Tweaks to combat rules

[RobertF]

A few simple tweaks to the combat rules:

1. One thing that never quite seemed right with the D&D rules is the lack of a defense bonus. The attack bonus ratchets up as PCs gain experience and level up, but shouldn't characters also gain skill in parrying & dodging attacks? A simple fix would be to let players have a defense bonus = attack bonus applied to their armor class.

2. Shields are very effective in melee for both defense and offense - allow players a +1 to-hit bonus when wielding a shield. You could even roll up the shield bashing attack into regular attacks by adding a damage bonus to attacks = strength bonus when armed with a shield.

3. Two-handed swords, spears, polearms, and quarterstaffs wielded with two hands gain a +1 attack and defense bonus due to their increased reach.

Thoughts?

[Metroknight]

A few simple tweaks to the combat rules:

1. One thing that never quite seemed right with the D&D rules is the lack of a defense bonus. The attack bonus ratchets up as PCs gain experience and level up, but shouldn't characters also gain skill in parrying & dodging attacks? A simple fix would be to let players have a defense bonus = attack bonus applied to their armor class.

2. Shields are very effective in melee for both defense and offense - allow players a +1 to-hit bonus when wielding a shield. You could even roll up the shield bashing attack into regular attacks by adding a damage bonus to attacks = strength bonus when armed with a shield.

3. Two-handed swords, spears, polearms, and quarterstaffs wielded with two hands gain a +1 attack and defense bonus due to their increased reach.

Thoughts?

There is the optional supplement called Combat Options and it covers some of what you are mentioning.

1: Defending: The application of Armor Class assumes that the character tries to avoid each incoming attack, while still making attacks himself. However, there will be occasions when the character just wants to avoid being hit. The player must declare that the character is defending. The defending character applies a bonus of +4 to AC.

There is more in the supplement about additional modifiers.

2: Shield Bash: A character may use a shield as a weapon rather than as a defensive item. Give it a read.

3: Two handed weapons such as two-handed swords and polearms require both hands so the listed damage is assumed to reflect that usage. Spears have multiple damage types listed. One for one handed and one for two handed. Quarterstaffs are assumed to use two hands and have appropriate damage listed.

Now with that said if you want to use your tweaks in your game, go for it.

[Dimirag]

1. One thing that never quite seemed right with the D&D rules is the lack of a defense bonus. The attack bonus ratchets up as PCs gain experience and level up, but shouldn't characters also gain skill in parrying & dodging attacks? A simple fix would be to let players have a defense bonus = attack bonus applied to their armor class.

If you are using a defense bonus be aware of the AC inflation that could occur.
Another approach you can take is to double the AB or increase it by 50% and let each player divide it among attack and defense as they please (similar to Rolemaster or HARP).

3. Two-handed swords, spears, polearms, and quarterstaffs wielded with two hands gain a +1 attack and defense bonus due to their increased reach.

The damage die consider the use of two hands in a simple way.
Weapon defense bonuses could be a complicated thing, considering the attacking and defending weapon and other situations (like a knife hitting a character with a lance, and thus turning breach in favor of the knife).

[orobouros]

1. One thing that never quite seemed right with the D&D rules is the lack of a defense bonus. The attack bonus ratchets up as PCs gain experience and level up, but shouldn't characters also gain skill in parrying & dodging attacks? A simple fix would be to let players have a defense bonus = attack bonus applied to their armor class.

...

Thoughts?

When I thought up what I would want a Monk class to be, I actually gave them an inherent AC bonus equal to their attack bonus. They can't use armor (in my house rules) so this compensated by a natural AC bonus. A level 20 monk is nearly impossible to hit by regular monsters, as it should be.

Overall, though, there's history and game balance behind these rules. Early wargames had rolls to hit and another to see if the hit caused damage, this latter roll being affected by the target armor class. A better unit could decrease the chance to hit, but still had some standard armor class. Overall, there's also balance to think of.

In older TT RPGs one increases their effective AC by acquiring magic armor and items. A fighter with Plate +3, a shield +2, a ring of protection, and maybe a headband of protection (each +1) will have an AC around 25. You'd need a HD10 or better monster to hit the fighter with anything other than a nat 20.

Something similar applies to the shields: do you use your free hand for extra defense, to hold your weapon with two hands for extra damage, hold a torch to see, etc? Combat and such is fairly abstracted in RPGs to just the essentials. Now, in my game, if somebody wanted to do something like use their shield to bash an opponent, I'd _totally_ make an on the spot ruling about what effect that has, depending on the size of the target, how they're armed, etc.

Many people would make the argument that the spirit of old school games is to provide a minimal framework and let the GM take it from there, since you can't possibly cover all the things that could happen. And worse, if you try, you encourage players to think of the rules first, and then roleplaying.

[RobertF]

Thanks for the comments.

I like the Defending combat option if players want to go into a defensive stance, or the Rolemaster/HARP approach of letting players adjust the offensive/defensive modifiers in battles.

But really, I see each combat round as a flurry of blows, blocks, parries, grappling, and shield bashes rather than single delivered attack - more of a contest of skill, strength, and weapon styles. Hence my thoughts about adding attack bonuses to combatant's armor class. This also characters who have very little or no armor to rely on their combat skill to see them through a battle.

Agreed that balance may be thrown off a bit if PC's AC is increased by the attack bonus. However it shouldn't be too hard to make monster encounters more difficult to match hardier characters. Or simply scale back the # of hit pts PCs receive when they level up, say by 50%.

[Dimirag]

...more of a contest of skill, strength, and weapon styles...

Some other ideas:
Use an attack roll vs attack roll instead of AR vs AC, and use the AC of the loser to see if it got hit
Or, if you want to show how the shield and armor helps fighting add everything into one big roll vs roll.

[RobertF]

Over the years, I've been thinking of ways to make D&D combat a bit more exciting. Battles ought to be exhilarating, not break-time for cell phones! (I've actually seen someone playing a game on her cell phone between turns while playing Pathfinder.) When playing with my family I'd like to keep everyone engaged. Sure, a good DM can enliven combat with dramatic descriptions & time limits, but that only goes so far.

What about throwing out the standard rules for turns and initiative? Instead, players and DM move, attack, cast spells, etc. during the combat session in more of a free form simulation. That is, no more idle time waiting for their turn - players simply announce "I'm moving 10 feet" or "I'm attacking the troll" or "I'm casting Sleep" and then complete the action with necessary die rolls. Movement could still be regulated in some way - perhaps players make a modified die (1d4 or 1d6, etc. based on PC's movement rate) to determine how many grid squares they move, with some restrictions when attempting to leave an enemy zone of control. Game play could pause for more complicated actions, like casting & resolving spells.

Basic D&D combat is pretty simple, especially with low-level monsters. My feeling is as long as everyone knows their PC's stats and the relevant stats of their opponents (AC and hit points), the players can run the encounter with minimal supervision from the DM. Using labeled minis on the battle map would help.

Of course, there's the danger combat encounters could descend into chaos with everyone trying to move their minis on the grid & players talking over each other. This would require players having a game plan when going into combat, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Anyways, I think for certain encounters where the DM wants the battle to have a Gauntlet-like sense of frantic action (e.g., PCs vs. hordes of Orcs or undead) this could work. And other settings, too, such as the party running from pursuing monsters or a escaping a collapsing temple. I haven't tested these ideas in action, yet. I'm still in the brainstorm phase, any thoughts/suggestion are welcome!

[orobouros]

On that note, you could have everybody roll a d20 for each character they control (basically, the GM rolls more) and whoever is highest gets to move. That'll keep everybody rolling every action, though it could really imbalance the game with a few lucky rolls by the monsters.

Couple that with a house-rule, "you have to be ready to declare your action, or ask a specific question about an action, at the beginning of your turn." And you'll have people moving around quickly.