Okay, let's start with a couple things: I was introduced to roleplaying in the 3.0/3.5 transition. So sue me if I'm more comfortable with attacks of opportunity (or something like them) than without. Additionally, I'm a fan of Heinlein... and having read Glory Road, I want some amount of melee in my scifi, swords or otherwise, with similar justification.

Anyways, cut and dry, between a melee and ranged weapon that deal the same damage there's no contest: ranged weapons have the advantage. Dungeons and Dragons (and the rest of D20) deals with this by saying that you can add your strength to damage with melee weapons and with the opportunity rules.

Other games (I'm looking at tristat) have fairly easy rules for delaying on initiative. My only problem here being that in this case, ranged weapons maintain their advantage.

Sooo... I was thinkin', maybe we could mix the two, but stipulate that to delay initiative, you have to announce ahead the action you decide to hold. In the case of melee, you can announce that you'll hit anyone who comes within reach (it would be useless otherwise; you'd have to guess who'd be coming within reach) whereas with ranged, you have to train your weapon on a single foe (it would be somewhat overpowered otherwise; you'd have control over the entire battlefield that way).

In any case, I envision something like a standoff in which person A is holding his/her sights on person B, waiting for person B to move. Person C then attacks person A, forcing person A to choose whether to dodge and lose his sights on person B or to take damage and to continue to threaten person B. The effects on person B being that if said person remains threatened, come B's turn, B is going to be forced to choose whether to spend that crucial half-action on defense himself.

Hence, maneuvering based not only on the where, but on the when.

Thoughts?

I'm seeing some views but little feedback. Let me post a mock-up and see if that gets anything.

Lets say...
Your AC is 5+Dex (less than the norm).
You can defend for 1d20+5+Dex (more than the norm).
You attack for 1d20+Str or Dex.
You get three half actions (attack, defend, move, etc.) per round.
You can delay initiative to attack anyone who moves within reach in melee.
You can delay initiative to make a ranged attack against one opponent when he/she moves.
No matter what you delay initiative to do (assuming you haven't done it yet), you can drop that to defend.
Actions do not roll over. When your next turn comes around, unused actions fizzle.

This facilitates...

Mooks: Mooks don't have to have their rules altered. Simply by virtue of their being inept, you don't have to defend against them as much (and can just unload clip after clip on them instead) and they have to defend more against you (and are lucky to get off one shot per round and live).

BBEGs: BBEGs don't have to have their rules altered. Simply by virtue of their being tough, you are forced to defend more and they can attack more. Your numbers might make up for that to some small extent, but you'll have to use your actions wisely.

Melee/Ranged: My hope all along is that it would be less superiority/inferiority and more about the right tool for the right job. Not sure if I got that done, but I got some interesting results trying.

Standoffs: Players might not be threatened by immediate death if someone's aiming at them (or they might be; depends on the damage system too), but they can act more effectively if they don't have to spend an action to defend. In any case, a person with their gun trained on you means more than a couple of hit points and a fizzled spell.

Do I need to point out the mathematical absurdity of three "half-actions?"

Anyway, I have a more serious question about that: if you get three actions, then won't characters get to do all three things ina round--Attack, Move, and Defend? I guess you would have to sacrifice to take two moves or something, but what about attack? Can you attack twice? And can you defend twice, for additional AC? I suppose in that circumstance you'd have a meaningful choice to make, especially if your first Defend roll sucked.

Just not quite seeing what this is supposed to look like.

Peace,
-Joel

Well... You can do any of three things on your turn. You can Attack, you can Move, or you can Delay.

Defend checks are made against individual attacks. Against attacks you don't spend an action to defend against, your defence is just low. Generally, you've got to delay in order to defend, as people (usually) aren't going to attack on your turn.

See, rather than making a defence check as a free action either every round or in response to every attack, it's actually an action and becomes another resource to manage.

As for players being able to do all three, it's kind of the point. Normally, you can attack or move... and you can do both in a round. Here, you can attack, move, and delay (so that you can defend yourself), and you can likewise do it all... otherwise, I'd feel like a bastard for just putting an arbitrary -5 penalty to AC.

Clear? -er?

I think so. Having to use a defend action for individual attacks makes a big difference from what I was reading in the previous post. Can you mix n match freely with your three actions in a round? Like, Attack, Attack, Delay, or Move, Move, Attack?

Sounds like an interesting system, anyway. I like the effect you're describing, of covering people and having to drop that cover when threatened, etc. Be great to see the thing fleshed out.

Peace,
-Joel

Yeah, you can alot things differently as needed. I don't need there to be a whole hell of alot of restrictions on actions. Movement speed might go down to 20ft. You can still go 60ft in a round, but... I guess in smaller increments.

 There are certain things that are broken all to hell to start with, but with simple fixes.

To give one example, let's have a bunch of people gang up on one dude. He's standing there with his three actions trying to defend against six or eight people... each of whom also has three actions. You can see how this might be a problem. On the one hand, you can see where superior numbers comes in handy, and you don't need any special rules for flanking. On the other hand... it would be wise in this light to offer a "full defense" option. Which is to say use up all your actions and roll an AC against all the attacks in the round.

I might put some stock in a charge maneuver to crack turtles... charging would be three actions, some amount of movement, and one attack. You can't defend yourself if you charge (obviously, it's three actions...and you're CHARGING), but neither can your foe (might be too much... dunno).

Anyways, dude charging into a heated gunfight is gonna get his ass shot down. Best to do it with a couple of friends if you plan on bum-rushing the nice folks with the AKs... spread the damage around.

Damage itself should probably made scary to go with it. There are a bunch of ways to do this. Rules for progressive incapacitation or stunning, for example. I think I'll leave that vague for now, though.

I have to agree with Mel that I totally didn't get your thrust the first time reading through.  So let me make sure I comprends, as the French say...

Defense is now one of the actions I can use in a round.  If I choose to defense against Attacker A, I've lost one of the three things I can do in a round.  If Attacker B comes at me, I have to choose - if I use another Defense, I lose another slot and I'm down to one.  With that last slot, I can still Move, Attack, Defend.

In my last slot, Attacker C comes in for the party, and I use my last slot to defend against him.  Now I can't Move or Attack this round, and if another Attacker, D, decides to join the fun, I'm fucked cause I'm out of defenses.

Is that close?

If so, I like the idea - tried to figure out how to do it at one point and, after ten minutes gave up. What's the limit? How many defense should one person have in a round?

This is one of the places where D&D combat gets strange for me.  It's this kind of half-abstracted half-not-abstracted approach. In six seconds, how many defensive maneuvers could you perform to keep the wolves at bay? The attack roll is not supposed to represent the one and only attack you make, but the culmination of all the little feints and thrusts as you jockey for position. Isn't your defense supposed to represent the opposite?

It's right on the money. And again, no limits on defense, no limits on attacks, no limits on movement. If you've got an action to spare you can do it.

Now, you still have the option of not defending against a given attack. It can still miss, or you just might not particularly miss a couple of hit points. Either way, if four people attack you, you aren't necessarily a lame duck... you're just probably going to get hit once or twice.

So... yeah. Good times.

OK, sweet, thanks.  I like your idea of putting it all in a pot and letting the character sort it out.

Now, what's the defense difference.  That is, if you're not defending, what's the "AC" versus if you are defending?

What other things are included in the final defense - armor (or is it damage reduction), dexterity, combat skills, etc? Which of these are null and void if you choose not to defend?

Well, I was thinking it would be that your base defense is 5+modifiers (dex or whatever) where acting to defend would allow you to add 1d20 to that.

Modifiers to attack and defense are something I want to keep low. I guess just skill and ability score or modifier, with armor being represented by damage reduction or what have you. Having more variables than that, you run the risk of that guy who maxes out everything for attack or defense and is a vastly different power level for it (a difference of only five points is the difference between having to spend an action to defend and being able to afford to risk it... a difference of ten points just gets ridiculous).

So yeah, there'd be a dodging/parrying skill. Armor would be DR or the like. Shields... I suppose would provide a bonus to AC, but only when you defend. They don't just move to block the shields on their own, after all.

Disclaimer: Not a D20 gamer.

The combat as I read it sounds pretty suicidal.  Which is fine if you're a Berserker or some such but shouldn't the options be: Attack, Delay, Defend, or FLEE?

Actually that should probably be Move/Flee if you're using hex and need to change facing.

Or was this just the most asanine question ever?

Nah, no such thing as a stupid question... at least not if the system's unfamiliar. But yeah, fleeing is covered under movement.

Okay, I figure I should figure out the specific numbers on these things. Your defense without a check is going to be 5+ability... but I don't know whether to include your dodge skill (if you have one). I know I've got to include it when you make the check, but when you don't? I'm not as sure.