Four player party faces 8 foes. The players form a line of battle: A B C D
The foes advance and try to use their superior numbers. What determines which foes can attack which PCs, and vice versa, if they all have short weapons? Does it make a difference if some of them have pole weapons? Thrown or missile weapons? On a hex map, if A if fighting foe 1, it's going to be immediately obvious that D probably isn't going to be fighting foe 1 for a while. In the absence of a map or rules which can somehow address this, it's not clear who can attack whom, and it matters a lot, because concentrating attacks both gives a defense penalty, and takes people out faster because they run out of HP and get injury penalties.

On the damage numbers, I was just trying to point out the relative importance of the numbers for different things in comparison to each other. How much weight do you want to give to the difference between wielding a rock compared to having a sword, or even having a knife. I feel like you may be understating the advantage of having a real weapon versus not. Enough said about that.

Again, I'm also concerned a bit that by adding MoS to damage, you lose the distinction between the to-hit modifiers and damage modifiers, and between things that help avoiding being hit (Dodge or Block) and things that reduce damage when hit (armor), because they're all combined into one addition. The addition/subtraction reduces all factors down to an Attack and Defence total, plus the Reach thing, which is also combined into the calculation in the same way (except that there is an option to try to close the reach). i.e. there is no difference between being attacked by someone with Weaponry skill 4, with a damage 1 weapon, and someone with Weaponry skill 1 and a damage 4 weapon. There's also no difference between the results of attacking someone with Dodge 4, armor 1, compared to someone with Dodge 1, armor 4, because you just add MoS to Weapon Damage, and subtract Dodge & Armor. In losing the added step of a separate roll/calculation, you also lose any qualitative difference between their types of effect.

Quote from: Skarg;909109Again, I'm also concerned a bit that by adding MoS to damage, you lose the distinction between the to-hit modifiers and damage modifiers, and between things that help avoiding being hit (Dodge or Block) and things that reduce damage when hit (armor), because they're all combined into one addition. The addition/subtraction reduces all factors down to an Attack and Defence total, plus the Reach thing, which is also combined into the calculation in the same way (except that there is an option to try to close the reach). i.e. there is no difference between being attacked by someone with Weaponry skill 4, with a damage 1 weapon, and someone with Weaponry skill 1 and a damage 4 weapon. There's also no difference between the results of attacking someone with Dodge 4, armor 1, compared to someone with Dodge 1, armor 4, because you just add MoS to Weapon Damage, and subtract Dodge & Armor. In losing the added step of a separate roll/calculation, you also lose any qualitative difference between their types of effect.

These are concerns for me as well. I certainly wouldn't want to do things this way. So I think it's fair to ask the OP, what benefit do you gain from using MoS in this way?

Wow you guys are really making me have to think about this system! Thank you, it's helping me a lot

Quote from: Skarg;909109Four player party faces 8 foes. The players form a line of battle: A B C D
The foes advance and try to use their superior numbers. What determines which foes can attack which PCs, and vice versa, if they all have short weapons? Does it make a difference if some of them have pole weapons? Thrown or missile weapons? On a hex map, if A if fighting foe 1, it's going to be immediately obvious that D probably isn't going to be fighting foe 1 for a while. In the absence of a map or rules which can somehow address this, it's not clear who can attack whom, and it matters a lot, because concentrating attacks both gives a defense penalty, and takes people out faster because they run out of HP and get injury penalties.

On the damage numbers, I was just trying to point out the relative importance of the numbers for different things in comparison to each other. How much weight do you want to give to the difference between wielding a rock compared to having a sword, or even having a knife. I feel like you may be understating the advantage of having a real weapon versus not. Enough said about that.

Again, I'm also concerned a bit that by adding MoS to damage, you lose the distinction between the to-hit modifiers and damage modifiers, and between things that help avoiding being hit (Dodge or Block) and things that reduce damage when hit (armor), because they're all combined into one addition. The addition/subtraction reduces all factors down to an Attack and Defence total, plus the Reach thing, which is also combined into the calculation in the same way (except that there is an option to try to close the reach). i.e. there is no difference between being attacked by someone with Weaponry skill 4, with a damage 1 weapon, and someone with Weaponry skill 1 and a damage 4 weapon. There's also no difference between the results of attacking someone with Dodge 4, armor 1, compared to someone with Dodge 1, armor 4, because you just add MoS to Weapon Damage, and subtract Dodge & Armor. In losing the added step of a separate roll/calculation, you also lose any qualitative difference between their types of effect.

In regards to turn order that's determined by a d10+Reflex stat roll with actions being taken in descending order. Who can attack whom depends largely on the scene being described. Assuming an open field anyone can attack anyone, provided they aren't already engaged in combat. A tight alleyway might limit to two or even one whereas a river ford might have varying numbers. As for number of opponents well that can be as high as makes sense in the scene, however any beyond three don't increase the defence penalty. Polearms don't influence this, but they do make it easier to have an ally between you and the target. Ranged weapons may target anyone they can see and shoot at. The limits with ranged weapons are ammunition, range and the possibility of hitting an ally when firing into melee. So that means... hmm... how about a -3 for shooting into melee?

Quote from: Lunamancer;909229These are concerns for me as well. I certainly wouldn't want to do things this way. So I think it's fair to ask the OP, what benefit do you gain from using MoS in this way?

The MoS adding to damage rule came about because a player of mine was lamenting how in most systems your roll had no influence on the damage. A novice would deal just as much damage as a master. So I applied this rule to account for that. It makes highly skilled characters much more dangerous than amateurs while also allowing a lucky newbie to inflict some horrendous injuries.

In regards to damage I've thought of perhaps swapping it out from a static number to a d6 roll. So weapons deal a number of d6 in damage equal to their damage rating. Thus a dagger would deal 1d6, a longsword 3d6, etc. Armour would simply have a static number (unless rolling armour would be a fun rule to have?) of 3, 6, 9, 12 or 15. You still add MoS to your damage roll but now there's an extra element of randomness. Although looking at those rules it does mean that higher 'tier' armour makes a character pretty much invulnerable, which is something I really don't want in this system as it makes combat much less dangerous.

Any thoughts on how to make skill and damage distinct?

Also regarding weapons and armour I had a rule that weapons would deal bashing, cutting or stabbing damage and armour would have different defence values against those damage types. Would that be a useful addition to have or does it not actually address the issue at hand?

Who can attack whom:
It sounds like you are planning to track positions in your mind and use GM discretion to rule who can attack whom or not. That might or might not work for you and your players (I could do this for some fights but think it can/will break down sometimes and think figures/maps/rules help a lot), but as a system for other GM's, you might want some guidelines.

Suggestion:

• "Figure" is a generic name for a combatant.
• "Engaged" means a figure is currently fighting an opponent with non-ranged hand weapons (or unarmed). They're standing near enough the opponent to be hit and focused on that engagement. A group of people engaged with each other is an "engagement".
• "Disengaged" means a figure is not currently engaged.
• In most situations, combat starts with no one engaged.
• If figures get a chance to arrange themselves before combat, they can choose whether they want to be standing facing the enemy, or behind their comrades. Every unengaged figure facing the enemy allows 2 comrades to successfully stand in the way of enemies reaching them.
• When an unengaged melee figure chooses to attack an opponent, it and the target both become engaged with each other. Even if not using a map, it will help to have a token for each figure and to place them next to each other to keep track of who is engaged with whom. If another figure attacks an engaged target, he too becomes engaged with the target.
• Figures remain engaged until all enemies they are engaged with fall down or are grappled, stuck in a net, or they disengage.
• Like adjusting reach, engaged figures can also choose to attempt to disengage. Roll some contest that takes into account speed, encumbrance, skill, number of allies & opponents, and relative weapon reach.
• While engaged, you can't attack people you aren't engaged with, even with ranged/thrown weapons. Weapons like bows & crossbows which were ready when you get engaged by someone, can get one shot off at the first person coming to engage them, but then can't be reloaded while engaged and should be discarded in favor of some other weapon.
• Note that as people become engaged, the number of people who are able to say they are standing behind allies goes down, possibly meaning that the enemy can now engage your archers, etc. GM needs a way to determine which people can be engaged and which can't if there is still say 3 lurking archers and 1 unengaged ally screening them.
• There should be a limit on the number of figures who can engage one enemy foe, in the range 3-6.
• As soon as an engagement has 2+ figures on each side, split the side that just added a second figure into a second distinct engagement - the choice of who fights whom can be made by the last figure entering the engagement (or perhaps by someone with the highest tactics or footwork skill, if that applies). e.g. Bob is engaged with 3 goblins. Then Bob's pal Harry comes to fight in the engagement. Harry gets to choose 1 or 2 of the goblins whom he will now be engaged with, drawing them away from Bob's engagement. (Alternatively, and simpler, new people to an engagement only draw the 1 opponent they attack).

If you want to simplify the ganging-up mechanic, instead of tracking how many people have attacked someone each turn, just give a penalty to defend (and perhaps to attack too) equal to the number of extra opponents (not counting the first) someone is currently engaged with, or maybe double that number, or -2 for two opponents, -3 for three, -4 for four or more.

I may have overlooked some things, but I think that seems like a decent offhand way of giving some consistency and tactics to a mapless combat.

Quote from: Flashfire07;909266... As for number of opponents well that can be as high as makes sense in the scene, however any beyond three don't increase the defence penalty. Polearms don't influence this, but they do make it easier to have an ally between you and the target. Ranged weapons may target anyone they can see and shoot at. The limits with ranged weapons are ammunition, range and the possibility of hitting an ally when firing into melee. So that means... hmm... how about a -3 for shooting into melee?

Seems to me that Polearms probably should influence the number of people who can attack someone at all, at least in some situations. Some ye olde miniatures wargames used to say the most ganging up possible was 2 or 3 on 1 due to space, but polearms change that due to geometry.  Polearms tend to allow more people to attack the same person at once, and to attack from behind allies without fear of being hit back, in the right situations.

Without a map, it can be pretty hard to know who is in the line of fire - I'd use some roll/system to determine if you have a clear line of fire - perhaps ask them whom they want to fire at, then some random check to see if they have a clear line of fire. A -3 to hit doesn't give a chance to hit friends. If using the system above, you could try to figure out modifiers based on the number of people in the engagement you are firing into, or the number of people screening people in the rear. Firing into an engagement should always have some risk of just hitting a random person, including your friends.

Quote from: Flashfire07;909266The MoS adding to damage rule came about because a player of mine was lamenting how in most systems your roll had no influence on the damage. A novice would deal just as much damage as a master. So I applied this rule to account for that. It makes highly skilled characters much more dangerous than amateurs while also allowing a lucky newbie to inflict some horrendous injuries.

In regards to damage I've thought of perhaps swapping it out from a static number to a d6 roll. So weapons deal a number of d6 in damage equal to their damage rating. Thus a dagger would deal 1d6, a longsword 3d6, etc. Armour would simply have a static number (unless rolling armour would be a fun rule to have?) of 3, 6, 9, 12 or 15. You still add MoS to your damage roll but now there's an extra element of randomness. Although looking at those rules it does mean that higher 'tier' armour makes a character pretty much invulnerable, which is something I really don't want in this system as it makes combat much less dangerous.

Any thoughts on how to make skill and damage distinct?

Also regarding weapons and armour I had a rule that weapons would deal bashing, cutting or stabbing damage and armour would have different defence values against those damage types. Would that be a useful addition to have or does it not actually address the issue at hand?

It's nice to have skill influence damage, but you've made skill the same as all the other factors, so everything boils down to +attack or +defense, even though you have different names for things (and presumably different systems for getting those things on your sheet).

Having a separate roll for damage would allow you to distinguish hitting from damaging, which lets you have dodge & armor have different types of effect, too. I wouldn't roll for armor unless it's something that's representing hitting unprotected or less-protected spots - though that is one of the ways skill can effect damage.

Say if you win the contested roll to hit (which does not include weapon damage or armor), you've hit and then roll for damage, taking into account weapon, strength, armor and MoS in some way that you can  figure out how you want to balance. Depending on what systems and numbers you choose, yes heavy armor can make combat much less dangerous (actually fairly historically accurate if it does), or not so much. Simplest is damage = (weapon damage - armor). More complex is damage = (weapon damage + strength + MoS - armor), where weapon damage and MoS may involve dice. Even more complex might be some system where different high levels of MoS translate to chances for specific effects like hitting a weak point in armor, an unarmored spot, a special hit location/result, double damage, causing the opponent to fall or drop their weapon, or preventing the enemy from attacking you next turn.

Different damage types and armor types can be interesting but is another layer that doesn't address the above issue.

Apologies for the late response here, I have not been in good health of late.

Quote from: Skarg;909319Who can attack whom:
It sounds like you are planning to track positions in your mind and use GM discretion to rule who can attack whom or not. That might or might not work for you and your players (I could do this for some fights but think it can/will break down sometimes and think figures/maps/rules help a lot), but as a system for other GM's, you might want some guidelines.

Suggestion:

• "Figure" is a generic name for a combatant.
• "Engaged" means a figure is currently fighting an opponent with non-ranged hand weapons (or unarmed). They're standing near enough the opponent to be hit and focused on that engagement. A group of people engaged with each other is an "engagement".
• "Disengaged" means a figure is not currently engaged.
• In most situations, combat starts with no one engaged.
• If figures get a chance to arrange themselves before combat, they can choose whether they want to be standing facing the enemy, or behind their comrades. Every unengaged figure facing the enemy allows 2 comrades to successfully stand in the way of enemies reaching them.
• When an unengaged melee figure chooses to attack an opponent, it and the target both become engaged with each other. Even if not using a map, it will help to have a token for each figure and to place them next to each other to keep track of who is engaged with whom. If another figure attacks an engaged target, he too becomes engaged with the target.
• Figures remain engaged until all enemies they are engaged with fall down or are grappled, stuck in a net, or they disengage.
• Like adjusting reach, engaged figures can also choose to attempt to disengage. Roll some contest that takes into account speed, encumbrance, skill, number of allies & opponents, and relative weapon reach.
• While engaged, you can't attack people you aren't engaged with, even with ranged/thrown weapons. Weapons like bows & crossbows which were ready when you get engaged by someone, can get one shot off at the first person coming to engage them, but then can't be reloaded while engaged and should be discarded in favor of some other weapon.
• Note that as people become engaged, the number of people who are able to say they are standing behind allies goes down, possibly meaning that the enemy can now engage your archers, etc. GM needs a way to determine which people can be engaged and which can't if there is still say 3 lurking archers and 1 unengaged ally screening them.
• There should be a limit on the number of figures who can engage one enemy foe, in the range 3-6.
• As soon as an engagement has 2+ figures on each side, split the side that just added a second figure into a second distinct engagement - the choice of who fights whom can be made by the last figure entering the engagement (or perhaps by someone with the highest tactics or footwork skill, if that applies). e.g. Bob is engaged with 3 goblins. Then Bob's pal Harry comes to fight in the engagement. Harry gets to choose 1 or 2 of the goblins whom he will now be engaged with, drawing them away from Bob's engagement. (Alternatively, and simpler, new people to an engagement only draw the 1 opponent they attack).

If you want to simplify the ganging-up mechanic, instead of tracking how many people have attacked someone each turn, just give a penalty to defend (and perhaps to attack too) equal to the number of extra opponents (not counting the first) someone is currently engaged with, or maybe double that number, or -2 for two opponents, -3 for three, -4 for four or more.

I may have overlooked some things, but I think that seems like a decent offhand way of giving some consistency and tactics to a mapless combat.

I don't use maps and miniatures as you rightly noted, however in the advacned combat supplement I'm going to release I shall include rules for more... tangible options. I'll have to have a look at how other games handle that though because the only two in my collection are GURPS and Pathfinder, which are useful but a bit too mechanically crucnhy or my needs.

Quote from: Skarg;909325Seems to me that Polearms probably should influence the number of people who can attack someone at all, at least in some situations. Some ye olde miniatures wargames used to say the most ganging up possible was 2 or 3 on 1 due to space, but polearms change that due to geometry.  Polearms tend to allow more people to attack the same person at once, and to attack from behind allies without fear of being hit back, in the right situations.

Without a map, it can be pretty hard to know who is in the line of fire - I'd use some roll/system to determine if you have a clear line of fire - perhaps ask them whom they want to fire at, then some random check to see if they have a clear line of fire. A -3 to hit doesn't give a chance to hit friends. If using the system above, you could try to figure out modifiers based on the number of people in the engagement you are firing into, or the number of people screening people in the rear. Firing into an engagement should always have some risk of just hitting a random person, including your friends.

Yeah I think I'll have a rule that polearms raise the maximum ganging up penalty to -5. So to put that simply "While a defender may make a defence roll for all incoming attacks the more incoming attacks they must fend off the harder it becomes. Each attack beyond the first imposes a cumulative -1 penalty. So to defend against 3 attacks imposes a -2 on defence that round. This penalty is increased to a maximum of -5 if the attackers are supported by polearms with a reach of 4 or higher" In regards to the shooting into melee rule I think I'll have it that if the character misses by three or less the closest ally in the melee (logic, GM fiat, player choice, whatever works to determine it) is now the target of the attack instead.

Quote from: Skarg;909329It's nice to have skill influence damage, but you've made skill the same as all the other factors, so everything boils down to +attack or +defense, even though you have different names for things (and presumably different systems for getting those things on your sheet).

Having a separate roll for damage would allow you to distinguish hitting from damaging, which lets you have dodge & armor have different types of effect, too. I wouldn't roll for armor unless it's something that's representing hitting unprotected or less-protected spots - though that is one of the ways skill can effect damage.

Say if you win the contested roll to hit (which does not include weapon damage or armor), you've hit and then roll for damage, taking into account weapon, strength, armor and MoS in some way that you can  figure out how you want to balance. Depending on what systems and numbers you choose, yes heavy armor can make combat much less dangerous (actually fairly historically accurate if it does), or not so much. Simplest is damage = (weapon damage - armor). More complex is damage = (weapon damage + strength + MoS - armor), where weapon damage and MoS may involve dice. Even more complex might be some system where different high levels of MoS translate to chances for specific effects like hitting a weak point in armor, an unarmored spot, a special hit location/result, double damage, causing the opponent to fall or drop their weapon, or preventing the enemy from attacking you next turn.

Different damage types and armor types can be interesting but is another layer that doesn't address the above issue.

I really don't want to over complicate the rules so I think I will have the weapons damage be a d6 equal to its damage rating and add the MoS of the attack to that unless I think up some new and bizarre way to handle damage. I'll have a good and more detailed look at your suggestions once I can actually see straight again. Thank you for your in depth responses, they're very helpful and make me really think about the mecahnics I'm using here.