Combat Options Supplement

[Hywaywolf]

I understand the intent of the rule about rolling to hit on missed shots when shooting into melee is to curb metagaming by adding in the chance that you will hit your own party member when doing something as risky as that. The phrase "don't shoot you might hit (enter your friends name here)" shows up in nearly every action movie for a reason. And I understand your point about not rewarding a missed shot, but perhaps when shooting into massed ranks (and I don't know what mechanism you would use to determine what massed ranks is) the shooter should get a To Hit bonus. Because if you are shooting into a closely packed mob its highly unlikely that a shot from a reasonably experienced bowman wouldn't hit something. Its the reverse of shooting at a covered or concealed opponent. If a negative bonus is given when the shot is hard, a positive bonus should be given when shooting ducks in a barrel.

[Solomoriah]

Yeah, that's more or less what I was talking about.

[Hywaywolf]

I went back and read your post and don't know how I missed that. part of me thinks you added the 2nd part after I read it, but most of me knows I just missed it LOL. getting old or reading to fast? Don't know which but only one of them can I correct.

[Solomoriah]

I went back and read your post and don't know how I missed that. part of me thinks you added the 2nd part after I read it,

Nope. Sorry...

but most of me knows I just missed it LOL. getting old or reading to fast? Don't know which but only one of them can I correct.

[Sir Bedivere]

I'd be more likely to agree with an optional rule giving a bonus to hit when attacking opponents in a massed group, provided they all have the same AC.

That sounds like a good way to handle it.

... you need to understand that my rule here is aimed not at simulationism, but rather at gamism. A failed roll to hit should never have a positive result in normal combat situations.

I've never really thought about the distinction until now, and I think I see what you're aiming at. I think that's a good thing for me to start taking into account.

My general principle (and I'm not at all suggesting that you or others don't consider this) is that rules shouldn't get in the way of player creativity. The more the game world works like the real world, the less the players have to think about the rules and the more they can use their brainpower to deal with problems in the adventure. Obviously, in a fantasy RPG, we aren't going for realism, but the world should more or less make sense and work in predictable ways.

Edit: Hmm ... I don't want to suggest that your gamism and my view are mutually incompatible. I think keeping the intent of the rules in mind (gamism?) can guide the simulation to create rules that satisfy both principles, like your idea for how to handle shooting into a group of enemies.

[Solomoriah]

I try never to create rules that, in trying to be realistic, lead to unrealistic behavior.

My favorite example is the Runequest Shuffle. In Runequest, each skill has its own percentage, and when you succeed at a skill, you get a "check" that allows you to try to improve it (later, after the session or adventure is over). This is somewhat realistic... use your sword all the time, and it's not surprising that you get to be better with it than with your bow. But what I saw in play was different... players would get a "check" with a weapon, then switch to a different weapon in hopes of getting a check with it also. Sometimes, they'd do this in the middle of combat. Gah.

The "firing into melee" rule is intended to negate the advantage that players having both strong melee weapon users and strong missile weapon users could get by concentrating both on a group of opponents. If you might hit your friends, well, that would deter at least some players from trying it; if your misses might lead to useful hits, on the other hand, it might be worth trying.

[Maliki]

I always kept firing into melee very simple, a miss is a miss. My thought was that a miss doesn't always mean you completely miss what you were aiming at, a lot of times a "miss" just means you didn't cause damage. I think I would apply the same idea when of firing into a mass of enemies, your arrow may "hit" someone, but not a clean enough shot to due any damage.

[Maliki]

Overall I really like the Combat Options, the weapon specialization gives the fighter a needed(IMHO) boost, The critical hits and fumbles are cool without being overpowering, and defending is a nice option when times are desperate.

The only rule I don't plan to use is the two weapon fighting although this is similar to two weapon fighting in various systems, 2E, C&C, that I have run I never really liked it, so in my game this is how I plan to handle two weapon fighting.

Fighting With Two Weapons A player or monster wielding a one handed melee weapon in each hand is allowed to attack with the offhand weapon if they miss with their primary weapon. No matter how many attacks they are entitled to, only a single attack each round can be made in this manner. Damage from the offhand attack is scored as per the offhand weapon.

This way I don't have to worry about DEX scores, weapon sizes (as long as they are one handed weapons), needing different rolls to hit with each hand, etc. Plus it keeps damage from getting out of hand, as it limits the player to one hit per round.

[Solomoriah]

Maliki, I have to say, your alternative is quite attractive. Simple and elegant. I'll stick with my method for my games, but were I a player in your game, I'd not complain about it.

[Zargul]

I find that supplement very interesting even though I am very careful to make any major changes to the already very good - almost perfect - core system.

However, I do think that fighters - somehow - need a boost to balance the special abilities of the other classes. A cleric for example gets +8 AB when he reaches level 18 (990k XP). A fighter with 990k XP would still be on level 15, thus also having +8 AB. The only real benefit of the fighter compared to the cleric is a dozen more HP's in average on that level. I have to admit that this is not to be neglected but the cleric is able to cast as much as 24 spells on that level and can defeat most undead by his turning power. Both can use metal armor, shields and one handed 1d8-damage-dealing weapons. It would be o.k. that fighters don't have special abilities if there basic fighting skills were better, but this is - almost - not the case. Their few advantages are weak in my opinion.

Therefore, I am a bit torn apart by the combat options: On the one hand weapon specialization does not so easily match my personal taste for old school fantasy gaming because I like the idea that characters are not limited by any kind of "skills". I don't want my fighter having to stick to his longsword all the time because he chose to put some specialization in it during the first levels. On the other hand I think that a fighter should simply have a recognizably superior fighting skill compared to other classes (there is nothing else he can do better.

I won't go so far to give any class more than one attack per round, because that is too strong in my opinion. Therefore I don't like the idea of two-weapon-fighting very much. The alternative presented by Maliki is interesting and more balanced but would not be necessary and slow down the game flaw IMHO.