|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE FORUM
"Laydeeeezz and genntellmennn
. . . In this
corner, wearing a gossamer
bikini, bracers of
defense AC 2, gauntlets of
ogre power and ring
of protection +3, weighing
104 lbs., dodging
with a 17 dex and an armor
class of -4, at 8th
level with 75 hp, and armed
with a horseman?s
flail + 3: Eriana of Belargn!
"And in this corner, 40 in
number, wearing
chain mail with an effective
armor class of 5,
collectively weighing over
four tons, each 5th
level with 32 hp, and each
armed with scimitars:
the Faceless NPCs!
For this bout, two NPCs will
face Eriana at
any time. As soon as one
NPC dies, another
steps in to take his place.
No critical hits or
fumbles are allowed, no weapon
specialization
or even multiple attacks
for high level will be
permitted. Anyone brought
to zero hit points is
dead!"
Well, Eriana is not that
well equipped, nor is
she all that superior to
her foes on paper. But I'd
bet a bag of adamantium pieces
that she will
win easily. (Play it out
yourself, and see what
happens.) If the Faceless
NPCs even come close
to winning, the dice really
favored them.
Consider: At her level, using
the variant "to
hit"
system on page 74 of the DMG, Eriana
needs an 8 or better to hit
an NPC?s armor class.
With bonuses for the gauntlets
and her weapon,
she hits on anything except
a 1. The Faceless
NPCs need a 20 to hit her.
Eriana does 2-5 ( + 9)
hp damage per hit (11-14
hp, the average being
12.5). We assume it will
take three hits by her to
take down an NPC. The NPCs
have no damage
bonuses and do 1-8 hp per
hit, averaging 4.5 hp
damage. It would take a minimum
of 10 hits and
a maximum of 75 to take Eriana
down. If we
assume average damage, she
can withstand 17
hits before dropping.
Eriana has to kill 40 NPCs,
needing 120 hits
before they can get in 17
hits. With a 95%
chance of hitting, Eriana
should swing 127 times
to finish the lot of them.
Since her 3/2 attack
rate has been disallowed,
she will need 127
rounds to do this. With a
5% chance of hitting, a
Faceless NPC needs 340 swings
to get those 17
hits. With two Faceless NPCs
going at once, it
will take 170 rounds for
them to finish her off,
which is nearly an hour too
late. Let her have 3/
2 attacks per round or specialization,
and it
ends a lot sooner.
And again, none of her items
are particularly
game-disruptive. No + 6 holy
vorpal sunblades
here; she has a magical horseman?s
flail. The
bracers are the only items
that were the best of
their type, and simply substituting
them with
chain mail + 3 puts everything
in the medium
range without changing anything.
In short, it?s gotten to the
point where guards
and troops are only there
as window dressing. I
worked out an adventure that
gave ?normal?
fighters a chance against
the typical party, but
the key element of that adventure
can?t be
copied over and over again.
The only way to
give the Faceless NPCs a
chance of being challenging
to players is to boost their
level to about
five over the party?s, which
is unfair and a bit
ridiculous. Fighters of 9th
level can get their
own castles and troops; why
would 14th-level
fighters be doing menial
guard work without
magical weapons or armor?
The treasure they
guard couldn?t pay their
fees! It?s worse to give
them magical items which
end up in the hands
of the PCs.
Poison? It unbalances the
game. I do 1 hp
damage to you, you blow your
save, you die.
Perhaps insinuative poison
should be rewritten:
Given no save, these poisons
could do bonus
damage only and add to an
assassin?s chance of
killing his victim. The assumption
here is that a
fatal dose can be administered
by ingestion or
contact, but game balance
decrees that a fatal
dosage can never be left
by a blade that rips
through flesh. What does
get through merely
causes damage. Faceless NPCs
could then do
enough damage to make them
a threat.
Another possibility, one that
should not be
used in conjunction with
the first, is to give
NPCs (and only NPCs) a morale
bonus of +4 to
hit when they outnumber PCs.
If used in the
example above, Eriana would
be dead meat
against her 40 opponents
unless she had specialization
and fought them two at a
time. Even
then, she?d be hurting pretty
badly, which is a
lot more realistic. This
would not work too well
against low-level parties
and might not go into
effect unless the NPCs were
at least 3rd level.
I?m not just bouncing around
solutions to
these problems as they cross
my mind. I would
like to see what kind of
ideas others might have
or have implemented already.
S. D. Anderson
Whittier CA
(Dragon
#139)
Hi Jesse,
I was thinking of how were in a DM-like role when you posed the questions, and that's why I mentioned the dramatic aspect.
No matter what a designer
does in regard to managing combat, there is going to be a number of players
who dislike it.
With some systems it's the
majority of gamers, with others it's a minority of some size, small or
large.
In all cases each system
will have its stalwart champions and vocal opponents.
Rest assured that I was
not in defensive mode when i read and responded to you.
What I posted was simply
the straight-forward reasoning I used in arriving at the system that I
did, and why I did so.
In the Lejendary
Adventure game I used a different
method,
but one that is also streamlined
and not a step-by-step attempt to re-inact hand-to-hand combat with weapons
generally of the medieval period.
As i mentioned before, when
creatures with natural weapons are thrown into such a calculation, the
variables one needs to consider make it a nigh impossible exercise.
Magical elements compound
the difficulties even further.
If you devise a fast-paced
combat system that includes the major elements of actual fighting in armor
with the various weapons usual,
including monsters
and magical attacks and defenses, hats off, and I think the gamers will
beat a path to your door 
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFisher
Well, sure. But wasn't the
question asking why OAD&D combat wasn't
more simple rather than why it wasn't more complex?
Perhaps, but I read it as
questioning the doubling up on AC and HP
benefits in combat, and not have more realism in the system.
You are correct about the
need for keeping combat abstract in the RPG.
Every complication demands
more rules and explanations, more time spent resolving combat, that's fine
for a military or dueling simulation, but not in an RPG where there are
so many other things to do besides killing things
Cheers,
Gary
Howdy Drifter Bob,
When a search for realistic
combat mechanics begins,
the challenge of devising
a system that meets the "realism" required (that measure being totally
subjective) that does not extend the time and effort
necessary to resolve the matter becomes highly problematic.
Having rules that require players' characters to do something that the player does not wish seems to me to be the antithesis of role-playing--aside from the compulsions of the occasional casting of magic spells that force such compliance and where saving throws are allowed.
None the less, individual
taste can not be disputed.
Good luck in your quest
for the perfect combat resolution system.
If you devise something
that meets that measure broadly, it will likely revolutionize the whole
of the approach to RPGs.
However, any rules governing
how a character must specifically act in key situations move the game system
away from role-playing.
Cheers,
Gary
Drifter Bob,
To cut to the chase here,
for I haven't the time to spare for more point-by-point
reply to so long a missive,
in my considered opinion
detailed "realistic" combat rules are a detriment to the RPG, not a benefit.
There is already undue stress
placed upon combat as the central theme of the game form, while it is in
fact only one of several key elements.
The designer would better
serve the audience by stressing the other elements than would be dine by
spending yet more content space on detailing fighting.
Cheers,
Gary
