamline.
Some games do need that. I would gladly run a V:tM game with a slightly more nuanced version of "one roll determines end result". Like, you increase the costs in WillPower and Blood for the roll, the number of successes is the number if wounds you avoid.
You can’t roll attacks for 10 enemies at a time for example.
I wouldn't really be trying to change your mind as much as I'd be trying to convince you that more nuance than just two dice rolls is needed for a deep combat system.
You're thinking about the Riddle of Steel.
But, the variance in that system is so low, you could go with averages, or maybe flip a coin, heads averages+1, tails averages-1.
Which is good and strategical, but slow since there's so much rolling.
Char stats bonus + Equipment stats bonus + Rock, paper, scissor bonus
Rock = Riposte
Paper = Slow, strong attack
Scissor = Fast attack
>slow, strong attack
>fast attack
the force behind a swing dictates its speed, moron. fast attacks are strong attacks, the trade off is they may be too fast to aim well and take longer to return to a ready position.
>a small sword hits harder than a two-handed sword
Not even that anon, but check your Dunning Kruger.
Also
>a small cut from the wrists hurts more than a full swing after lunging out widely
you're a moron. no one is dual wielding or hot swapping weapons in a fight. this isn't one of your dark souls vidya games where you can quickly change hands to a magic dagger to one-shot your enemy.
>a small sword hits harder than a two-handed sword
Don't make shit up, anon. That's not what was said.
A boxer uses jabs and straights. Other shit too, but those are good examples, with similar reach, let's stay with those 2.
A straight deals more damage than a jab, and it's slower, while at a very cursory glance they're very similar. I think we can all agree on this, right?
How the boxer moves, and the position he takes, are the main differences, it takes more time to set up and recover from a punch that you've put weight into, not so much for a flickering jab. That's the speed difference, it's not in the actual movement speed. And without much weight behind it, the jab isn't knocking anybody out, but it's still a punch in the face
You're moronic. You're comparing two strikes with different starting positions and ignoring that it takes an action to shift for a strike or haymaker making those readied actions and not basic attacks.
Like any reasonable person, I'm including the shifting in the time it takes to throw a punch.
The actual time the punch is "in flight" doesn't tell you the whole story.
That's irrational. You don't get to ready and then take that readied action. Not how turn based games work.
Alright, he's just baiting.
Explain why then, You have given no reasoning behind your statement.
>See this thread in the morning
>It's a total shitshow in less than 40 posts
>Leave to work
>Forget about the thread
>Check it in the evening, still pinned in the catalog
>The shitshow only started where I left
Jesus frick, what the hell is wrong with the homosexual non-stop jerking off abut the faults of DnD and the people that keep feeding such blatant troll?!
Replying to himself and/or bots, which makes up the bulk of non general (and plenty of general) threads on the board. Or in other words, deliberate action to prevent and poison discussion. Don't worry, LLMs will only make it easier and more commonplace as time goes on.
Different mechanics for different games with different goals.
d6 star wars uses opposed rolls and is one of th fastest rpgs to play or run.
A little over a week ago I gave it a shot with one of my players, just a little test fight. It's not a terrible experience but I'm not going to jump to conclusions until we finish this fight.