>you just hitting stationary object
How can we break this feeling in combat?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>you just hitting stationary object
>you just hitting stationary object
How can we break this feeling in combat?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
HYTNPDND
Look into some JTTRPG's
My complaints are that characters have too much freedom of movement, lack of interceptions and the Defense stat is often monolithic instead of consisting of various parameters and skills (block, parry, dodge), in other words, it would be nice to have a Defense table that showed exactly how the target avoided being hit.
Why? That would be a pointless waste of time that on one would enjoy. I agree a Parry and Block would be nice, but a "table" just seems bizarre.
Also too much freedom of movement? Lol you are a no games for sure.
The first is that it will allow to influence the Defense through actions more often. The second is to break the feeling that the target is doing nothing and standing still when being hit. But such autistic people like you can ignore my words, you just don't understand how ordinary people feel.
When I make a game, I'll usually have player characters have a dodge, block, and direct range for hostiles to hit, and enemy characters (depending on what kind of creature they are) have a number of body features that count as dodging, blocking, or direct hits.
However, my systems also come with the "drawback" that choice and attention to hostile behavior/battlefield layout matter more than the dice rolls themselves, so I doubt you'd like any of them, even if they were complete.
>Game feels static
>I know, let's reduce options!
Seriously, HYTNPDND?
>add Defense table
>reduce options
What?
Let me explain:
HYTNPDND stands for Have you tried not playing Dungeons and Dragons? Because it's clear you didn't.
You have no choice in this world - either you play dnd, or you wait a year for session. Or you just go to roleplay in minecraft.
Pathfinder has something in that vein with different kinds of ACs for different kinds of attacks. You might also like something like Ruin which uses a quadrant system for damage, directing it to specific body parts.
>block, parry, dodge
GURPS.
Even D&D has your defensive parameters broken down into sources and effects. Armor Class is an aggregate of evasion (Dex bonus), how fat a target you are (Size modifiers), your armor (Armor AC), how thick your skin is (Natural Armor), your shield (Shield Bonus), any defensive energy screens (Deflection Bonus), the favor of deities (Sacred/Profane bonus), magical enchantments of protection (Enhancement bonus), and terrain (gradients of cover bonuses, from small to complete). And there have been various options to parry, the default being something anyone can do: Fight Defensively to weaken your accuracy in favor of being more careful, or the Total Defense Action which foregoes attacking entirely to block as much as possible. There are class features and feats which also give you more flexibility in that regard.
You can definitely build a narrative about how a character is actually defeating attacks, but you have to break your AC down into a linear progression of what the incoming attack would encounter, in order. If your AC is 16 (10 default for Medium size, a Dex modifier of 2, a suit of armor that provides 3 and a shield for 1), then an attack of 15 manages to track and hit a target in spite of its speed, but the shield intercepts it before it gets to the armor.
I once considered making some kind of tool that actually breaks down a character's defenses into a series of easily referencable ranges that would tell a player exactly why the attack failed, which would feel way better than "hit" or "miss". The armored juggernaut would hear all about how arrows are pinging off his armor, and the 2fast4u gets to feel cool as they never come within 3 feet of him to begin with. Meanwhile the mage's deflection is intercepting arrows with an invisible barrier. Everyone gets to feel cool in the way their character was designed to be, and you can even help the players infer what's happening if their attacks aren't working.
Image related. This is a Deflection bonus to AC doing its job.
You know the attack roll vs AC is supposed to just be a metaphorical representation of two people fighting in combat and taking an opportunity for one blow to actually connect, right?
As I already said, there are two problems - the first is that systems does not do enough to discourage players from moving past the frontline to the backline if there is an opportunity and the second is the fact that AC without home rules is a static stat that does not change depending on the situation or actions of the players. Damn, even backstabbing instead of ignoring portion of AC just adds critical damage, that's bullshit.
Unironically have you tried playing a wargame or 4th edition?
Have you tried 3.5 D&D? Check out Tome of Battle, it has Counters that can be used in response to enemy attacks.
Sounds like you should play something besides D&D.
>B-but n-no o-one p-plays o-other g-games
Run them yourself.
Once again have you tried not playing DnD? There are plenty of games that include dodge actions, parrying, cover that is commonly used, and modifiers for accuracy based on the opponent's size or movement. FFG's 40k RPGs do most of these things.
Literally check out GURPS combat. This is the one time where "Have you tried not playing DnD" is actually solid advice.
Have you tried playing 4e?
>playing another variation of dnd
No. No I don't think I will
Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?
3.5 D&D isn't like that, Anon.
Theater of the mind, if you must play D&D
if the game has turns, you can’t
Have you considered Savage Worlds?
play runequest.
add houseroule that if you use dodge you must move away from the attack hit location.
ie: if the attack is towards left arm tou move one hex left.
Get rid of grid combat and opportunity attacks for anything but turning your back on a foe. Make a melee a 10 yard blob that can contain multiple combatants. In a melee everybody is moving around so choosing a specific target may not always be possible (you may hit a random enemy target in a group).
Shadowrun. I'm dead serious, instead of fixed initiative it depletes and gets rerolled to represent a chaotic and shifting fight. Instead of rolling against a target number you have an opposed agility + [combat skill] against the defender's reaction + intuition representing an attempt to dodge or otherwise mitigate the blow, interrupt actions for things like blocking and parrying or hitting the dirt, rolling body + armor to soak damage, and wound penalties to represent injury and fatigue.
It's a lot to keep track of but when you get it, the combat feels chaotic, shifting, and heavily incentivizes doing prepwork and coordination to weigh the odds in your favor. Also the low HP values in relation to weapon damage and Armor penetration avoids the D&D issue of having sacks of meat points bashing each other, and allows even basic enemies to represent a credible threat at most every stage. You can be the baddest motherfricker around but if that shitty ganger over there decides to drop a long burst into you with his black market AK your day is about to suck dick.
>Shadowrun
You really need to state the edition there. In 5e, initiative can get pretty moronic as you may have to end your initiative pass mid-run, frozen in time till you're up again. Also, it heavily favors adepts and wired reflexes users.
>state the edition
Yeah that's fair. I only really know 5e, all I could find pdfs for, but I haven't run into a problem with freezing mid combat turn, though I'll agree the physical initiative game is weighted to favor adepts and WR, though there are bioware equivalents, mages can make use of improved reflexes as a spell, and Matrix and Astral initiatives should also be considered.
Stakes. Sometimes, at the very least, players should have to retreat.
you draw swords IRL and fight the GM to the death
it's the only hway
Thank you Jack
The DM can take into account the targets motion when describing combat. For example, when someone hits with a ranged attack:
>your magic missiles hit the orc in the side as he’s running, causing him to spin slightly while collapsing onto the floor
>The DM can take into account the targets motion when describing combat
Verbal description does literally nothing if it doesn't change the actual mechanical result accordingly.
>Verbal description does literally nothing if it doesn't change the actual mechanical result accordingly.
This. At the end of the average turn of D&D, nothing mechanical has changed other than some meat points getting subtracted. This is horrible. Good systems change the situation dynamically after every turn. You could improve D&D just by drawing a card after every turn. The card says something like "the enemy has gained a positional advantage" or "you have disarmed them." Then incorporate the card into the mechanics of the game.
Better systems like PBtA put the narrative first, and force the GM to make a GM move that changes the dynamics of the situation after every miss or near miss. PBtA also has the great innovation where only the players need to roll the dice. When you attack, the enemy will attack back on a miss or near miss, meaning the GM doesnt need to take 10 different turns in a row while you all wait around.
>Better systems like PBtA
Your natural hair colour will always be more beautiful than whatever fluoro bullshit you habe now.
kek I hate trannies as much as every other anon, but PBtA is a better system than D&D and I think most people who dont want the autistic "I hit the orc yet again and end my turn" will agree with me. I've moved my playgroup of normies over and its all good fun.
xe was extremely specific.
i assume you've never bothered to look at a pbta rulebook so i'll explain. when you roll a partial success, you typically succeed but with a complication. applied to a typical attack roll, the "success" is that you hit and the "complication" is that you are also hit. this is objectively better than calculating attack and reaction attack separately because it accomplishes the same thing in fewer rolls.
So the best game is flipping a coin to see who wins?
>unsurprisingly moronic take from the mentally ill mongrel
pottery
>we
Use your imagination, remembering that turns and attack rolls are the game system's abstractions, and not direct representations of a world being simulated?
Just play a game that imposes a penalty to hit a target that moved. Easy peasy.
/tg/ seems to hate this but you should require people to narrate out how they're attacking, and give points for good prose. either xp or a fate point
this idea has existed forever btw
>/tg/ seems to hate this
Because it's exhausting and drags out already not short game.
>By yes, I never, ever, not even fricking once, participated in a game session, how could you tell
Because you are suggesting something that even a single instance of practice would instantly verify as impractical and further slowing down the game into a fricking crawl, achieving nothing in particular in the process
Maybe if you're some stuttering sperg, or are overly dramatic, but I've been in plenty of games where they do this is and doesn't really slow down the game at all.
>Spending 3-5 times more to explain what your character is doing does not slow the game
>It just takes 3-5 times more, but repeat after me: it doesn't slow the game
This is beyond "never-game" at this point, this is just lack of common sense, rather than experience.
But sure champ, you've played tons of games. I bet they were like bags of sand
Five times longer than "I attack the orc next to me" is still just 10 seconds. Not an issue unless your fellow players only start thinking about their turn when you're done narrating.
You have to remember that "slow" is relative. It will take longer in absolute terms to narrate moves during a fight instead of just engaging mechanically. However, I only have to wait through each turn before I hear something interesting if there's narration. Of it's all just mechanics, I have to wait until after the fight is over before something interesting comes along.
>1 sentence is 3 - 5 times more
The autism of some of the users here will never cease to amaze me.
>1 sentence
>um uh, lite me think for a moment, I realy tired
Sounds like a sperg issue
.
Yes, I does.
This is the only way. I do play D&D and most of the games I do play don't really offer mechanical benefits for narration, but every player I've encountered who wants *action* expects the GM to do it all. My players who do add amusing flourish to their own actions are typically happier, although the type of person who already roleplays in a roleplaying game typically already wanted to be there. For everyone else, video games are the best answer to being bored while playing tabletop.
I hate that because it's boring, doesn't fix the mechanical issue in question, and I'd prefer to narrate over combat where the swings are actually fricking mechanically different so there's something to work with.
>a fate point
That implies you play FATE and have more options than hit-da-orc and whittle down its HP.
Fate points aren't unique to FATE. For example, they're used in the Warhammer and 40k RPGs as well as hypercrunchy Supers games like Mutants and Masterminds although they're called something else
GURPS
Roll your dice faster
The worst idea in ttrpgs is leveling, which is besides the point, but the second worst is static individual initiative...even going full wargame with activations is hundreds times better
Roll: You Miss
>The foe parries your sword thrust with expert precision
Roll: The Opponent Misses
>Then in a follow up attack he attempts to pierce through your armor but the blade glances on the metal of your chest plate.
Roll: You Hit
>Then you raise your sword up and strike downwards, still reeling from the failed blow he can get out of the way and your blow cleaves into the flesh of his shoulder.
Learn to RP engaging combat and it all works out
>blow for blow trade
Ok no gamer
Ok Fricker
Player A Rolls Attacking Target A: They miss
>The foe parries your sword thrust with expert precision
Player B Rolls Attacking Target A: They hit
Roll Damage: Minimal
>You loose an arrow at the target glancing at exposed flesh it leaves a shallow cut which causes the Target to wince in pain but does not halt their actions.
Target B Rolls Attacking Anon: They Hit
Roll Damage: Average
>The Ogre lifts his club and swings at your character. The flimsy robe offers little protection as your character is hit in the stomach, this takes the wind out of you but your able to hold your ground.
Target A Rolls Attacking Player A:They Miss
>Then in a follow up attack he attempts to pierce through your armor but the blade glances on the metal of your chest plate
Anon Rolls casting lightning bolt on Target B: He fails his save
>Anon Conjures Lightning in his hands crackling with energy he releases it striking the brute head on. A scent of burnt flesh wafts through the room but the Ogre still stands bloodied and marked with raw patches of flesh.
Player A Rolls Attacking Target A: They Hit
Roll Damage: Critical
>Then you raise your sword up and strike downwards, still reeling from the failed blow he can get out of the way and your blow cleaves into the flesh of his shoulder.
Player B Rolls Attacking Target B: They miss
>Noticing your companions plight you turn and quickly nock an arrow but miss as the shot speeds by the beats head and hit the wall behind.
Target B Rolls attacking Anon: They Hit
Roll Damage: Average
>The Ogre powering through the pain smiles and raises his club up and slams it down on Anon's ribcage the pain is so overwhelming that you pass out in pain.
Anon is unconscious make a death saving throw.
Total Time 12 in universe seconds.
The problem is that all the narration and cognitive load comes from the GM. You'd want to offload some of that to the players so you can focus on being a referee. Have them narrate their declared action. Small situational modifiers based on how their description (bonus to own attack, penalty to defense for acting aggressively etc.) could motivate this further. But don't do the latter if it slows things down too much.
>1 attack from PC
Ok no games, now the same, but you have party of 4, and each do 4-5 attacks per round.
considering using system where moronation like multiple attacks isn't a thing
this is pretty solid advice
when the actors all stick to one another animeflailing at each other there is no dynamicism
i've been working a momentum system into my homebrew where failed attacks and defence stack up into momentum for the other side, incentivizing a disengage action to attempt to slip away and regain composure, resetting the building buff the aggressor built
so far it's led to very swashbuckler-y fights where people are dipping around and angling trying to corner a winded foe or regain composure against a better fighter (since momentum makes someone whos mogging you, mog you even harder)
i use it with simultaneous initiative though so that helps with the feel
Cool. How do you track the momentum easily, since it’s value is dynamic across many actors?
when two people are in combat just a little die from that old card pirateship game, it sits on the base of the ones with momentum for players
composure is just a little generic scale that i use the same tracker i made for initiative, that one only ever comes up when someones goobing hard or supremely outclassed and failing to recover
>multiple attacks isn't a thing
0 system like this, schizo
>4 each
>every system
>nogames
ohohohohohoho
Vampire, Genesys, Fate. There's three right off the top of my head.
What is Celerity and splitting your dice pool for 500 Alex?
No, it doesn't.
The way I do it is:
>Melee Attacker charging Melee Defender: you lock eyes across the space and charge at one another, have a clash of attacks against one another until you push them back to their original spot (or further if I'm using my knockback homebrew)
>alternatives: there is a huge bustle (sometimes I'll have ''non-targetable/targeted npcs in battlefields) and between non-stated fights, you end up in a clash with the same guy who happens to be at that tile
>Melee attackers can dodge, have arrows bounce off of their plate, etc if going towards a ranged attacker.
I like to have games where people feel free to describe stuff and despite what a lot of nogaems people on here will tell you, if you're interacting with people who are not socially moronic you'll eventually get into a groove where people understand an appropriate length and level of description.
Play a game that allows defensive reactions during another character's turn.
Hate to be the guy but real fights ARE stationary. It was a bit less obvious in 3.5 with 5ft steps but in any real fight you would be hard pressed to use more than 10 feet of movement in any direction for maneuvering over the course of the melee.
You've never been in a fight. Simple as. Stop talking of things you don't know. Pic related, this is you.
>real fights ARE stationary
Ok moron.
?
That entire fight took place over 4-5 5-foot grid squares with neither of them moving more than 10 feet in any given direction like I literally just said. There may be a lot of movement and posturing going on within those grid squares but yes, on a grid that would be a very stationary looking encounter easily represented by 5ft stepping from both parties every turn.
>That entire fight took place over 4-5 5-foot grid
Ok schizo.
>In D&D a character is presumed
That's a lie, 5ft is a very long distance in melee combat and squares of 10 by 10 feet are not enough to reproduce all the nuances.
?t=174
>That's a lie
It is 100% truth, you have nowhere near enough experience with D&D to say what it is and what it's not.
>video
Do you think that every bit of footwork needs to be accounted for in the rules of the game? How long do you want one player's turn to be?
>Do you think that every bit of footwork needs to be accounted for in the rules of the game?
Yes.
>How long do you want one player's turn to be?
Irony lost on you.
>Yes.
You're a fool, and it makes me glad you don't get the things you want.
>rrreee, game with melee combat shouldn't have a good melee combat system
Ok magetard, I expected nothing from the lower lifeform and you did not disappoint me.
You don't get to decide what defines good melee combat, Anon. I didn't want to have to say this, but I hope the next time you go to Dennys your grand slam breakfast is cold.
Cope harder. He doesn't need to decide what is a good melee combat to see a bad melee combat. D&D combat is bad, here is why:
>imposes restrictions motivated by asinine desire to keep unrealistic characters down to earth, except for magic users because everyone loves plucky nerds twisting reality to their whim
>restrictions don't represent reality
>system fails to factor in the realities behind its introduction
>system is bad by default because it doesn't live up to its goals
That's a failing with classes, Anon, not how combat works.
Classes is part of the combat system, dumbass.
It's really not.
It's the issue with the system as a whole. My point was that you can accurately identify bad things without having skills and knowledge to masterfully create great things. Don't need to be a famous architect to see a shack.
>Do you think that every bit of footwork
Yes. I want to turn the Key, baby!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjnALze3ydc
>on a grid that would be a very stationary looking encounter easily represented by 5ft stepping from both parties every turn.
Not him, but the problem with that is that unless you're using any set of rules that use positional tactical advantages like flanking and the like, there is very little reason to do ANY movement whatsoever. Even if you have flanking, most of the time, you just move around a monster and it will typically die within seconds anyways, and if it doesn't, it will have very little reason to move anyways because it would just immediately get reflanked. Unless it has its OWN ally, then you get the conga line of death.
Outside of this instance, you rarely move at all or have reason to.
>In D&D a character is presumed to move around in the 5ft square they occupy
5 square feet is genuinely not that much. An adult human male, standing completely still, takes up about 1 yard/meter squared. When someone crouches down and stances the frick up, they're likely almost taking up the entire 5 feet. With an average arm being 2.5 feet, it's literally a single step forward to get within striking range, let alone with any weapons involved.
I agree about the agility being utilized. They are using that 5 foot square, but a lot of that is still empty space from crouching and whatnot.
Sorry, this anon:
>>In D&D a character is presumed to move around in the 5ft square they occupy
I don't know how that happened, but I meant to quote this guy
>5ft is a very long distance in melee combat
My dude, that fight had movement but not over long distances. In D&D a character is presumed to move around in the 5ft square they occupy, and their agility in doing so IS part of their defense. That video REALLY does not mean what you think it does.
That’s why 3.5 is again the best ttrpg
What the frick was his problem?
This is how a skirmisher operates, as soon as you let up the chase he's back in the mix.
He will be well decorated after the fighting is done.
Trying to solve this issue in my rpg and ended up with some problems:
Problem 1: If you consider movement for the character that receives an attack, then characters can move outside of their turn whenever they dodge.
Problem 2: if your character can move whenever it dodges, then he gets opportunities for free movement whenever an enemy tries to hit him
Problem 3: if you then limit the amount of movements the character can make outside of his turn, then numerical advantage becomes a much bigger issues, since you have a limited amount of reactions to make
I'm thinking of just bitting the bullet and limit reactionary movement, which leads to numerical advantage being a huge issue since it's realistic, but it gives room to game breaking exploits. One could just hire 6 peasants with pikes to follow you around and become unbeatable in melee since no one can dodge or parry that many attacks.
When an attack consists of the attacker rolling dice against a static number then this feeling is going to be common.
Opposed dice rolls help. Even better a reaction system where the defender can choose for example dodging, parrying, counterattacking whatever.
Nothing amuses me more than every "How do we fix combat?" thread basically boiling down to people describing their crazy new ideas that amount to GURPS without knowing it.
Hero System had an optional rule that depending on the speed the character is going if he ends his turn moving he gains a modifier to defense rolls to dodge
Remove Opportunity Attacks.
Clearly the solution is to add 100+ feats and abilities to the game that you work out when building your character. Then when you're playing, you can do the exact same combo every single fight for the rest of the campaign because its just a pile of modifiers with no situational pros and cons
t. every crunchy game
>every
Do I have to say it?
I mean if you don't have an example off the top of your head of a "crunchy" game that uses tool-based chargen instead of bonus-to-specific-things chargen...
What even is "Tool-based chargen." I have heard this term literally never.
"tool" in the game theory sense is when a mechanic is specifically designed for one situation and only one situation
a screw needs a screw driver, a lock needs a key, an ice elemental needs a fire sword
See, I'm failing to see then how picking out specific things you can do/interact with at character generation is meaningfully different from picking out autistic math that determines which things you're good enough to do, except for the autism.
To go back to the original point without running through this whole tangent first; as a prolific GURPS gay I have never experienced this "300 abilities to be able to do a thing," effect. I bought SL 14 in shield. I have a shield. I may now do all the things one may do with a shield, or invest further into being a little better at some of them specifically, but this is a tweaking of specialization and not an outright allowance like that moronic PF 1e shield bash feat tree.
In actual play, I've used that shield to block, to shield bash, for tackles, shoves, to pin a guy to the wall and restrain his weapon arm while I stabbed him. The "Same optimized combo over and over," thing is, in my experience thus far, a symptom of a game with too middling crunch.
Over in narrative land, I have to say a thing I'm trying to do and the Gm has to give a response, and it could be anything so I should be creative. In a highly crunchy game, I have to take a lot into account, and probably have a lot of potential options to meaningfully contorl the flow of battle.
In middle-crunch games like D&D, I have to optimize how fast I make the bad man's red number go down. So I just find the best red-number math and do it over and over, yes.
>he pretends that the dnd is not already a 100+ feats and abilities the game
This magegay is broken, send new.
PbtA stuff (including, although not best at it, dungeon world) does this really well in my experience. No attack skill and no turns means combat is very dynamic and exciting. You need a good DM tough.