Combat Options Supplement

[Solomoriah]

If you feel that fighters should fight better overall, just change the AB advancement rate; or, alternately, change the XP table for the cleric (and perhaps the thief) to slow their advancement.

There is no need for novel rules where ordinary ones will serve.

[Zargul]

There is no need for novel rules where ordinary ones will serve.

I can perfectly agree to this! This is why I am not a supporter of multiple attacks or weapon specialty for fighters. I think the fighter would not need any special skills if his general AB's were a little better. I think the other classes (cleric, thief and MU) are so perfectly balanced. Just the fighter runs IMHO far behind the rest.

Of course I could do such a change easily for my own game. That is not my point. I am just trying to make a modest contribution to an already almost perfect and beautiful game. I would just find this game even better - because it would be more balanced in my opinion - if fighters advanced +1 AB every one and a half levels. Clerics and thieves +1 AB every two levels and MU's +1 AB every two and a half levels. I am just curios if there is anyone who agrees to my point of view. Am I wrong with my opinion that fighters are to weak?

[dymondy2k]

I am planning on using this supplement in my campaign and I had a question I was hoping to get some feedback on. I like the simplicity of the critical fumbles with handled weapons and bows but I don't really see anything for thrown weapons such as daggers or spears. I mean you could do them like the handled weapon, but really isn't that just a miss? I was thinking maybe of using the handled weapon rule but if anyone is in that square, do an attack against that person, friend or foe.

[SmootRK]

Just my opinion, but the following few options ought to be added to the Combat Options Supplement. Aside from the jousting specific sub-mechanic of Mounted Combat, these have been used and work well.

Light Weapons
A character with a light weapon can choose to use his Dexterity modifier instead of his Strength modifier for his attack rolls. The Strength modifier is always used to modify damage rolls. When using this rule, the short sword can be used to represent rapiers, small-swords, sabers or any other fencing/musketeer type sword.
Light weapons from the core rules include: hand axe, daggers, short sword (and variants), and warhammer (or throwing hammer).

Two-Handed Weapon Use This one is tad more subjective... but I have tried it and it works well (and scales well with different size individuals). Alternatively, the bonus can just be flat +2 for simplicity.
When an individual utilizes a melee weapon in two-handed grip “style” (whether pc, npc, or even monsters capable of using weapons), the individual receives a bonus to its damage roll. This damage bonus is in addition to any strength bonus, specialization bonus, or other similar game mechanic. This applies to weapons made specifically as two-handed weapons as well as weapons traditionally used in one hand or classified as “hand and a half” weapons.

The bonus depends on the basic mass (size) of the individual.
Small individuals such as Hobbits, Phaerim, Goblins, Kobolds, and other similar sized races get +1 damage bonus.
Medium individuals such as Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and other similar sized races get +2 damage bonus.
Large individuals such as Bisren, Half-Ogres, Bugbears, true Ogres, and other similar sized races get +3 damage bonus.
Extremely Large individuals such as true Giants (typically only npcs or monsters) get +4 damage bonus while using a two-handed melee weapon.

Most normal weapons can by default be used in two-handed style, although there might be some exceptions. Logic should rule here. This rule does not apply to missile weapons such as Bows, Crossbows, or Slings, but does apply to standard weapons used in melee such as spears, polearms, great swords, and the like. The Game Master should apply this bonus to any weapon wielding monsters as appropriate.

Mounted Combat These are less a matter of new rules but extrapolation and explaination to clarify mount use.
Mounted combat has no special benefit other than movement is based upon mount instead of rider, and the mount may have its own attacks. The mount must be trained for mounted combat in order to coordinate attacks with rider. Otherwise, rider only gets attacks and those attacks are made at -2 penalty. Intelligent mounts (close or near human intelligence) are automatically considered trained for combat.

When someone is mounted, the rider and his mount roll initiative as one (rider rolls because he is the one guiding the mount's movements). All attacks by rider and mount are effectively simultaneous and generally must all be against the same target (some exotic mounts may defy this rule but it would be rare). When charging, only one of the rider or mount receives the charging bonus, and the other of the pair does not attack that turn.

A mount is generally large enough compared to the rider to allow the rider to “set against charge” when using an appropriate weapon The rider/mount pair must remain stationary. Also size related, nearly all rider and mount combinations are considered large for purposes of fighting against small humanoids like Hobbits (generally granting those races a small defensive bonus).

Unless specific targets are called, all attacks are assumed to be directed against the rider. An attack that misses the rider by 1 or 2 are applied against the mount instead using the same attack roll against the mount's AC. A near miss against the rider often hits the mount instead.

An untrained mount that takes damage must roll morale immediately, and usually attempts to flee the vicinity after a failed check. A rider may regain control 2 rounds after the mount feels that it safe from immediate attacks.

I also thought of jousting rules, but this is untried so far:
Jousting: Attackers ride applying a Charge against each other. (+2 for double damage), however since all attacks are being done simultaneously the AC penalty does not apply except for any other attacks that may be applied to either side by third parties. When a jouster is hit by his opponent he must make a save versus Death Ray (however Constitution does not modify this save) or else be un-horsed and land prone upon the ground. Each 5 points of damage dealt gives a -1 penalty to the save. If save is failed by 4 or more, then the un-horsed individual is also stunned for 2 rounds (-2 penalty to AC as well as loss of DEX bonus if applicable and -2 penalty to attacks). If save is failed by 8 or more the individual is Knocked Out completely. Jousts may be done using subdual damage instead of lethal damage (which is often the case in tournaments), generally by using blunted lances.

[Joe the Rat]

We may want to include a couple of other hand+ variants. I'd include the flat bonus version if nothing else turns up. Also, the note about not applying to bows, etc is redundant with this only applying to melee weapons. You may want to set a minimum weapon size for this bonus to apply.

Mounted combat - I'd state that melee attacks are against the same target. Allowing the rider to shoot at range and the mount biting/trampling/striking in the same round should be considered. You may consider it and say "no," but it does need looked at.
I am assuming that the rider/mount count as a single unit for attack/movement combinations: The mount "running" (double move) cannot be combined with an attack, save as a charge, and you cannot move-strike-move.

You may also want to consider the role of racial bonuses in the saves on jousting. Assuming a mount of appropriate stature, are Dwarves and Halflings more difficult to dismount? Halflings I see going flying - even against one another. Especially against one another. Dwarves... this is where we start getting into setting aspects. They're stocky and sturdy, but not thought of as expert riders. Unless they are. As a default, I'd say ignore racial save bonuses.

[SmootRK]

We may want to include a couple of other hand+ variants. I'd include the flat bonus version if nothing else turns up. Also, the note about not applying to bows, etc is redundant with this only applying to melee weapons.

I only say it, so that it might be more apparent that some weapons (talking Spear here) can be used as either melee or thrown.

You may want to set a minimum weapon size for this bonus to apply.

I really just did not want to get into parsing each and every weapon. But yes, logic should dictate.

I am assuming that the rider/mount count as a single unit for attack/movement combinations: The mount "running" (double move) cannot be combined with an attack, save as a charge, and you cannot move-strike-move.

Yes, that is my thoughts.

Mounted combat - I'd state that melee attacks are against the same target. Allowing the rider to shoot at range and the mount biting/trampling/striking in the same round should be considered. You may consider it and say "no," but it does need looked at.

Interesting thought. I would assume no. However, if I were trying to make it possible...
If someone wanted to fire a bow, while the mount is attacking (melee), then the penalty of using a missile weapon while in melee will definitely apply (-5 penalty) to foes within melee range (as all would be assumed to be engaged with the horse/rider unit). In this case, against opponents that are not in melee with the horse/rider unit... I would still apply a penalty (first thought is -2) due the movements of the horse in melee; this is in addition to any consideration for range, from behind, etc.

As far as special considerations for Jousting Dwarves, etc. I have not really given it much thought... I haven't even gotten a chance to test this specific mechanic (jousting).

[Solomoriah]

I'm not sure I like the two-handed rule, but I can't elaborate now. Let me think it over a while.

[SmootRK]

I'm not sure I like the two-handed rule, but I can't elaborate now. Let me think it over a while.

It does make a rather sweeping change to anyone using a weapon 'two-handed'. For the most part this means +2 (medium size creatures)... which if a simplification needs to be made, that's what I would suggest. The extra stuff may have more impact in my own games, where I use a variety of additional races (some small, some larger).

As I see it, so long as it is applied across the board... even to the orcs that one might encounter, then it roughly balances.

[Joe the Rat]

My thought on it is that +2 is a sizable uptick in damage - it moves the mean of the the damage distribution up the equivalent of two dice (putting a longsword in the same ballpark as... er, what uses a d12?). This also makes a big damage shift for large weapons, and creates a real gap for small weapon users. It also makes combat deadlier, particularly at low levels. And that dude with the giant axe got a whole lot scarier. It also makes the quarterstaff more viable, and it will give low-low strength characters a means to do fair damage in melee (grunting like Monica Seles optional).

+1 would be a bit less severe. This is closer to a 1-die shift. It also meshes closer to earlier rulings (2e gave a simple +1 for one-handed used in two, 3e increased your strength damage bonus to x1.5 for using weapons in two hands - which if you have a bonus would likely be a +1).

Another way to look at it is how the damage stacks up to having a shield. Is it better to have -1 in 20 on being hit, or +1/+2 or +2/+3 damage? (those being bonus for two hands, and average damage increase for a larger weapon). Take the option that's closer to the tipping point on the decision.

[SmootRK]

I can see that logic, and can modify my method to +1 (flat for the simplified rule) or +1 for small/medium, +2 for larger races, and +3 for really big races (ie true giants).

Modified the Text that I use to this:

Two-Handed Weapon Use
When an individual utilizes a melee weapon in two-handed grip “style” (whether pc, npc, or even monsters capable of using weapons), the individual receives a bonus to its damage roll. This damage bonus is in addition to any strength bonus, specialization bonus, or other similar game mechanic. This applies to weapons made specifically as two-handed weapons as well as weapons traditionally used in one hand or classified as “hand and a half” weapons. The bonus depends on the basic mass (size) of the individual.

Small or Medium sized individuals, covering the bulk of the player races get +1 damage bonus. This includes small races such as Halflings, Phaerim, Goblins, Kobolds, and medium races such as Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Half-Elves, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Hobgoblins, and the like.
Large individuals such as Bisren, Half-Ogres, Bugbears, Gnolls, true Ogres, and other similar sized races get +2 damage bonus.
Extremely Large individuals such as true Giants (typically only npcs or monsters) get +3 damage bonus while using a two-handed melee weapon.

Most normal weapons can by default be used in two-handed style, although there might be some exceptions. Logic should rule here. This rule does not apply to missile weapons such as Bows, Crossbows, or Slings, but does apply to standard weapons used in melee such as spears, polearms, great swords, and the like. The Game Master should apply this bonus to any weapon wielding monsters as appropriate.