hong wrote:
Together with Monte's recent article about combat duration, all battles in D&D are "uncinematic". Not a problem at all, and it works well... however, after reading that, my rules-tinkersense was twitching:
Timed Defence Bonus
[...]
Very interesting idea indeed. I definitively see where you're going.
However, I'd suggest a slight chance. Instead of a bonus that decreases, I would implement a penalty that increases. With your mechanic you'd have to write down the maximum additional bonus for every monster/NPC seperately or recalculate all the stats. The listed values would not be the creature's maximum scores.
With a "fatigue penalty" or somesuch however, the listed stats would be the maximum the creature can bring into combat when rested. Also, the penalty would be easier to calculate.
For the penalty, a very simple solution could be "-1 per round spent in combat/high activity". You could also go further and say that the moment a character has acquired a penalty equal to two times his Con mod (minimum 1) he's fatigued, and if he accumulated a penalty equal to four times his Con mod (minimum 2) he's exhausted.
As far as the bonus goes, I don't see any glaring problems with it, but I do think it will be a little clunky.
Hmmm, I'll have to see if I can come up with a solution to this....
But personally, I would change it to 1/2 your constitution score to reflect that better training and conditioning lets you fight longer; right now a 15 level wizard with a con of 9 and a warrior with one of 20 can go the same number of rounds before losing their breath.
I would also make it apply to every roll except attack and damage, and AC. This will decrease the bookkeeping tremendously, as all you need to do is keep a die or two facing the current bonus, and remember to turn it down at the end of the round, and if you're really lazy on mental math, another for the current AC.
Catching your breath, shouldn't it grant you two points, one to offset the round by round point loss, plus the gain?
And what's the penalty for going to +0 with this? Do you start accruing negatives until you and your opponent are useless, do you go unconscious, or what?
This will also make the players markedly better in combat, as they should be getting normally at least a +5 (using my proposed method) to their rolls and AC. Granted, that should even out relatively well, considering their opponent gets the same thing. Just saying, beware the power creep with this.
I look forward to seeing this system refined, and will be keeping an eye on it.
Ah, but a penalty will only encourge "using the big guns" quicker. If without penalties you open fire, why would a penalty deter you from doing so again, all a penalty does is make your second volley more effective.
Not necessarily. Mathematically speaking, a decreasing bonus or an increasing penalty would accomplish the same thing: that with increasing in-combat time the characters have worse chances of evading attacks and resisting spells.
And that the second volley would be "more effective", isn't that the exactly same thing the OP wanted to accomplish? Wouldn't that knowledge let the players hold back their big save-or-suffer spells or combat maneuvers/power attacks knowing that their chances of success are that much better?
As far as the bonus goes, I don't see any glaring problems with it, but I do think it will be a little clunky.
This is why I suggested going from a decreasing bonus to an increasing penalty. With a penalty, you could just look at the stats as written on the sheet and roll away, just substracting one for every round in combat.
With the bonus based mechanic, you'd have to take the stats as written on the sheet, calculate the bonus based on HD, then add the bonus to the stats, and then substract one for every round in combat.
Especially for the DM the latter would be an additional load of work, as he'd have to calculate that stuff for every monster he throws at the party.
Hmmm, I'll have to see if I can come up with a solution to this....
Another idea would be to make something like a "status condition track", where you accumulate "fatigue points" for every action (e.g. 1 pt for an attack, 2 pts for a full attack, 1 pt for a move action, 2 pts for a double move, 3 pts for a run action, ...). Whenever you accumulate a number of "fatigue points" equal to your Con mod you suffer a status condition (e.g. fatigued -> exhausted -> sickened -> nauseated -> unconscious).
With the decreasing bonus players start with a big boost to AC and saves and such, so a mage isn't going to try to finger of death his opponent on the first turn since it has a huge saving throw bonus, if he wants a chance of success he needs to hold out for later on in the battle when the bonus has diminished.
With the increasing penalty players start at a normal D&D level, so characters can still easily use their best spells and such right off the bat.
An increasing penalty is definetely advantageous when it comes to book-keeping, but it does not achieve the same effect as a decreasing bonus.
With the decreasing bonus players start with a big boost to AC and saves and such, so a mage isn't going to try to finger of death his opponent on the first turn since it has a huge saving throw bonus, if he wants a chance of success he needs to hold out for later on in the battle when the bonus has diminished.
With the increasing penalty players start at a normal D&D level, so characters can still easily use their best spells and such right off the bat.
I would really just look at it as an increasing penalty that is capped by your timed defense bonus.
so if your TDF is +8 then your penalty to defense can not exceed 8.
I would also make it apply to every roll except attack and damage, and AC. This will decrease the bookkeeping tremendously, as all you need to do is keep a die or two facing the current bonus, and remember to turn it down at the end of the round, and if you're really lazy on mental math, another for the current AC.
Hmm... I just wanted to add this to AC and saves to only boost the defence of creatures. Adding it to attacks would equalize the AC-vs.-attack ratio again. I thought it shouldn't add to the rest to prevent people being more powerful than standard D&D, otherwise rested characters could have a ridiculous boost to their skills.
Catching your breath, shouldn't it grant you two points, one to offset the round by round point loss, plus the gain?
And what's the penalty for going to +0 with this? Do you start accruing negatives until you and your opponent are useless, do you go unconscious, or what?
For catching breath: Good catch. Should grant to, or have the note that doing that would cause loss.
For going to +0: No penalty was intended, just going to standard-D&D - as said: The intent was drawing out combat a bit to get this more cinematic feel, possibly without upsetting the game balance.
This is why I suggested going from a decreasing bonus to an increasing penalty. With a penalty, you could just look at the stats as written on the sheet and roll away, just substracting one for every round in combat.
On the other hand, a bonus also fixed. Just take a die (a d10 or something like that), and spin it down each round, and you know your current bonus. But you're right, the DM-work is an annoyance. But so is a penalty for tracking every creature individually. Additionally, since D&D already has a lot of additions, I feel an addition is nice than a penalty - and psychologically, you don't get the feeling, that you get worse than before - just your nifty extra bonus goes away.
With the decreasing bonus players start with a big boost to AC and saves and such, so a mage isn't going to try to finger of death his opponent on the first turn since it has a huge saving throw bonus, if he wants a chance of success he needs to hold out for later on in the battle when the bonus has diminished.
With the increasing penalty players start at a normal D&D level, so characters can still easily use their best spells and such right off the bat.
Right. My idea behind it. And hence it is easier to balance, as it just messes less with standard D&D. Additionally, a bonus emphasizes defence, where D&D combat is usually very "aggressive", like it "kill it as fast as possible, so it won't deal damage". This way round, it is like a "buffer", where the PCs and opponents have time to test, to get a tactic and so on, until they go into full attack mode.
Of course, the idea is still just the product of about thinking 5 minutes about it (now a bit more), so... I like the discussion.
[...] and psychologically, you don't get the feeling, that you get worse than before - just your nifty extra bonus goes away.
Ok, you're right. It's just that I'm personally not very comfortable with the idea of the stats written on my sheet not actually representing the optimum I can do with my character (well, without casting short time buffs and using one-shot magic items anyway, I mean).
Of course, the idea is still just the product of about thinking 5 minutes about it (now a bit more), so... I like the discussion.
But these were 5 extremely productive and creative minutes. :D I really like your idea, and it definitively has a very nice effect on DnD combat. I really hope we can come up with a playable mechanic for this.
Just a question. How do you think of my idea a bit earlier about going a step further and introducing some sort of "combat fatigue" based on individual actions rather than general rounds? Would that already be too much, or would it be worth exploring that idea a bit further?
Hmm... I just wanted to add this to AC and saves to only boost the defence of creatures. Adding it to attacks would equalize the AC-vs.-attack ratio again. I thought it shouldn't add to the rest to prevent people being more powerful than standard D&D, otherwise rested characters could have a ridiculous boost to their skills.
"I would also make it apply to every roll except attack and damage, and AC."
Just a question. How do you think of my idea a bit earlier about going a step further and introducing some sort of "combat fatigue" based on individual actions rather than general rounds? Would that already be too much, or would it be worth exploring that idea a bit further?
I'd like to see it.
Just a question. How do you think of my idea a bit earlier about going a step further and introducing some sort of "combat fatigue" based on individual actions rather than general rounds? Would that already be too much, or would it be worth exploring that idea a bit further?
In some way, I love and abhor it.
My inner simulationalist loves the idea, and I'll definitively like to explore it - and I'm curious to read, what you're thinking about it (and also give it a dib).
On the other hand, it gives rise to a bunch of a lot of new athings to keep track of.
But then, just looking into it does no harm! ;)
"I would also make it apply to every roll except attack and damage, and AC."
D'oh... typed the completely wrong thing. I've added "and AC" to the enumeration, sorry - thanks for the clarification.
Hmm... Personally, I think adding to to saves and AC exclusively isn't that much harder than adding to everything but attack and damage - and it avoids that people get incredible Knowledge skills when not in battle.
And selecting certain skills (like Jump, Climb and so on) would make it more complicated again.
it avoids that people get incredible Knowledge skills when not in battle.
This whole system wouldn't apply to out-of-combat situations, and any skill check you're forced to make in combat has something directly to do with the combat itself, so it should apply. (with the exception of maybe spot and listen checks to notice things, but those are easily picked out as 'non-combat' checks, just occurring while in combat.)
My reasoning at least.
In some way, I love and abhor it.
My inner simulationalist loves the idea, and I'll definitively like to explore it - and I'm curious to read, what you're thinking about it (and also give it a dib).
Ok, I'll keep it short. :P
my idea
"Fatigue points" are not based on rounds, but instead on individual actions. the following numbers are just a rough draw for my idea. ;)
"Catching your breath" in combat/stressful situations removes 2 "fatigue points" from the track.
Whenever a character has accumulated "fatigue points" equal to his con mod, he suffers a status condition (see example track below for details).
"Fatigue points" are not based on rounds, but instead on individual actions. the following numbers are just a rough draw for my idea. ;)
- Normal attack: 1pt
- Full attack: 3pts
- Move: 1pt
- Double move: 2pts
- Run: 3pts
- Jump: 1pt
- Running jump: 3pts
- Climb: 1pt
- ...
"Catching your breath" in combat/stressful situations removes 2 "fatigue points" from the track.
Whenever a character has accumulated "fatigue points" equal to his con mod, he suffers a status condition (see example track below for details).
Try somthing like: +0 at 16-20 and -1 for every 5 points you're under that (and consequently +1 for every 5 points you're above that). Every round your initiative goes down by -1/round since your last refocus: ie. initiative roll is 18 at start, so:
round initiative penalty
1 18 +0
2 17 +0
3 15 -1
4 12 -1
5 8 -2
6 3 -3
7 -3 -4
8 refocus
9 22 +1
10 21 +1
11 19 +0
etc.
Of course, this makes that initiative roll very important and also means more bookkeeping for initiative. But it can mean more dynamic battles since turn order can switch depending on when the refocus happens for different combatants.
Ra-Tiel think about what you just wrote (full attack) 9sec to fatigue 12sec to exuasted under a quarter of a minute and -6 to str and dex especially for a trained warrior (with a 16 con)
I know it sounds harsh, but I think the goal is still to implement a mechanic that encourages "taking a breath" now and then, taking cover to get an overview of the combat situation, reevaluate your own tactics, and so on. If you look at boxers (I hope that's the right word
), the don't just jump at each other and bash their brains out from bell-ring to bell-ring. They feint, they block, they "dance" around each other, trying the other's defenses and all that. It would encourage more mobility on the battlefield. One attack + one move = 2pts, one full attack = 3pts. It would encourage characters to make use of tactics like swapping positions to keep the opponent under pressure while being able to recover a bit before swapping positions again, and so forth.Additionally, a single attack with "power attack" (and some bonuses) is often more efficient than 4 regular attacks that deal much less damage and have a much worse chance of hitting (especially attacks #3 and #4) and overcoming DR/fast healing/regeneration.
I also think your timing is a bit off. Considering a low-level combatant (with Con 16 and only a single attack per round), it'd take him around 6 or 7 rounds of all out attacking (give or take a move action here or there) until he'd be exhausted, which is just above a minute of constant attacking. A med-or high-level combatant will probably have a much higher Con (bordering or going above 20 with magic items and stuff), and'd probably focus on dishing out large damage with a two-handed weapon and "spring attack", "combat brute", etc thus lasting even longer.
And last but not least, I think it'd actually benefit the PCs a bit more than the monsters. How many monsters are just as scary because of their large number of attacks/full attacks? Hydras, dragons, and so on would exhaust themselves much sooner and not attack relentlessly.
and what about full defence of conbat expertise if general it take a lot less energy to defend yourself.
I know that many options are not - yet - covered. It was, after all, just a very basic idea. I'm also not sure on the numbers (as I've mentioned in the last post) because it still is purely theoretical as of now.
Perhaps I should change full attack from 3pts to 1pt + 1pt/attack made.
I like the decreasing bonus but not a nerf like this for fighters.
You could easily implement a similar mechanic for spellcasters, giving a number of "fatigue points" equal to 1 per 3 spell levels (level 1-3: 1pt, level 4-6: 2pts, level 7-9: 3pts).
No offence meant just my two cents.
None taken.
I'm glad to get some constructive feedback on my idea.But to make this easier, I would suggest simplifying the actions instead- full round action takes 3 points, each standard action takes 2 points, and each move equivalent action takes 1 point (for example, maybe needs tweaked). Each move equivalent action taken resting restores 1 point of fatigue. These are numbers are pulled out of the air but I think it's easier to do this than have a huge chart for each individual action.
Every character has a fatigue score, this score is equal to his con modifier, minimum of one. Each round a character spends in strenuous activities he gains a point of fatigue. Once a character suffers a number of fatigue points greater than his fatigue score he suffers a -1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks, and skill checks. For every 2 points of fatigue beyond this score an additional -1 penalty accrues. This penalty maxes out at -5. A character may take a full round action to recover a number of fatigue points equal to his con modifier plus his level, minimum of one.
This allows a player to simply make a tick mark every round.