My preference lies with WFRP 2nd ed.  Just enough crunch to make things go squishy in fun ways and not so many rules that it bogs down into combat mode and leaves the story aspect behind.  Plus I don't need RoleMaster's seperate book of crit tables 2 pages are plenty.

Too many variables to give a single answer.

nWoD has a very quick and simple combat system which appeals in those games but does nothing for me if I'm in the mood to pull out a battlemap and start counting 5' steps. Exalted scratches a tactical itch if I want to be a little more freeform.

GURPS is fantastic if I feel like doing something gritty and dangerous where a single lucky hit can end a character's career, but Amber is good if I want to allow players the chance to stretch their creative legs and really make use of tactics and the environment without having to consider every minute variable.

Quote from: XantherBut of commercial systems I like TFT the best when operating in the balanced region of character power.  I've never actually played a GURPS combat, but from what I've read and knowing the lineage I'd probaly choose that for the best commercial system still being published.

This is pretty much how I feel. I haven't played enough GURPS to say, but I love the TFT core, and would like to adapt some enhancements from GURPS to it--such as active defenses and a more sophisticated relationship between strength, weapon choice, and damage.

I'm surprised at the love for Rolemaster.  I consider that one of the worst combat systems.  Very tedious and still heavy on the luck.
 
I think D&D 3.5 is one of the best.  It accomplishes most of what it wants to.  Players have quite a few options to try both is setting up the character for combat and within the combat.  It's not perfect though and a single round can take a long time with lots of opponents/magic/levels.
 
Most of the BRP variations (CoC, Runequest, etc) are good.  Quick, moderately simple, fairly lethal, some choices for the players.
 
I've been running some stuff similar to or derived from Risus.  It works well for light games where realistic combat is not the focus.  It's flexible enough that you players can make stuff up without breaking the system.

Quote from: LawbagIm going to vote Tunnels and Trolls....I believe the pundit has lifted some of their ideas in combining attacks?

Honestly, I think he improved on it.  T&T seemed dull to me the little I played it as there wasn't much beyond dice rolling unless spells were involved.  FtA has the group combat dynamic but has more flexibility and more to do beside looking through a hundred weapons for the best choice for your stats.

Quote from: ImperatorSynergy, from Blue Planet. It has the most round, sensible and complete explanation of how is implemented a damage syste, that I have found. Of course, is gritty as hell.
 
Seconding that, RuneQuest III - because is the best RPG ever.

I have to agree with Synergy, although I prefer SilCore most of the time. At their base the two systems are pretty similar - no hit locations, all damage can be lethal, damage done is based on how well you hit, die pools that make skilled characters more reliable. Interlock used to be my favorite system, but I've discovered over the years I'm not fond of resolution systems that don't have a curve somewhere in the probabilities.

Looking back over all the games I've played and run...I'd have to say Torg.  It's not without its problems, but it was hands down the most enjoyable and fun combat system we ever used.  Everyone got excited about it, and were totally into using their cards.  The fights were fun, and also tended to produce the most combat-related roleplaying (without it being forced, such as in many systems where you have to "graphically describe" stunts.)

I'll also toss in an honorable mention for HarnMaster, for the reasons given above.

MERP and Rollmaster have always been a blast too play, even though you could get away with calling it Mathmaster.    Nothing like their crit tables.

Shadowrun 4e and nWoD are ok systems for combat, at least it's "roll one set of dice, defend with another, compare results" sorta simplicity.

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, so what's the best RPG combat system you've seen... and why do you think its the best?

Fudge.

• Skill level is immensely important in determining the result of combat.
• Plain English results for combat skill rolls.
• Simultaneous combat rolls and damaged based on degree of success minimizes the die rolling.
• Excellent easy-to-use wound track instead of hit points.
• No min-maxing of weapon and armor choices is necessary.
• Combat can be run very quickly.

I haven't satisfied with any system although the levels varied.  I want a simple but robust system for that.  With that said, I liked many of the combat systems for various reasons.

Rolemaster:  Cool things happened to both sides with it.  I remember when a cold blast made my friend's character lose his nose for instance.   MERP was the lighter version of course.

I am bit suprised more people haven't mentioned D&D (any version) or FTA!  D&D is okay in its basic application but I get lost in all of the options now.  I haven't played FTA!

Funny enough, I remember Price of Freedom from West End Games back in the 80s having a fairly nice system.  Roll under your skill with a d20 and roll again depending on your weapon.  It had a chart which told you if the person was stunned, lightly wounded, heavily wounded, unconscious or dead.  Combat would have been even more deadly if not for the inclusion of hero points.  I also remember everything happening at once.  In other words, everyone got at least one action in a combat round even they were dead with the first shot.

Just to clarify, the original point of the thread was just to ask what people's own personal favourite was, and why it was the favourite to them; not to find some kind of an "objective" best combat system.

As for why more people haven't mentioned FtA!, I think the fact is that relatively few people have gotten around to buying the game,  much less actually playing it yet. I'm hoping (and have every reason to believe) that this will slowly change.

RPGPundit

Hero System is my favourite Combat System, because it can be as complicated as the GM wishes or as simple as the GM wishes. Once the GM and Players have an understanding of the Rules there is nothing that is impossible.


Its all in the imagination. The rules provide guidelines to explore them. The Dice add the random factors in success, failure, and effect. The first time your Players discover Knockback it they rarely turn back.  


QM

I'm rather fond of Savage Worlds' combat system.  It's fast and light and can handle large battles with swags of foes.  It has a few tactical options, without getting overly complex.  Only downside, IMHO, is that it is a bit too cinematic for my tastes.  But perfect if over-the-top action is your bag.

My love of full-on Rolemaster is an on-again, off-again thing, but slimmed down to MERP I agree that's a rockin' good time.

ancient gamer: I'm pretty sure that Price of Freedom was a Greg Costikyan design.  He may be a curmudgeon, but he knows how to write a game mechanic.  I'm not surprised that PoF does its own thing and does it well.

T&T takes initiative out of the equation in an interesting way. It offers just enough resource management and options for odd manuevers to stay interesting over time.

Hero gives you a great deal of verisimilitude and a nice division between stun and lethal damage. It's some time and effort, But it pays off.

Savage Worlds makes large-scale skirmishes easy. They typically run faster than a wargame, yet are very satisfying for what they do.

I like Burning Wheel's scripted combat. I like a mechanic requiring you to commit to a course of action a bit ahead of time.

If a game wants to be abstract in combat, I like it when they just let everything be abstract, fun, and engaging. Otherwise, I want them to strive to seem as realistic as they can, in their own way. I don't like systems that are specific and concrete about some things, then abstract about others.It breaks my suspension of disbelief.