[D&D-Esque] Openings and Cinematic Combat

[Psychic Robot]

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?

[Josh_Kablack]

I think this sort of thing is worth pursuing, both for the genre simulation and also for the 4e goal of "give each player a reason to pay attention when it's not their turn". But I am greatly concerned about the added complexity and the propensity of playgroups to mess up initiative orders with even such basic reactions as 3e AoOs and 4e DoT Clouds that can murder pinball.

So I'm gonna make the obvious point that any such system needs to be playtested in a group with multiple players.

[MGuy]

Wasn't there a cautionary flag brought up in a thread or two about having too many reactive abilities or interrupts?

[Psychic Robot]

Well, yes. Do you think that this is too complicated?

[MGuy]

I don't think its complicated but I think it lends itself to clutter.

[Psychic Robot]

That is also my main fear. I suppose I'd have to give it a test run.

[Josh_Kablack]

A good example of this is the fencing scene from Die Another Day.

Well in that fight it seems that successfully disarming your opponent allows them to react with a free auto-hit unarmed attack on you. That one's probably best reserved to a feat or class feature in an RPG.

As a final note, ignore Combat Reflexes and Attacks of Opportunity. Both of those are covered by the openings mechanics.

So basically, what you are proposing is reworking the 3e/4e AoO system into something broader, but hopefully with less Eric-bafflement than the 4e Interrupt and Reaction system.

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.

That last one will need much tighter definitions

• 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.

Why two specifically?

I would be inclined to test initially with one out of turn reaction and then maybe allow feats or class features to give additional

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.

That potential for confusion has me concerned, especially in team on team fights, would it not be better to set things up so that (most) reactions didn't generate openings?

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 moving out of a square that you threaten also generates this opening. 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.

Okay, I think I like the idea of limiting certain reactions to certain classes. That can help to keep actual gameplay simpler and helps the classes feel tactically distinct. Make sure that everyone gets a few reactions, but the more complex to resolve ones can be kept as special schticks for classes.

Parry
Opening: An enemy makes a melee attack against you.
Reaction: You make an attack roll opposed to your enemy's. If your attack roll is higher, you only take half damage if the enemy's attack hits. If your attack roll is lower, you take damage as normal, and you are flat-footed until the beginning of your next turn.

I don't like this.

The concept of parrying is fine. But this requires comparing opposed rolls division and tracking a short-term status. That's more than Eric can handle out-of-turn.

I'd honestly prefer if it avoided the opposed roll and risk-on-a miss. It could be handled as just an AC add or an auto-damage reduction or a gain of Temp HP or something.

Sidestep
Opening: An enemy makes a melee attack against you, or an enemy misses you with a ranged or melee attack.
Reaction: You move one square. This movement does not generate openings.

Conceptually very cool. I love the idea of small movement as reactions to help break up the "minis close then melee" that tends to happen in 3e and 4e. And I'm pretty sure that even Eric can fully understand "move one square" on someone else's turn. My only issue here is that if this triggers when an enemy makes a melee attack then it needs to be clear if this lets you dodge the attack by stepping out of that enemy's reach or not.

Step Up
Opening: An enemy moves out of a square that you threaten.
Reaction: You move up to two squares with that opponent. Your movement does not generate openings.

Another way to break up the "minis are just standing there" I'm thinking a bunch of small movement reactions are the way to go, as they should help to make minis combat look more fluid without requiring multiple rolls or math operations to occur out of turn.

Riposte
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.

The idea here is fine, but again I am concerned about the Eric-like players in various groups, especially if reactions can generate openings and characters get multiple reactions. In this case you attack a fool, hope he likes to ripostes so that you can riposte his riposte and then he can riposte your riposte to his riposte and then you can riposte his riposte of your riposte of his riposte to your attack. Try reading that to someone aloud and then ask them how many attacks each combatant got.

I would prefer a simpler implementation, such as an auto-hit for reduced damage that cannot itself be riposted.

[Psychic Robot]

First off: what is an Eric? I'm assuming the guy who sits there and eats Cheetos, not really that interested in learning the intricacies of the rules.

Second of all, I see what you're getting at. My initial idea was that there would be a sudden interchange of blows between characters to simulate characters pairing off in combat and fighting until the other drops. Now, I can definitely see what you're getting at with it being a little complicated for the Erics of the group.

The idea for the two openings was to allow the fighter to step up and make an attack of opportunity. Now, I suppose I could change that so that the Attack of Opportunity was a fighter-only class feature allowing him to follow the opponent and make an AoO as part of one reaction.

Also, I've been thinking about it, and you're definitely right about the parry--too complicated as-is. Will have to rewrite.

[fectin]

Two things, presented as datapoints, not as criticisms.

First,
Here's a real-life version of this (the "tactical wheel"):
http://www.whatisfencing.com/
IIRC, the Germans swept the olympics in 1988 with a simplified version of this.

Second:

I can't say how accurate this scene is.

It's not exactly inaccurate, but in real life, it usually means that they're incompetant. Or that one party is much better, and actively trying not to hurt the other. Here's some matches to compare:

Sabre is your best model for unarmored fencing. If you leave an opponent's attack unparried and it hits, the point goes to him, even if you hit first (i.e. first priority = not dying):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTAQeKML8vA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRPiLROlI7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogDBsgIN7NU - this is very unusally long (i think because these folks are new to heavy sabres), but you'll notice it's mostly maneuvering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8heSTBAvrw another heavy sabre bout. Claims to be based on an old sabre instruction book.

Foil's rules are much more formalized than sabre's (footwork excepted), and basically require parrying or dodging. You still mostly see repositioning, and the actual bladework is very quick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQz4PjrL ... ure=relmfu

Kendo takes a long time (sometimes) because it needs a solid hit. You still only see repositioning though, not running about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh2TNO5CGXQ - very long, lots of incidental hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XRZF7IqakI - much faster, still lots of maneuvering up front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4SHWXQBVL4 - has some slowed down action.

SCA is a bit funny, but also has turned armored fighting back into a real art it looks more like kendo than like fencing, and that's not an accident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7mWIK6Eizw - some don'ts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjh8EQ5h40 - various scales. Notice that each skirmish is still very fast, and almost all of that time is still maneuvering.

Stage combat is it's own martial art, and is what generates the results you're looking for. It teaches a classical (but effective) set of parries, and generalizes them to most/all weapons. Essentially, it is just the movement and defense portions of real fencing (though exagerated, and with some counterproductive additions).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvIfwOZly-c - rapier-dagger

[Shiritai]

Parry
Opening: An enemy makes a melee attack against you.
Reaction: You make an attack roll opposed to your enemy's. If your attack roll is higher, you only take half damage if the enemy's attack hits. If your attack roll is lower, you take damage as normal, and you are flat-footed until the beginning of your next turn.

I don't like this.

The concept of parrying is fine. But this requires comparing opposed rolls division and tracking a short-term status. That's more than Eric can handle out-of-turn.

I'd honestly prefer if it avoided the opposed roll and risk-on-a miss. It could be handled as just an AC add or an auto-damage reduction or a gain of Temp HP or something.

How about an AC bonus against that one attack based off of a fraction BAB? That'll capture the flavor of parries well, and it'll be easy enough to tweak the balance of it.

[quote="Psychic Robot]
Riposte
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.

The idea here is fine, but again I am concerned about the Eric-like players in various groups, especially if reactions can generate openings and characters get multiple reactions. In this case you attack a fool, hope he likes to ripostes so that you can riposte his riposte and then he can riposte your riposte to his riposte and then you can riposte his riposte of your riposte of his riposte to your attack. Try reading that to someone aloud and then ask them how many attacks each combatant got.

I would prefer a simpler implementation, such as an auto-hit for reduced damage that cannot itself be riposted.[/quote]
For the sake of fencers and SCA enthusiasts everywhere, please either change the name to something like counterhit or stop hit, or change the trigger to a missed attack instead of any attack.

fectin, I wouldn't advise getting too stuck to realism in this case, or next we'll be dealing with stuff like single time vs double time and things'll get needlessly complex. Besides, real swordfighting is a lot less exciting to watch compared to the media's take on it.

[fectin]

That's fair.
Like I said, it was info, not criticism.

[Psychic Robot]

Actually, for parry, I was thinking of making it DR/-- equal to 2 + half your BAB, possibly more for characters wielding a shield or two weapons. Thoughts?

[Josh_Kablack]

First off: what is an Eric? I'm assuming the guy who sits there and eats Cheetos, not really that interested in learning the intricacies of the rules.

The specific Eric I'm talking about is actually a really cool guy.

He is astoundingly creative, but he has two major issues as a player in your game:

1. He gets caught up in his own descriptions and narrative and thus is pretty bad at sharing the spotlight (especially with people who are not as wildly creative). In the context of RPG combat this means he sometimes has issues with "taking turns", and when other players do stuff out of a strict and obvious an WRITTEN IN BOLD ON THE WALL CHART order he feels he is being slighted.

2. Eric absolutely positively cannot be bothered to read the rules to anything in between sessions. If it's not on his character sheet you have to be able to yell it across the table at him in the middle of the fight when it comes up.

I once had the joy of playing in a 4e game where he was a warlord and I was a cleric. He knew the numeric bonuses of his powers, but tracking whether they provided nonstacking Power bonuses or stackable bonuses of other types played out like a bad comedy routine "Eric, what type of bonus does that power provide?" "A +3 in melee" "No Eric, what TYPE is it?" "It's a +3", "Jebus, Eric just lemme see that sheet" "Oh great, the crud software truncated the power description, someone hand me the book" And we both had overlapping interrupts, so this argument would always happen in the middle of some other player's turn. That sort of thing needs to be avoided.

[mean_liar]

Here's something to consider...

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/ ... ime-boxing

The basic concept is that you play cards out of your hand - powers in what you're proposing - in a real-time format, rather than with rounds. Not having been part of the playtest I don't know how this goes even within the context of JAB's one-on-one boxing match and so stretching that out to a multiple entity melee is even more troubling, but... perhaps it might spark some thought about making combat more fluid, dynamic and interactive.

[fectin]

isn't that how Lunch Money works too?

[Psychic Robot]

Something I've also been thinking about is how melee attacks work. When you hit someone with a melee attack, I think you should be allowed to move one square and move your opponent one square in a direction that you desire to represent maneuvering him with your attacks. Thoughts?

[Swordslinger]

Something I've also been thinking about is how melee attacks work. When you hit someone with a melee attack, I think you should be allowed to move one square and move your opponent one square in a direction that you desire to represent maneuvering him with your attacks. Thoughts?

I always liked the GURPS system of being able to give ground in exchange for a bonus to your defenses. That way it's advantageous to give ground, but you don't necessarily have to if holding a certain position is something you want to do.

[fectin]

So, it occurred to me that Exalted simulates this very well. Exalted combat is also offensive to many people.

That seems like a potential pitfall. How would one avoid it?

[TheFlatline]

Here's something to consider...

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/ ... ime-boxing

The basic concept is that you play cards out of your hand - powers in what you're proposing - in a real-time format, rather than with rounds. Not having been part of the playtest I don't know how this goes even within the context of JAB's one-on-one boxing match and so stretching that out to a multiple entity melee is even more troubling, but... perhaps it might spark some thought about making combat more fluid, dynamic and interactive.

The other option is Yomi, which is essentially a Street Fighter card game, but could easily be adapted to a D&D style combat aesthetic.

Problem is that as fights take longer, you need to get into less of them, which means that fights probably need to matter more. If I had to take out 20 goons one at a time in cinematic slow motion, it'd suck. You'd need a Carnival of Carnage style ruleset for mooks & goons. Important characters would get their moment of combat.

[Psychic Robot]

You'd need a Carnival of Carnage style ruleset for mooks & goons.

Please elaborate. Also, if the fighter is fighting goons, he's probably going to be hitting them most of the time and then killing them in one hit, negating any opportunity for them to trade blows with him.

[hogarth]

My two cents: Running around in combat for the sake of running around is not particularly interesting; it's only interesting insofar as the environment you're running around in is useful. 4E had a lot of problems with the execution, but it was right with the idea that the environment should be an interactive part of combat (e.g. you should want to push people over stools, swing on chandeliers, leap over bannisters, tip over tables, etc.).

So any set of rules that encourage you to run back and forth on a flat, featureless plain is missing the point.

[RobbyPants]

I'm looking at the possibilities and wondering if there's going to be some sort of optimal order of abilities that could be scripted. If it gets too complicated it could slow the game to a crawl, but if it's too simple, it might be deterministic. Tell me if I'm missing something:

So, if you're a DMF you start by rushing into melee. If fighting mooks, you CounterAttack if you think you can one-shot them. If not, you Parry all the time to prevent damage. Rinse and repeat until all guys are dead.

If they start to run, you use AoOs or Step Up to murder them. If the fights going badly for you, you eat the AoO and run, or wait for a miss and sidestep to run.

I don't know, maybe that's not too boring of a script. Although, I do like the idea you mentioned about moving guys around:

Something I've also been thinking about is how melee attacks work. When you hit someone with a melee attack, I think you should be allowed to move one square and move your opponent one square in a direction that you desire to represent maneuvering him with your attacks. Thoughts?

This could work. My first thought was to use some sort of opposed Str check to pull it off, but then I thought that might be a bad idea because of extra rolling. Then I thought, perhaps it's an auto-succcess, but it provides an opening for things like AoO or something. So, you could try to shove the guy into a hazard or something, but he gets to try and hit you first, or something.

My two cents: Running around in combat for the sake of running around is not particularly interesting; it's only interesting insofar as the environment you're running around in is useful. 4E had a lot of problems with the execution, but it was right with the idea that the environment should be an interactive part of combat (e.g. you should want to push people over stools, swing on chandeliers, leap over bannisters, tip over tables, etc.).

So any set of rules that encourage you to run back and forth on a flat, featureless plain is missing the point.

I agree with this. You'll want to make sure that pretty much every combat has something useful, even if it's just loose rocks and other tripping hazards in a cave, or something.

[Wulf]

You could base some effects, like moving yourself and/or your foe by 1 square on the effectiveness of your attack. For example, if you made a good roll in your threat range, you may move one for free.

This does not require a seperate roll (although you will roll for critical confirmation), but rather if you made a "threatening blow" to make him step back.