The Physical Combat System

[Darko Cernovsek]

// In preparation for the Thieves Guildhall experimental thread I plan to put up sometime soon, probably after we have the Weapons and Armour threads //

A good dice-roll program: Dice Roller

If the roleplay world is to truly come alive, I feel that a proper physical combat system needs to be established. There are a million different PnP and computer RPGs that each have some variation of the dice roll system, so here's my idea for something similar for the RP world we're building here. Magical attacks aren't included here, this is only for physical combat, since I feel magic-based combat would need a whole separate section for itself.

Character Base Physical Combat Stats:

Strength : Melee attacks damage bonus (in addition to the weapon's base damage - that would need to be worked up in the Weapons thread, when we make it). Also damage with muscle-propelled ranged weapons (bows, slings, throwing knives etc); despite the popular movie/fantasy misconceptions, a lot of Strength is needed to draw a bow, or throw a knife with any power. The only ranged weapon that doesn't derive damage from Strength can be various Crossbows. Or if we introduce certain types of primitive guns (matchlocks, flintlocks, etc). Each point of Strength adds a +2 Damage bonus with relevant weapons (in addition to their base damage, to be decided in Weapons thread). Starts at +2, at 1 point.

Agility : To-hit chance bonus with all melee attacks, and some ranged attacks (throwing weapons and slings). I don't feel that bows/crossbows need a lot of Agility, mainly Perception. Each point of Agility gives a +1 Attack bonus with relevant weapons, and +1 Defence bonus against all attacks.

Perception : To-hit chance bonus with bows, crossbows, and possibly guns (if we introduce them). Each point of Perception gives a +1 Attack bonus with relevant weapons.

Endurance : A health stat. Only governs how much damage can a character take, before dying/incapacitation (depends on what kind of combat we engage in). Each point is +10 Health. Starting at 10 health, at 1.

Each of the stats can scale from 1 to 10 Physical points, and a total Physical point pool available for any character we make would be 18 (including the 4 starting ones, since no stat can be lower then 1). So no character can be good at all four. Compromises would have to be made, with only 14 points to allocate.

ATTACKING:

Five-tier system (characters can be Trained from trainer characters, if we play any, to advance in tiers, if they meet the stat requirements (to be decided), and pay for training (how much depends on the trainer)).

Tier 1 - Rookie: Rolls a 1d24 dice against the defender's 1d24 Defence roll (plus stat/armour bonuses). If the Attacking roll is greater (plus stat bonuses), the attack hits.
Tier 2 - Proficient: Rolls a 2d12 dice against the defender's 1d24 Defence roll (plus stat/armour bonuses). If the Attacking roll is greater (plus stat bonuses), the attack hits.
Tier 3 - Skilled: Rolls a 4d6 dice against the defender's 1d24 Defence roll (plus stat/armour bonuses). If the Attacking roll is greater (plus stat bonuses), the attack hits.
Tier 4 - Expert: Rolls a 8d3 dice against the defender's 1d24 Defence roll (plus stat/armour bonuses). If the Attacking roll is greater (plus stat bonuses), the attack hits.
Tier 5 - Master: Rolls a 12d2 dice against the defender's 1d24 Defence roll (plus stat/armour bonuses). If the Attacking roll is greater (plus stat bonuses), the attack hits.

So what Training would do, is make the attacker more consistent in their minimum rolls, but not actually increase their max chance to hit, which is always Base 24. Also, I think weapons shouldn't have any inherent to-hit bonus. Maybe in special cases only (like Enchanted weapons).


DEFENDING:

A fixed 1d24 Defence roll, against any physical attack (melee and ranged) roll. This can be modified by Agility stat, and armour the character is wearing (when we work up that segment).



Anyway, that would be my proposal for the combat system. Physical only, magical combat would need to be worked out separately in another thread. Suggestions/criticism welcome.

 

[Kayleechaos]

Only thing I'd say is there's a /roll command in the chat that would work as a dice roller, it would be harder to cheat with.

 

[Darko Cernovsek]

Does it work for multi-dice rolls?

 

[Kayleechaos]

Yup, if you click on the weird circle and scroll down it explains the command

 

[Darko Cernovsek]

Ok, that can work then, but I feel the Chat would get congested pretty quickly with rolls, if everyone used it. Be hard to keep track.

 

[Kayleechaos]

Well hopefully, if this became a thing, a mod could open a separate chat room for dice rolls

 

[WhatISeemIAm]

Any stat-based system should be an opt-in arrangement. I have little interest in fighting in any 'PVP,' context but to the extent my character(s?) would get involved I would like to have the option for what occurs be determined by a sensible OOC arrangement arrived at between players to create something that is reasonable and narratively satisfying.

That said I can throw my two cents in here.

The main point I think you should really bear in mind when creating any kind of weapon/combat system is that lethal weapons are genuinely lethal and most of them are tools of finesse rather than brute force. As in most exist to contravene the need to employ brute force. The idea that physical strength or hardihood should have any bearing on how easily you can kill someone with a knife, fight through being skewered with an arrow or survive being cut open with a sword, or even knock someone senseless with a solid, well-balanced stick makes little sense.

You don't need to be strong to use a bow. Very high poundage bows were the exception not the rule and in most cases they're excessive to requirements. A bow with a relatively small draw-weight can absolutely kill unarmoured humans and will do it out to the sort of ranges that most non-freakish mortals can expect to hit anything.

Not all weapons are equal. Their values do not need to be (and shouldn't) be balanced for general use.

 

[Darko Cernovsek]

OOC arrangement is of course always an option. This is simply a more hands-on approach.

The idea that physical strength has no bearing on using weapons, however, is beyond ridiculous. If that were the case, soldiers and warriors in the past wouldn't have trained for strength all their lives. Ever done fencing? Try parrying, and not have your wrist jarred by lack of arm strength, or even having your sword knocked out of your grip by a stronger opponent's blow. Try swinging around an average arming sword for more then a minute, without your arm starting to droop with muscle fatigue. To say nothing of heavier weapons. Strength very much IS a factor. Or if you want to talk about bashing someone with a well-balanced stick - no matter how well-balanced, it won't do anything if it's not swung by sufficient force. AkA - strength. Simple physics. Sword cuts - against totally unarmoured opponent, sure - any nick will breach the skin. But a more forceful cut will do more damage. Maybe a difference between a surface-cut, and slicing through bone and crippling the enemy. And cutting through even light gambeson armour requires actual strength in a slash, in addition to sharpness of blade. Anything heavier, like mail - you need to stab through the rivets, and that takes quite a bit of strength, AND half-swording technique.

You don't need to be strong to use a bow? That statement is just... you know, I could link a dozen archery videos on YT to prove you wrong, from qualified professionals, but I really don't have the time right now.

Sure, if you're using a 15-20 pound drawweight bow for kids. But that won't do anything, to even thick clothing. And will have NO range or velocity to be useful in an actual battle. High poundage bows were a REQUIREMENT in warfare in the Middle Ages, if the archer had any hope of defeating any kind of armour at all. Why do you think English longbows were so deadly? Why do you think crossbows were invented at all? So the average person can actually be useful in battle (battle bows needed a LOT of strength to use). Why do you think archers trained for years to be proficient? Why do you think mercenary archers and crossbowmen were so valued on the battlefield?

The only thing I agree on, is the last one. All weapons are not equal. But that's not a subject for this thread. The Weapons thread would deal with all aspects and requirements for weaponry.

 

[Avarice West]

I support an OOC contact arrangement as opposed to dice rolls for the following reasons:

1. Dice rolls really only matter in PVP combat and I think having this in place will only encourage people to attack other players, and would negate the need to communicate ahead of time. I'd prefer OS not to become a world where bullies rule.

2. This would also necessitate a character creation standard with all characters coming into OS at approximately level one and earning their way up into levels of mastery in order to keep the world fair and balanced. This means every player would have to submit a character sheet and someone would have to check those character sheets. It would also require someone to be in charge of tracking experience points and leveling people up.

3. I think the system you proposed is a little broken. It presupposes that attackers can get better and better at attacking but a person cannot earn mastery of self defense? Is an experienced fighter just as easy to hit as a drunk cleric? I shouldn't think so.

4. There are plenty of PnP RPG systems that people can go play in if they want to. OS should be doing what the rest of IS is doing. Encouraging good communication with partners, and focusing on telling good stories. I see the OS tavern and other buildings as being space for playful IC interactions, and to share quest ideas that can be set in the broader world of OS. I don't see any reason why someone couldn't DM a particular party with whatever dice roll system the entire party agrees to, but that should be negotiated through OOC contact anyway, and shouldn't impact people who want to stick with more traditional IS rules.

 

[Darko Cernovsek]

It presupposes that attackers can get better and better at attacking but a person cannot earn mastery of self defense? Is an experienced fighter just as easy to hit as a drunk cleric? I shouldn't think so.

That's where armour comes in. It supplements the defence rolls. And I'm counting buffing Agility as 'mastery of self defence'. Thing is, as an ex-competitive fighter, I know first hand that defence only goes so far. Eventually one needs to take it on the chin, in a fight. So I'm treating defence as a 'secondary' stat, consisting of HPs and Agility bonuses+armour.

Anyway, I'm just treating this as a theoretical exercise in case a combat system does become necessary. I agree that a lot more needs to be worked out first, if it comes to that, so for now, OOC arrangements work best.

 

[WhatISeemIAm]

I support an OOC contact arrangement as opposed to dice rolls for the following reasons:

I agree with you on almost every point although I'd say using dice rolls can make sense in a 'PVE,' context. In a 'PVP' context it just seems like a recipe for a more annoying type of power-gaming to say nothing of cheese/min-maxing and general dick-measuring nonsense.

The idea that physical strength has no bearing on using weapons, however, is beyond ridiculous.

I didn't say it has no bearing. Please understand what you're responding to. The point I made is that weapons are tools of finesse not brute force. For the record here is a HEMA instructor who agrees with me on the value of strength with respect to swordsmanship. Can find others. Have experience with HEMA and archery myself and am quite familiar with period sources on the subject. I doubt you're going to listen though because you're already being very combative like you have some deep personal investment in being the 'expert,' here, and speaking bluntly some of the things you say make me wonder about, well, it doesn't matter. I'll leave this thread in your hands. Have fun being the 'expert.'

 

[Darko Cernovsek]

The idea that physical strength or hardihood should have any bearing on how easily you can kill someone with a knife, fight through being skewered with an arrow or survive being cut open with a sword, or even knock someone senseless with a solid, well-balanced stick makes little sense.

You did say it, you just phrased it differently. Same thing. That you now go back to saying that strength HAS some bearing, is disingenuous.

And that video is a very obvious example of 'I'm not trying to offend anyone' video. I watch Scholagladiatoria a lot, he IS an expert. He IS strong, and he IS an excellent swordsman. Probably in the top 5% in the world. Maybe top 1-2%. Usually he's more straightforward then this. Just listen to his choices of words: "Huge physical strength isn't necessarily a real advantage." - so basically he said it most often is, but not necessarily. Very nice soft-petaling the truth. He's a youtuber, and I'm sure he feels pressured to make some apologetic noises every now and then, and has learned how to phrase things to not sound too 'offensive' to the certain crowd.

So no, he most certainly does not agree with you on your 'strength has little bearing on skills with a sword' view. The fact that you think he does, means he does a good job being vague on purpose.

 

[WhatISeemIAm]

Like I said Darko, have fun with this by yourself.