Playing today in my strontium dog game and a new player had elected to play a knife fighting assassin.
Now in my game armour absorbs damage. So the knife fighter striking often doesn't over power the game compared to the heavyweight hitting hard. But i can see that if a player was tring to minmax they could.

Anyway the question that came to me was how to run fast strikes against heavy hits? What should the balance be and should there be a balance. D20 doesn't handle it well as 1chance to deal 3d6+strength is seldom going to be as good as 3 chances to do 1d6+ strength especially if the game can be maxed out and you end up with a "dart thrower" likewise a typical BRP game has similar issues. Although armour absorbing damage will mitigate (as my heartbreaker showed).

So what solutions are there and what games solve the problem well.

Accuracy bonuses/penalties, initiative modifiers, etc. something that is lighter and faster may get you more attacks but take a big damage penalty. I've sometimes employed rules for weapons that are good at close up, in fighting, but not as good at normal melee distance. That sometimes connects with the speed issue.

Why do you want them balanced?

That'll tell you a lot about how you should go about it.

Man, there are a ton of variables. Note that D&D combat is quite abstract. A hit roll doesn't necessarily mean a single swing, by the original designer's own explanation. It follows that the multiple attacks powers of some characters and monsters doesn't necessarily mean they're faster, nor does a character being faster mean they should have multiple attacks.

The only thing to do with D&D and systems based closely on it is to look at the effects you can achieve. Off the top of my head, speed could have any of the following D&D effects within a round:

• Being able to strike earlier in the round (init bonus).
• Being more likely to hit (attack bonus)--but this isn't really a final effect. It's something that contributes to an ultimate effect--the damage probability distribution.
• Being able to strike multiple times at the same target--but this is also an intermediate effect that changes the damage distribution. Granted, with a missile weapon, it implies expenditure of additional ammo.
• Being able to strike multiple targets.

Note that  the significance of 2 & 3 are enormously affected by whether you're playing a variant that uses "armor absorbs". It basically means that speed helps a lot when you're facing unarmored or lightly armored enemies, but less when you're facing heavily armored ones. So it's a tradeoff that sort of balances, but I'm not sure if that's the kind of balance you'd be looking for. A lot of people like the idea of speedy/dextrous fighters outmaneuvering clods in heavy armor.



If you have a variant that gets farther away from D&D by using defense rolls, where defense is a limited resource (say, you only get x actions per round based on your speed, and each action can be a swing or a block/dodge/parry), then higher speed is going to help a lot.


That's about all I can say for the moment if you're going from a fairly D&D-centric orientation. If I have time I may talk a bit about other systems.

Action economy is one of those things that cannot be balanced well, if at all. It's a multiplier on power and choices. Doing more is both doing more and having more options. And woe if there is power parity at all in any group of options.

Three actions will usually outweigh one action nearly every time just by the flexibility factor alone. And that's before looking at the lower opportunity cost for commitment. And then the issue of picking out power parity details within the options available.

The best you can do is reduce the power of multiple actions by a factor v. a singular action. We're still not even dealing with accuracy, either. However that also requires nerfing multi-act non-strike maneuvers, item usage, and other basic effects.

However, such 'balance' doesn't necessarily give you what you want from play, either. RPGs are not like competitive games like minis or CCGs, so definitives that work for those don't really apply as well. Piestrio is right in asking why, what do you need from this? What are you trying to emulate?

Then you can look at whether adjusting initiative, or lowering action power, or lowering accuracy, all of the above, or something else gets you your goal.

I've often seen the opinion that 'first strike' should be given to longer reach, rather than smaller-but-faster weapon. So interestingly say Runequest and 2nd Ed. speed factor give entirely opposite results.

If you are giving multiple attacks with smaller weapons, as you say that combines pretty well with armour-as-DR since it can be set up to make the knife better against lightly armoured targets and the two-handed sword better against heavy armour. One character could switch between both of course but that could involve at least spending some proficiency slots or taking Quick Draw or similar.
The main problem I see with D&D is just the way Strength increases damage directly to easily double. The importance of Strength maybe due to meta-gaming the HP system - it tends to be less in systems which don't use HPs and instead have characters potentially dying from one rapier in the eye. Rolemaster or HarnMaster or even Savage Worlds. However, you can just reduce Str mod. - for instance you could have x1.5 for a two-handed weapon, x1.0 for one-handed and x0.5 for light.
Another rule I quite liked was the 'finesse weapons' rules in Conan d20, where a Dex-based fighter doesn't lose damage but if they hit by enough, find a hole in armour and bypass it completely.

Make all weapons do the same damage and move the hard work to the narration. Knifey dude gets in lots of minor scratches that equal the damage of smashy dude's one hit. Everyone's happy.

Well, except combat hyperdetail enthusiasts, but seriously, not every system needs to care for them.

Better yet you could use the same system for social combat, and losing all your hit points just means you have "lost the conflict", with precise fictional consequences determined by the pre-agreed stakes.

Yes, I'm kidding.

Quote from: jibbajibba;728833Anyway the question that came to me was how to run fast strikes against heavy hits? What should the balance be and should there be a balance. D20 doesn't handle it well as 1chance to deal 3d6+strength is seldom going to be as good as 3 chances to do 1d6+ strength especially if the game can be maxed out and you end up with a "dart thrower" likewise a typical BRP game has similar issues. Although armour absorbing damage will mitigate (as my heartbreaker showed).

You are going to have to do something so that it is even effective, 3 1d6 strikes will be stopped more by armor that one 3d6, as the AV is applied three time for the triple strike. Quick and sleazy would be to combine attack damage, but not to hit rolls, so that the chance is 1d6x3; that way the 3d6 isn't invalidated either.

Quote from: dragoner;728933You are going to have to do something so that it is even effective, 3 1d6 strikes will be stopped more by armor that one 3d6, as the AV is applied three time for the triple strike. Quick and sleazy would be to combine attack damage, but not to hit rolls, so that the chance is 1d6x3; that way the 3d6 isn't invalidated either.

You could have # hits determined by attack roll (and then subtract armour?).
e.g.
Sword: hit defense TN = d8 damage, each 5 over adds another hit for +d8 damage
Dagger: hit defense TN = d4 damage, each 3 over adds another hit for +d4 damage.
So higher speed is represented by the change in margin of success, instead of more attack rolls. Doesn't actually solve any balance issues but does potentially reduce dice rolling (at a cost in more maths).

Okay I put this in last night and I was a bit knacked. I will explain in more detail the ask.

I am looking to see if it's possible to get a combat system that rewards fast strikes but also allows the heavy hitter to have a place.

Basically can any system cope with the Pit Figher with his two wicked knives and the Barbarian with his massive axe?

I don't want an entirely abstract system with one roll to hit and the dagger damage = multiple strikes and the axe damage = one strike because it's not how combat is every actually played out in ones mind's eye and it makes mockery of initiative, any special combat moves etc. If you take the simple 1d6 damage for all weapons then surely the 2 handed knife fighter becomes the best option just because they don't have to carry a sword or an axe so have more capacity for rope, rations or treasure.

Now I have found that using Armour to reduce damage does have an effect as the threshold to damage is higher so a light fast weapon might hit 4 times but each time it's 8 damage is reduced by 6 point of armour so over all it does  8 points ((8-6)x4). Whereas the Heavy axe might hit once for 16 so it does 10 damage (16-6). Now this can be tweaked eaisly enough. But I find that from a min/max perspective if the knife guy could get a damge bonus due to say strength, but it could be dex if you allowed a "finese" fighter that option, then the dagger rapidly becomes the better choice. Using a D&D scale, because we are all familar with it, if you can get to +5 damage on a strike through stats, skill or magic, then that knife fighter is adding 5 damage to each hit or 20 damage potentially over the round whereas the axe fighter adds just 5. This is even more true of say D&D where a short sword does 1d6 and a heavy battle axe does 1d8 so the damage variation due to weapon choice are much smaller than the potential damage bonuses available (the extreme being the dart thrower).

So in my system it works currently simply because my players are all new to games and have only played in my game so have no concept of min/maxing. A more ruthless experienced player would quickly spot the min/max potential.

As for balance I don't need the game to be balanced between the options but I need the game to be representative of actual combat in as much as in the real world knights on the battlefield don't use knives. Once armour is developed and they no longer need to bear a shield for defense knights actually move to larger weapons which can be used two handed. Then once the firearm renders the armour redundant and people are lightly armoured the faster rapier and small sword weapons start to dominate. So the system should end up with a similar set of results.

I like the idea that BSJ suggests about the weight of the weapon affecting the damage bonus. There is a logic to that, though it adds additional complexity. I quite like the AD&D weapon vs armour table in theory although in play it's unmanageable and I have really rejected the armour "makes you harder to hit" paradigm at this point because of all the additional rationalisations and complexity it introduces, but the idea that you use the right tool for the job is appealing.

In a wider context what systems if any manage to make all five of the classic melee combat variants (2 handed heavy weapon, sword and board, double wielding light weapons, single handed fencing style, 'long weapon' spear/polearm) viable in their own niche circumstances?

Quote from: jibbajibba;728960In a wider context what systems if any manage to make all five of the classic melee combat variants (2 handed heavy weapon, sword and board, double wielding light weapons, single handed fencing style, 'long weapon' spear/polearm) viable in their own niche circumstances?

Difficult question. Few systems handle all of them well. One-handed is particularly uncommon and TWF is often overpowered. Apart from TWF being a bit too good, 2E with say Complete Fighter almost does this, though poor support for reach weapons (unless you pull out Combat and Tactics for AoOs?), and it has armour as AC.

3E hasn't got much for one-handed (the only reason to do it is for classes that don't get shields, really) but has fairly good reach weapon support (AoOs) and two-handed weapons are fairly good (Power Attack); some TWF characters can work though mostly being high-damage relies on sneak attack. Whether 3E looks anything much like real combat is another question. There are optional rules e.g. in Unearthed Arcana for armour-as-DR and defense bonus from level.

The Riddle of Steel spends a fair bit of effort describing the various styles. I'm not up enough on how it works to say how balanced it all works out to, though.

My GURPS is rusty so I'm not sure IDK about that either, but I expect it should at least have rules on most of those things??
GURPS heartbreaker JAGS may be almost there too. Two weapon fighting rules are so-so (two attacks instead of one if you take the Ambidexterity merit) but armour at least absorbs damage. I think shield bonus can substitute for Agi bonus to defense so a high-Agility character may not need a shield (if I understand the rules correctly), and it does have reach rules (where characters have to spend movement to get within someone's guard, and with opponent taking penalties while they're too close).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;728999Difficult question. Few systems handle all of them well. One-handed is particularly uncommon and TWF is often overpowered. Apart from TWF being a bit too good, 2E with say Complete Fighter almost does this, though poor support for reach weapons (unless you pull out Combat and Tactics for AoOs?), and it has armour as AC.

3E hasn't got much for one-handed (the only reason to do it is for classes that don't get shields, really) but has fairly good reach weapon support (AoOs) and two-handed weapons are fairly good (Power Attack); some TWF characters can work though mostly being high-damage relies on sneak attack. Whether 3E looks anything much like real combat is another question. There are optional rules e.g. in Unearthed Arcana for armour-as-DR and defense bonus from level.

The Riddle of Steel spends a fair bit of effort describing the various styles. I'm not up enough on how it works to say how balanced it all works out to, though.

My GURPS is rusty so I'm not sure IDK about that either, but I expect it should at least have rules on most of those things??
GURPS heartbreaker JAGS may be almost there too. Two weapon fighting rules are so-so (two attacks instead of one if you take the Ambidexterity merit) but armour at least absorbs damage. I think shield bonus can substitute for Agi bonus to defense so a high-Agility character may not need a shield (if I understand the rules correctly), and it does have reach rules (where characters have to spend movement to get within someone's guard, and with opponent taking penalties while they're too close).

Thanks BSJ, thorough as always.
I am not looking for a new system to run merely aspects of systems that I can pull parts from or that might inspire me to try new techniques. So I have been playing with rotational initiative where attacks with weapons take x many segments and the round rolls over. My players found it too complex though so no progress there. Likewise this game doesn't have a lot of melee combat as its strontium dogs so all Westinghouse cartridge blasters. So some of the rules I wanted to trial on reach and various styles have been tested only by me and I get it already

But I will check GURPS. And Might check riddle of steel. thanks

If you do TRoS there is a clone under a new name that's published on dtrpg. Can't remember the name, though. Personally I wasn't too keen on the original.

Quote from: jibbajibba;728960Okay I put this in last night and I was a bit knacked. I will explain in more detail the ask.

I am looking to see if it's possible to get a combat system that rewards fast strikes but also allows the heavy hitter to have a place.

Basically can any system cope with the Pit Figher with his two wicked knives and the Barbarian with his massive axe?

I don't want an entirely abstract system with one roll to hit and the dagger damage = multiple strikes and the axe damage = one strike because it's not how combat is every actually played out in ones mind's eye and it makes mockery of initiative, any special combat moves etc. If you take the simple 1d6 damage for all weapons then surely the 2 handed knife fighter becomes the best option just because they don't have to carry a sword or an axe so have more capacity for rope, rations or treasure.

Now I have found that using Armour to reduce damage does have an effect as the threshold to damage is higher so a light fast weapon might hit 4 times but each time it's 8 damage is reduced by 6 point of armour so over all it does  8 points ((8-6)x4). Whereas the Heavy axe might hit once for 16 so it does 10 damage (16-6). Now this can be tweaked eaisly enough. But I find that from a min/max perspective if the knife guy could get a damge bonus due to say strength, but it could be dex if you allowed a "finese" fighter that option, then the dagger rapidly becomes the better choice. Using a D&D scale, because we are all familar with it, if you can get to +5 damage on a strike through stats, skill or magic, then that knife fighter is adding 5 damage to each hit or 20 damage potentially over the round whereas the axe fighter adds just 5. This is even more true of say D&D where a short sword does 1d6 and a heavy battle axe does 1d8 so the damage variation due to weapon choice are much smaller than the potential damage bonuses available (the extreme being the dart thrower).

So in my system it works currently simply because my players are all new to games and have only played in my game so have no concept of min/maxing. A more ruthless experienced player would quickly spot the min/max potential.

As for balance I don't need the game to be balanced between the options but I need the game to be representative of actual combat in as much as in the real world knights on the battlefield don't use knives. Once armour is developed and they no longer need to bear a shield for defense knights actually move to larger weapons which can be used two handed. Then once the firearm renders the armour redundant and people are lightly armoured the faster rapier and small sword weapons start to dominate. So the system should end up with a similar set of results.

I like the idea that BSJ suggests about the weight of the weapon affecting the damage bonus. There is a logic to that, though it adds additional complexity. I quite like the AD&D weapon vs armour table in theory although in play it's unmanageable and I have really rejected the armour "makes you harder to hit" paradigm at this point because of all the additional rationalisations and complexity it introduces, but the idea that you use the right tool for the job is appealing.

In a wider context what systems if any manage to make all five of the classic melee combat variants (2 handed heavy weapon, sword and board, double wielding light weapons, single handed fencing style, 'long weapon' spear/polearm) viable in their own niche circumstances?

GURPS pretty much handles all of this in a nutshell.

1) Damage is based in STR. The weapon modifies this instead of the other way around. Small weapons such as knives also have a maximum damage. So a huge hulk who decides to use a knife will max out because he isn't using the right tool to take advantage of his STR.

2) Armor provides DR. Pretty standard. Good armor combined with knife maximum damage means knife fighters won't dominate vs heavier weapons.

3) All defenses are active: blocks parries, & dodges. Shields provide a defensive bonus to add to an active defense. Defenses have different consequences depending on the attack. That big guy with the huge axe could break a shield trying to block it or a light weapon trying to parry, but dodge is generally the weakest defense, what do you do?

4) This is the best tactical combat game I have experience in how it treats reach. A reach weapon combined with an attack and step back maneuver can force an opponent to either have to rush in and make a wild swing (a crappy attack) or commit to an all out attack (meaning they are SOL on defense until thier next turn). Either way, they are at a disadvantage vs reach.

Extreme reach weapons can also be a hinderance because switching grips from long reach to a grip that permits striking an adjacent foe takes a turn to ready which is a veritable lifetime when someone is in your face with a short sword.

If you have any situation specific questions I will answer as best I can.