[D&D-Esque] Openings and Cinematic Combat
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:22 am
Introduction: A Short Rant
One of the big problems (for me) with RPGs utilizing tactical minis like D&D 3e is that combat is pretty static. You stand there and you swing your sword and you hope that you hit your target's AC, and that's about it. In between turns, you're barely paying attention, and there's not a lot of movement going on then. This is in sharp contrast to battle scenes in movies like 300 and Lord of the Rings where characters are in almost constant motion, retreating, advancing, sidestepping, and so on. Naturally, this is the result of forcing simultaneous combat into a turn-based system. 4e attempts to remedy this by creating lots of attacks that move minis around and having effects go off on others' turns. This doesn't work out very well, however, as it doesn't really simulate "cinematic combat."
Now, before I go any further, I'm going to define "cinematic combat" so that there's no confusion over the term. As a buzzword coined by 4e fanatics to describe their system, the term really has no meaning other than "it sounds cool." So, for this discussion, I'm using the term "cinematic combat" to describe the types of visually interesting combat that we see in movies and on television. A good example of this is the fencing scene from Die Another Day.
As someone who knows nothing about fencing, I can't say how accurate this scene is. I will, however, say that it's visually entertaining. The way Pierce Brosnan and the villain go back and forth, shifting from spot to spot, parrying and riposting. Normally, in the game system--particularly 3e--this sort of movement is abstracted and handwaved away. "Well, you're not really standing still in a five-foot square," defenders will say. "You're actually moving around, doing all that stuff you listed. And a single attack roll isn't just a single sword swing--it's a series of attacks and defensive maneuvers that represents your ability to get past your opponent's defenses."
And that's all well and good if you like that sort of abstraction. But here's what I say: if my character is supposed to be moving around, then why the hell is my mini staying in one location? Perhaps I am lacking for imagination, but if my character is supposed to be doing something, I expect the rules to make a damn good show of that occurring. Don't give me some lazy, half-ass system where every question is dismissed with "it's an abstraction; deal with it."
So that's why I want something more with my tactical minis. For some folks, imagining the battles in their heads is enough. But not for me.
Rules System and Goals
For the purpose of this exercise, I'm going to be presenting the rules for a more interactive combat system in the traditional 3e format. As it is what we're all familiar with, I think that makes a nice "testing ground." Now, for this system, we're going to make the following two assumptions.
1. The RNG isn't borked (there's a reasonable success/failure rate for all attacks; no auto-hits or auto-misses).
2. Default melee attacks matter (as in, they do respectable damage without resorting to -20 Power Attack).
3. The players are not abusing the rules-as-written. Please do not spaz out over designations of "ally" and "enemy." I understand that they are vague and can theoretically be abused. (See paragraph below for more detail.)
That being said, the main goal of this system is simple--to create a combat system that better models cinematic combat system. This is not intended to simulate reality to an exact degree. When an orc misses the rogue with his club and the rogue slinks around behind him to set up a sneak attack with the fighter, the orc did not somehow grant the rogue additional movement in the round. The rogue cannot have the fighter attack him and deliberately miss so that he can move further in the round. Again, that is not how the system is supposed to be used. If your criticism of the system is because it can theoretically be abused and that the DM is expected to say "no" to rules abuses, please kindly step out of the thread. I understand that some folks get really upset about such things, but I'm making it known from the get-go that a) the system works on abstract ideas of "enemy" and "ally" tagging, and b) I'm trying to make the game based around cinematic combat, not realism.
As a final note, ignore Combat Reflexes and Attacks of Opportunity. Both of those are covered by the openings mechanics.
Mechanics: Basics
Openings
The main mechanic that this system runs off of are openings. An opening--as its name sugggests--is any time when an enemy leaves himself vulnerable or somehow off-guard, allowing a character to take advantage of the situation. Openings are generated in the following circumstances:
• An enemy attacks you in melee combat.
• An enemy misses you with a ranged or melee attack.
• An enemy performs a distracting action while you threaten him.
• An enemy moves out of a square that you threaten.
• An enemy makes a ranged attack while you threaten him.
Each of these openings has corresponding actions that you can take when the opening presents itself (which I will be listing in a moment). You may only take advantage of a maximum of two openings per enemy per round. Any more than that, and things might get...messy.
Flat-Footedness
Characters who are flat-footed cannot take advantage of openings, as they do not have the proper combat readiness to do so.
Melee Attacks
Frequently, characters can make melee attacks when openings present themselves. In this case, characters may make a melee attack as normal, or they may attempt to disarm, sunder, trip, feint, or grapple their opponent. (It is less text-heavy to simply put it under the category of "melee attack.")
Mechanics: Reactions
Reactions are how characters utilize an opening. Each reaction has a name, what openings trigger that reaction, and how the player uses that reaction. Please note that reactions can trigger their own openings, allowing enemies to react to your reactions. I realize this could get...confusing.
In the event that multiple actions and openings are occurring all at once, resolve them in the order that they occur. For instance:
EXAMPLE: An ogre attacks Fighter Bob with his club. Fighter Bob opts to riposte, taking a -4 penalty to his AC against the attack. The ogre hits Fighter Bob. Fighter Bob makes his counterattack melee attack. The ogre parry's Fighter Bob's attack. Fighter Bob hits the ogre, but the damage is reduced because of the ogre's parry.
EXAMPLE: Fighter Bob is fighting a thief and is winning. The thief tries to retreat, running for his life. This presents an opening for Fighter Bob, and Fighter Bob opts to step up. He moves up to one square with the thief and makes a melee attack against the the thief. This allows the thief to sidestep, so the thief moves one additional square away from Fighter Bob, putting him outside Fighter Bob's reach. However, because Fighter Bob stepped up before the thief sidestepped, Fighter Bob's attack still affects the thief as if the thief were within reach.
Attack of Opportunity Maybe this one should be reserved for fighters?
Opening: An enemy performs a distracting action while you threaten him. (This can be almost anything, but typical examples including stooping to pick up a weapon, drinking a potion, rummaging through a pack, and casting a spell.) An enemy making a ranged attack in a square that you threaten also generates this opening.
Reaction: You make a melee attack against the enemy.
Counterattack
Opening: An enemy makes a melee attack against you.
Reaction: You take a -4 penalty to your AC against the attack, and you make your own melee attack against the enemy.
Parry
Opening: An enemy makes a melee attack against you.
Reaction: You gain damage reduction equal to 2 + half your base attack bonus. If you are wielding a shield or two (or more) weapons, you gain damage reduction equal to 4 + half your base attack bonus.
Sidestep
Opening: An enemy misses you with a ranged or melee attack.
Reaction: You move one square. This movement does not generate openings. (The attack affects you as normal, even if you move out of your opponent's reach.)
Step Up
Opening: An enemy moves out of a square that you threaten.
Reaction: You move up one square with that opponent, and you may make a melee attack against him.
At this point, I think these encompass enough options for the average group. While it's tempting for me to put more in, I think more than that might be overwhelming. What are your thoughts thus far? Good idea, bad idea? More options?
One of the big problems (for me) with RPGs utilizing tactical minis like D&D 3e is that combat is pretty static. You stand there and you swing your sword and you hope that you hit your target's AC, and that's about it. In between turns, you're barely paying attention, and there's not a lot of movement going on then. This is in sharp contrast to battle scenes in movies like 300 and Lord of the Rings where characters are in almost constant motion, retreating, advancing, sidestepping, and so on. Naturally, this is the result of forcing simultaneous combat into a turn-based system. 4e attempts to remedy this by creating lots of attacks that move minis around and having effects go off on others' turns. This doesn't work out very well, however, as it doesn't really simulate "cinematic combat."
Now, before I go any further, I'm going to define "cinematic combat" so that there's no confusion over the term. As a buzzword coined by 4e fanatics to describe their system, the term really has no meaning other than "it sounds cool." So, for this discussion, I'm using the term "cinematic combat" to describe the types of visually interesting combat that we see in movies and on television. A good example of this is the fencing scene from Die Another Day.
As someone who knows nothing about fencing, I can't say how accurate this scene is. I will, however, say that it's visually entertaining. The way Pierce Brosnan and the villain go back and forth, shifting from spot to spot, parrying and riposting. Normally, in the game system--particularly 3e--this sort of movement is abstracted and handwaved away. "Well, you're not really standing still in a five-foot square," defenders will say. "You're actually moving around, doing all that stuff you listed. And a single attack roll isn't just a single sword swing--it's a series of attacks and defensive maneuvers that represents your ability to get past your opponent's defenses."
And that's all well and good if you like that sort of abstraction. But here's what I say: if my character is supposed to be moving around, then why the hell is my mini staying in one location? Perhaps I am lacking for imagination, but if my character is supposed to be doing something, I expect the rules to make a damn good show of that occurring. Don't give me some lazy, half-ass system where every question is dismissed with "it's an abstraction; deal with it."
So that's why I want something more with my tactical minis. For some folks, imagining the battles in their heads is enough. But not for me.
Rules System and Goals
For the purpose of this exercise, I'm going to be presenting the rules for a more interactive combat system in the traditional 3e format. As it is what we're all familiar with, I think that makes a nice "testing ground." Now, for this system, we're going to make the following two assumptions.
1. The RNG isn't borked (there's a reasonable success/failure rate for all attacks; no auto-hits or auto-misses).
2. Default melee attacks matter (as in, they do respectable damage without resorting to -20 Power Attack).
3. The players are not abusing the rules-as-written. Please do not spaz out over designations of "ally" and "enemy." I understand that they are vague and can theoretically be abused. (See paragraph below for more detail.)
That being said, the main goal of this system is simple--to create a combat system that better models cinematic combat system. This is not intended to simulate reality to an exact degree. When an orc misses the rogue with his club and the rogue slinks around behind him to set up a sneak attack with the fighter, the orc did not somehow grant the rogue additional movement in the round. The rogue cannot have the fighter attack him and deliberately miss so that he can move further in the round. Again, that is not how the system is supposed to be used. If your criticism of the system is because it can theoretically be abused and that the DM is expected to say "no" to rules abuses, please kindly step out of the thread. I understand that some folks get really upset about such things, but I'm making it known from the get-go that a) the system works on abstract ideas of "enemy" and "ally" tagging, and b) I'm trying to make the game based around cinematic combat, not realism.
As a final note, ignore Combat Reflexes and Attacks of Opportunity. Both of those are covered by the openings mechanics.
Mechanics: Basics
Openings
The main mechanic that this system runs off of are openings. An opening--as its name sugggests--is any time when an enemy leaves himself vulnerable or somehow off-guard, allowing a character to take advantage of the situation. Openings are generated in the following circumstances:
• An enemy attacks you in melee combat.
• An enemy misses you with a ranged or melee attack.
• An enemy performs a distracting action while you threaten him.
• An enemy moves out of a square that you threaten.
• An enemy makes a ranged attack while you threaten him.
Each of these openings has corresponding actions that you can take when the opening presents itself (which I will be listing in a moment). You may only take advantage of a maximum of two openings per enemy per round. Any more than that, and things might get...messy.
Flat-Footedness
Characters who are flat-footed cannot take advantage of openings, as they do not have the proper combat readiness to do so.
Melee Attacks
Frequently, characters can make melee attacks when openings present themselves. In this case, characters may make a melee attack as normal, or they may attempt to disarm, sunder, trip, feint, or grapple their opponent. (It is less text-heavy to simply put it under the category of "melee attack.")
Mechanics: Reactions
Reactions are how characters utilize an opening. Each reaction has a name, what openings trigger that reaction, and how the player uses that reaction. Please note that reactions can trigger their own openings, allowing enemies to react to your reactions. I realize this could get...confusing.
In the event that multiple actions and openings are occurring all at once, resolve them in the order that they occur. For instance:
EXAMPLE: An ogre attacks Fighter Bob with his club. Fighter Bob opts to riposte, taking a -4 penalty to his AC against the attack. The ogre hits Fighter Bob. Fighter Bob makes his counterattack melee attack. The ogre parry's Fighter Bob's attack. Fighter Bob hits the ogre, but the damage is reduced because of the ogre's parry.
EXAMPLE: Fighter Bob is fighting a thief and is winning. The thief tries to retreat, running for his life. This presents an opening for Fighter Bob, and Fighter Bob opts to step up. He moves up to one square with the thief and makes a melee attack against the the thief. This allows the thief to sidestep, so the thief moves one additional square away from Fighter Bob, putting him outside Fighter Bob's reach. However, because Fighter Bob stepped up before the thief sidestepped, Fighter Bob's attack still affects the thief as if the thief were within reach.
Attack of Opportunity Maybe this one should be reserved for fighters?
Opening: An enemy performs a distracting action while you threaten him. (This can be almost anything, but typical examples including stooping to pick up a weapon, drinking a potion, rummaging through a pack, and casting a spell.) An enemy making a ranged attack in a square that you threaten also generates this opening.
Reaction: You make a melee attack against the enemy.
Counterattack
Opening: An enemy makes a melee attack against you.
Reaction: You take a -4 penalty to your AC against the attack, and you make your own melee attack against the enemy.
Parry
Opening: An enemy makes a melee attack against you.
Reaction: You gain damage reduction equal to 2 + half your base attack bonus. If you are wielding a shield or two (or more) weapons, you gain damage reduction equal to 4 + half your base attack bonus.
Sidestep
Opening: An enemy misses you with a ranged or melee attack.
Reaction: You move one square. This movement does not generate openings. (The attack affects you as normal, even if you move out of your opponent's reach.)
Step Up
Opening: An enemy moves out of a square that you threaten.
Reaction: You move up one square with that opponent, and you may make a melee attack against him.
At this point, I think these encompass enough options for the average group. While it's tempting for me to put more in, I think more than that might be overwhelming. What are your thoughts thus far? Good idea, bad idea? More options?