Any system where combat isn't like this: Player: I attack

>>49335950
Active Exploits is diceless... -shrug-

>>49335950
Dogs in the Vineyard

>>49335950
Palladium's ruleset is not very good, but at least it doesn't have static defense for most games. SO you could roll a 6 to strike and still hit that dude with his 4 to defend. I tend to prefer active defense games for this reason, but AC isn't that bad if you'd looking for something simple and quick. I mean rolling defense is slower but not by that much, but... eh.

File: 1465821585656.jpg (80KB, 807x711px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 807x711px

D&D 4e.

File: Euphoric.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>>49335950
Free Form

>>49335950
Most of them if you know how to fight smart.

Who the hell sits in place and just exchanges blows with their enemy?

Sounds more like a GM problem than a system problem.

>>49335950
Dungeon World combat:
Roll 2d6 +str/dex
10+ : You hit monster and dodge its attack.
7-9 : You hit monster, but minster hits you back.
6- : You miss monster, and monster hits you.

"Monster hits you" can, at GM's option, be substituted/combined with other bad stuff like "you drop your sword" or "you are engulfed by the slime".

Also on a 7-9, the GM can be mice and say stuff like "you hit the cube, but it starts engulfing your sword and arm. Do you try to pull your sword out and take damage, or do you let go of the sword and retreat?"

It's obviously farily loose and freeform, but it's a very fast system and easy for RPG newbies to learn. Usually gives you very cinematic fights where the characters are still in danger of dying to a couple bad rolls.

>>49335950
GURPS

(not meming really)

If you use the rules, especially with Martial Arts, there are quite a few viable strategy. I had a fight between a beefy PC and a nimble enemy swordsman which involved a great deal of manuevering, prepared attacks, and culminated with the losing and wounded PC tackling the enemy to the ground and breaking his neck. It's a very versatile system.

>>49336349
Might as well be a nerd suggesting dice less or freeform for the amount of actual difference it brings into play. DW combat just moves the scene along quickly, which isn't a bad thing but is the opposite of more interesting combat.

>>49335950
Song of Swords comes to mind as one with a good combat system.

But pretty much any combat-focused system other than D&D meets this incredibly low bar.

>>49336034

This. Severely underrated system. Probably the best system ever devised for actually making players feel like they're controlling a character inside a coherent story.

>>49336321

This.

Even simple systems can be spiced up with terrain features and interesting enemies.

>>49335950
How do you feel about:
P1: Roll & Explain Attack
P2: Roll & Explain Defense
P2: Roll & Explain Attack
P1: Roll & Explain Defense
P1: Roll & Explain Attack
P2: Roll & Explain Defense

-esque systems?

>>49336034
>>49336466
More Dogs fans please. How is AW the game that stuck?

>>49335950
Riddle of Steel

>>49335950
F.A.T.A.L.
look it up, you'll enjoy it's unique mechanics and stats.

>>49336034
Example of combat?
>>49336408
Been tempted to try gurps already read the rules
>>49336455
how fast is combat?
>>49336595
If you could give me a better example?, beign descriptive is good but it doesnt change mechanically
>>49336622
I think i confuse this game with song of swords
>>49336636
thanks i will look it up, sounds gritty

>>49336671
>how fast is combat?
Not super fast. It's for impressive and deep combat, where the fight is a big part of the game, not "get her over and done so we can move on" combat.

>>49336636
>OH U

>>49336273
>Who the hell sits in place and just exchanges blows with their enemy?
Shit players with shit GMs. As usual, fa/tg/uys blame the system for their laziness and lack of creativity.

>>49335950
Riddle of Steel

>>49335950
>>49336455
>>49336622
>>49336671
>>49336714
Just to quickly explain for OP, Riddle of Steel and Song of Swords use a combat system whereby more skilled characters have a larger pool of dice to use in combat. This pool can be split between attack and defence.

There's a lot of other shit tacked on top, but that's the core system. This means that your character can go all-out on an attack, but have no dice left to defend himself if his attack is parried. A super-skilled player has a big enough dicepool to defend against almost any attack, and still have enough dice left over for an attack of their own.

The system is fast in the sense that the two people involved in an exchange are simultaneously working out their attack and defence, and people die REALLY fast.

>>49336609

Probably because DITV is incredibly difficult to roleplay for your average murderhobos and fedora tippers.

I know maybe 5 people I'd trust to play a game with, and only one of those online.

System is fucking amazing though; Somehow manages to be gamey, narrative and simulationist at the same time.

File: Blame!-v10--Cover[1].jpg (101KB, 400x435px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 400x435px

>>49336671
On >>49336034
The first thing you have to understand about Dogs in the Vineyard combat is that it can (and usually does) start social. When someone is losing an argument, they escalate (ie bitch slap, start shoving). If the opponent didn't like getting slapped, it escalates again (ie start punching and getting into real combat). By this point, if someone really wants to show who's boss, guns get broken out

You've got 4 stats: Acuity, Body, Will, and Heart
Just talking: Roll Acuity + Heart
Start to get shovey but not punchy: Body + Heart
Start to seriously duke it out with fists and knives: Body + Will
Break out the guns: Acuity + Will

You roll your dice pool, find 2 dice with a nice high number, throw it down. The opponent throws their dice pool, finds 2 dice that exceed your roll, say what they do, throw it down.

At this point or any point further, you can either
a) find 1 dice in your pool that'll exceed what their opponent's total is and fight back
b) find 2 dice to exceed your opponent's roll to block/dodge
c) find 3 or more dice to exceed their roll and take a blow (aka get hurt based on how many dice you used and what level of escalation your conflict is in)
or
d) back off and let them win

If you or your opponent sees their talking is not going in their favor, they escalate, roll the next dice pool (ie from just talking to start shoving, you and opponent now roll body + heart), add these dice to your current dice pool, and keep going

Backing off means the other side gets whatever goal was being contested, but the loser gets some sort of bonus when they fight again, so losing the battle doesn't mean losing the war

Dogs in the Vineyard as a setting is wild west with Mormon tones (you're dogs of the faith, going from town to town making judgements).

With some reskinning, you can go play pic related with this in the background

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Yc3HhSl1Q

>>49335950

Is this complaining about gameplay based on wiffing or something else?

>>49337128

The philosophy behind it is incredibly good as well.

You can draw in "stats" at any time, that can represent most anything as long as it ties into the conflict.

The game actually gives you dice for penalties; they're just low dice which means you're more likely to be forced to take a blow when you try to leverage them.

They can be tools, people, phrases (The example is "Momma always told me there'd be times like this."), ideas, tactics, even enemies or injuries.

And that's literally everything; There's no other conflict resolution mechanic, because literally everything worth rolling dice for is a part of an escalation; Everything else is constrained narrative freeform.

Martial arts systems give a bit more

Legend of Wulin:
Have a 'lake' of dice that's your dice pool and a 'river' of dice, which are pairs of dice you set aside and use to make another roll bigger.

When you roll your dice pool, your roll is whatever number shows up the most, and that number is your multiplier, ie if you roll 7 dice and 5 of them are 4s, your roll is 54, or if 3 of them are 9s, your roll is 39. Depending on what action your doing, your modifiers vary depending on what fighting style you're using (granting bonuses), your inner style (magical crap), what weapon you're using, at what distance, and what you're trying to do (hurt, knock them back to another zone, inflict problems). I'm really screwing up how this system really works, just working off top of my head

Qin: Warring States
Similar to Riddle of Steel, you have a number of actions you can have per turn, and you separate how many actions you'll use for offense and how many for defense. You only roll 2 dice, and crit every time you have doubles. Combat seems slow on paper but it gets fast and brutal if players just want to make murder hobos that say screw it to defending

I hear Shard is similar to Qin, but no one ever talks about Shard and never seen anyone ever play it/heard anyone make an actual play of it

Feng Shui 2:
Everyone's initiative plays a huge part on what you can do when. Everyone's character is on a sort of initiative counter, whoever's highest goes first, and spends their initiative location to do actions. The moment their location gets lower than the next person, they stop doing crap and the next person starts saying what they do

>>49335950
Warhammer 40k RPG, Shadowrun, Stars Without Number just to name a few off the top of my head

>>49336734
I'm genuinely impressed at how gay, smug and self-righteously autistic your response is.

>>49337635

Legends of the Wulin is one of my favourite systems ever, and is generally considered one of the top two combat systems in RPG's, Riddle of Steel/song of Swords and its other successors being the other one.

The above poster is close to right, but misses out on one of the key traits of the system- On a roll, it's very common you get multiple sets of dice, all of which can be used to perform actions. Anyone can perform Marvels, special actions that can debuff or manipulate opponents, at no cost, while techniques can allow you to make extra attacks, fling fireballs or even attack your opponent with Secret Arts, letting your social, mystical or medical skills be directly useful in a fight.

And that's just the dicerolling. There's so much more to combat in the system, how your External style interacts with your opponents, when to hold or spend Chi and what to do with it, the various ways weapon types interact and have advantages over one another... It's fantastic.

It's not without problems though. Specifically, some of the worst editing I've ever seen in a published book, dear god. It makes the system way, way harder to run. There's also a few balance problems in core, although the fan made Half Burnt Manual supplement fixes most of them.

>>49335950
I am writing a system where you can actively react parrying, dodging, counter-attacking, or you could benefit from having set a defensive stance in your turn. All works with a set number of actions per round, every weapon type and shield has its parrying dice bonus to add to your defense, and so on. And then you have a number of maneuvers you can use, a bunch of which are universal and others instead have to be learned.

Shit is working pretty fine; a round takes some more time than with your average D&D/PF/D20s, but on the other hand there's no such thing as HP bloat and combat is quite brutal, and even the hardiest warrior is unlikely to tank more than five blows.

Many of these combat options become less useful or plain useless against big monsters - for example trying to parry a giant's blow won't really serve you well - but there are other maneuvers specifically to fight them, including climbing on their back Dragon Dogma's style.

File: 640x452_12031_Kyiv_Knight_12th_century_2d_fantasy_character_knight_horse_warrior_rider_medieval_picture_image_digital_art.jpg (68KB, 640x452px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x452px

>>49335950
check the codex martialis, it's a fan made D&D overhaul meant for a more realistic and varied kind of fighting

Fantasy Age. Not shilling but the stunt system in that game is great for increasing the players options. Stunting is basically when you roll doubles with dice (everything is 3d6 btw) and the third dice (usually a different color) shows how many stunt points you can use.

Yes its a bit gamey, but damn does it lead combat in new directions than the problem you describe. Stunted and now you can shove the enemy after you attack him? Push him backwards into the fireplace. Stunted and now you can do extra damage? Send of that Orcs blood splashing into the eyes of one of his allies. Of course this is sometimes DM dependent on creative allowance but I think its really neat.

Just read up on that swedish Tvroiadfdsaf roleplaying game that keeps gettin shilled around here.

Apparently it uses a points pool that players spend in combat to do different actions including offensive and defensive ones which sounds dope as all hell.

>>49335950
Anima. It's the same but with more rolls, double fun!

>>49335950
World of Darkness.

>>49335950
Amber

>>49337809
He is right, though.

>>49335950
Anima.

>>49338780
Same rolls as if you hit, instead you get to roll your defense!
Or set it to a value.

>>49338809
You can fluff your attacks any way you like, but mechanics wise you're usually better off just planting your ass and Full Attacking instead of trying anything wacky. Combat maneuvers you're not specced in are less likely to succeed than plain attacking, and giving a temporary malus to opponent's actions isn't as effective as reducing their hp to 0 and preventing them doing anything at all.

File: Why people say GURPS has fun combat.jpg (702KB, 1858x1588px) Image search: [Google]

702KB, 1858x1588px

>>49336408
>>49335950
>>49336671

If you want to try out GURPS, I recommend the following for maximum combat carnage
>run a simple Dungeon Fantasy game. It has the ideal power level/equipment to get into the nitty gritty of the melee combat system
>Use GURPS Martial Arts. Ban normal attacks and replace them with Committed and Defensive Attacks (stops players from just spamming "I attack" every turn)
>Use target locations, but do not use accumulated wounds.
>Learn how deceptive attacks, feints, range and light penalties apply
>be very stern with what counts as a back attack. If an opponent starts at a player's flank, he should be able to take a step sideways into the player's rear hex and score a true back attack (which means no defense rolls allowed)
>You can stick to vanilla magic for this
>when designing opponents, mooks should have 8-10 HT, elites can have 11-12 HT and "bosses and other super monsters" can have 13-14 HT. Feel free to just ignore HT rolls on mooks that get limbs crippled or who go negative HP (chances are they don't WANT to fight anymore at that point anyway).
>Mix up your enemy design. Many small foes that try to surround. Big and tough guys. Ranged monsters. Spellcasters that go for area of effect control spells like grease. Etc.
>Always put some variation on how enemies are armored. Leave intentional weak spots and intentionally strengthened spots in their armor such as no armored necks, open helmets, reinforced gloves, chain leggings and plate torso, etc.
>Be fair and factual in your information to the players. Don't obscure information such as how well they are armed or if they got special resistances.

Out of all these suggestions, the one about replacing attack, the hit locations and the one about how to deal with back attacks are the ones I recommend the most, because they are very important to the combat metagame.

>>49335950
Runequest. At least the sixth edition has a lot more options in combat and I think at least a few of the earlier ones do as well.

Praedor if you speak moonrunes.

Twilight 2000 and 2013.

>>49335950

Burning Wheel et al, especially Mouse Guard.

>>49335950
For me combat is all about flow. As long as the flow is with you, you're in control of the fight. As soon as the flow is disrupted, your opponent is in control of the fight.

In game term this means that the fighter (A) with the higher initiative has the flow. He can either directly attack or feint (I won't treat feint here). His opponent (B) can either choose to defend or to attack. Let's imagine that (B) wants to live and decides to defend. (A) rolls for attack and succeeds, (B) rolls for attack and succeeds. What happens now is that I check who succeeded best. If it's (A) he can attack in the next round, and (B) will have a penalty to its next action. If (B) succeeded better, he disrupts (A)'s flow and can attack normally in the next round. If (B) had failed its defense, (A) would have hit him, and could continue to attack him in the next round with a bonus. If (A) had missed it's attack but (B) had succeeded its defense, (B) could attack in the next round with a bonus. (B) could also have chosen to attack instead of defend. But if (A) had succeeded its attack and would have wounded him, (B)'s attack would have been interrupted, and (A) could have attacked again in the next round with a bonus. But if (A)'s attack had failed, or would not have wounded (B) because of armor or natural resistance, (B) could have attacked, etc.

This means that the main strategy to remain alive is:

1. to avoid combat,
2. to only fight when you are stronger (better fighter, better equipment, etc.),
3. to attack your enemy in the back (ambush, poison, stealth attack, etc.),
4. to attack with numerical superiority.

>>49339252

Fortunately for every story ever, not everything is real life.

>>49335950
If that's your experience, the trouble isn't the game. It's who you are playing with. And who they are playing with.

>>49339304
I'm more into gritty action than high-fantasy heroism.

>>49335950
>DM: It's attacking the wizard
>SwordNBoard Player: I try to intercept the attack with my own
>Wizard Player: I cast Deflective Field incase he gets by SnB.
>DM: Ok, roll it.
>All roll
>Ok, looks like he gets past you, SnB, but his blade is turned by Wizards spell. Your attack still hits, SnB, so roll your damage.


That sad feeling when you know you'll never get your shit together and finish your homebrew RPG system.

>>49339504
How would this even work?

The whole team gets to roll to defend?

>>49339864
Not him, but my guess is: Simultaneous turns. You all declare what you are going to do (in some order) then everything happens.

Since the Wizard and the Fighter declared defensive actions, they rolled defense.

>>49335950
Is your problem the cyclical nature, or that the characters don't have access to enough options (or the players don't take advantage of the ones they do)?

>>49335950
Runequest 6. You get set number of action points to do with as you want. You might hit the enemy with all of them, you might spend one moving, one hitting, one masturbating into a cup and one preparing to block an enemy attack. Also all rolls are opposed rolls.

>>49339883
I spose he could be doing some Riddle-esque blocking maneuvers

>>49335950
A homebrew I made doesn't work like that, but it's also a niche fetish game.

Pretty much the average combat between two people is a tug of war. You can attack regularly, but you'll only do basic damage. However you can also choose to 'maneuver' yourself so you have an advantage. Each time you do this you roll to see if you're maneuver is successful, and the opponent rolls to negate your maneuver. You can stack manuevers with each one granting you more advantages in the fight. If you're opponent has an advantage on you, you can choose to attempt to reverse the advantage or just play at your current disadvantage.

Different classes have different maneuver strategies to counter other fighting styles (Simultaneously maneuver against multiple foes, assassinate targets after getting massive advantage on them, purposely get disadvantage for risky counter attacks, take on an ally's disadvantage onto yourself, etc.). It works pretty well, though still needs a lot of play testing done.

It's vore.

>>49335950
FFG Star Wars

Its specialty dice are just awesome and apply in this situation as well as in less action-y ones.

But also, most RPGs that aren't D&D.

>>49336595

It see+ms good but it dramatically increases the complexity of both the fights and the character sheets, which causes the fights to go 2-3 times as long. 4-5 if you have a separate damage roll, 5-6 if you have that and a separate soak roll.

Depending on what your group is after, this might well be excellent for you. The trap is that this might well be something your group *thinks* they want but wouldn't actually enjoy.

1d20 +atr + prof vs AC abstracts a lot of things in pursuit of speed. And it succeeds wildly at that. At its best that makes for an easy to follow mechanic with a lot of time for vivid descriptions, but at its worst it leads to "19" "hit" "15 damage" sequences.

My solution is to make sure I'm hitting "good" descriptions at 3 points and "great" descriptions at 3. First attacks, killing blows, and almost killing blows always get a good description. If the die roll is a 1 or a 20 it changes nothing mechanically but I do my best to put on a 5-star description at that point.

Ideally I'll prompt the player for the description giving them opportunities to join in, but that's to be used sparingly. I don't try to "force" anything.

>>49336273

real life?

>>49336609

I've always thought that it was because of how tightly coupled Dogs tends to be with its setting. AW lead to a lot of "powered by the Apocalypse" games that made it clear how flexible the underlying system was while Dogs is still usually perceived as nothing more than "Mormon Gunslingers."

A couple more "powered by the Vineyard" or "_____ in the Vineyard" releases might go towards that. I've thought about releasing a few freebies to try and jump start it but I feel awkward about it

>>49335950
Rune Quest; you have to respond to attacks with a limited pool of defensive actions; the same number as your offensive actions usually; two or three for a human.

Say you have 3 combat actions; your character can try to parry or dodge up to three attacks per turn (they can still miss if no defence attempt is made), and can make up to three offensive actions as well.

In combat against a single fast enemy with more attacks than you can parry, or a swarm of enemies you can be overrun very quickly and find yourself unable to respond to the onslaught.

I like this because it is reflective of my real life experiences of being piled on by multiple attackers; you get overwhelmed very quickly unless you're some real tough shit.

>>49337809

And yet, correct.

>>49337128
>With some reskinning, you can go play pic related with this in the background
I've always wanted to use Dogs for kung fu Journey to the West stuff.

Dogs was actually my very first game like ten years ago now. I haven't played it since.

>>49341985

I've been trying to practice the system to fluff an Mass Effect style setting, since the Bioware games are nearly identical in format to the escalation system. Mass Effect encounters always follow the format of Conversation->Argument->Interrupt->Combat

>>49341985
>A couple more "powered by the Vineyard" or "_____ in the Vineyard" releases might go towards that. I've thought about releasing a few freebies to try and jump start it but I feel awkward about it
Would that be legal?
I mean, I suppose it doesn't really matter if you don't sell it, but...

>>49338794
I love World of Darkness, but all it really does is make the combat faster by making it all one roll instead of fucking around with multiple rolls. There's not even the opportunity to react as the defender, other than spending Willpower or Dodging, and Dodging takes your entire turn.

>>49336408
>(not meming really)
I'm not falling for that, anon.

>>49335950
How about this:
>Player: I raise my sword and attack from the right, attempting to cut through his side.
>Roll
>Gm: A good stroke, but the enemy was too fast, bringing his shield between your sword and him. Now he uses the moment of you, lowering your guard, by stabbing you in the chest.
>Rolls
>Gm: You quickly pull your sword back and manages to block his attack.
>REPEAT

>>49342486
OP has said elsewhere in the thread that he wants a mechanical difference.
We've all agreed that what you suggest is better, but not mechanically different.

And it doesn't matter because not only did you not read the thread, you probably aren't still here now.

>>49342597
Correct to first, wrong to second.

>>49335950
Every system if you're not friggin' stupid.

Player: I use my Bonus Action to throw my cape at him, then attack him through it.

DM: Okay, throwing the cape will grant you Advantage as he struggles to get it off of him.

Player: Based sneak attack! [rolls 2d20, gets an 11 and a 15, hits with the latter] BOOM!

DM: Well, he's still up. What's your Passive Perception?

Player: Uh...13?

DM: Remember that Bullette he had with him that burrowed two rounds ago? It emerges from the ground beneath your feet.

Player: SHIT!

>>49342713

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

>>49342713
What is happening that your best opening is throwing capes when there's a Bulette in the same encounter?

>>49342774
None of that is houserules: rogue uses item, gets sneak attack, bullette moves on its turn.

File: Mythras Imperative Lite.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49339176
>>49339909
RuneQuest 6/Mythras is probably the best tactical combat for the amount of time it takes to learn and memorize.

>>49337128

Dogs in the Vineyard's system is honestly what I'd use for a Sunless Sea or Fallen London game.

honestly just some systems that don't risk turning players off if you mention the M-word, sunless sea in particular seems to fit well because you can have that episodic "travelling from port to port" element, and skip over the time consuming "travelling across the zee slowly" element of the game, with only a few random rolls for "your ship bumps into a pirate during the journey" or "your ship bumps into Mt. Nomad" and have a brief minigame of combat or fleeing/sneaking past them

>>49335950
>>49342486

What I'm thinking of doing for martials in a game I'm designing is making it so they can, instead of attacking, "defend" in various ways which also bump them up the intiative order for the next turn as well as boosting their defensive stats. the "martials can defend" option really needs an additional boost like that to make it on par with straight attacking and getting an encounter overwith asap to minimise damage while also making it something other than a "tank only ability".

>>49343683
>honestly just some systems that don't risk turning players off

Or maybe I meant "settings" and not "systems". Maybe.

Let players tell what they want to do during the fight, roll dice for attacking and defending, reveal outcome of fight, what happens etc. and get on with it!

File: 1427670290901.jpg (138KB, 900x540px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 900x540px

>>49339909
>one masturbating into a cup
Although this requires the Expert Rules.

But RQ6/Mythras is a good alternative to "I hit, you hit, we all hit"-combat.

>>49342424
> What is, Expending bonus actions to dodge?
Or declaring defensive actions before your offensive ones.
Or having a storyteller that isn't Shit.

>>49336671
The players describe how they want to attack and, based on the dice rolls, I describe the results. When an enemy attacks a player, I describe what they are doing and usually have the player describe his reaction / defense (though sometimes I'll streamline things and just describe what happens without player input, depending on the flow of events and the pace of battle). I improvise modifiers as seems fitting.

Me: The hobgoblin, anxious to get at you, slams aside the goblin who had engaged you with his shield, clearing the way for a thrust of his spear at your midsection.

Player: I'm going to sidestep the spear, turning my body sideways and moving in the direction he shoved the goblin on the assumption that will crowd him and reduce his mobility. As I turn, I'm going to bring my sword across in an arc that intersects his neck. Hopefully his shield is still out of place from shoving the goblin.

Me: No! You start to turn, so the thrust is oblique, but the spearhead still slides across your stomach and catches, embedding itself in your left side for 3 points of damage.

Player: Shit! I'm down to 5.

Me: The blow is going to knock off your aim a bit, but you're already halfway through the swing, and if anything, the impact is going spin you around, increasing the speed of your arc. Roll to hit at -2, but we'll call damage a wash, with speed counterbalancing inaccuracy.

Player: Wait! Is it to late change my attack?

Me: You're already partway through your swing.

Player: But what if I just divert it? Like, I reflexively grab the spear with my left hand as its tip pushes into my side, and I turn my arc downwards, bringing my sword across the shaft where the hobgoblin's hand is, and hopefully slicing off some fingers and possibly bisecting the spear.

Me: Okay. I let you divert your attack without penalty, but you still have the original -2.

Player: 17! I miss! [roll-under system]

Me: Your body clenched up from the spear thrust, causing you to swing wild...

>>49344508
Something like this is much better than packaged maneuvers, especially since there will usually be a significant mechanical advantage for one maneuver over another, leading to a narrowing of options and sometimes a repetition of certain maneuvers that seems silly in character.

>>49344287
>>49342424

Yeah, a common thing in almost all dice pool based systems is increasing passive defenses at the cost of your current dicepool.

However, it still means what you're DOING actively every turn is attacking.

>>49337823
Currently suffering through interpreting LoTW myself. Spent several hours bookmarking, gathering/writing cheat sheets, and test running to make sure I had a grasp on the system so I could GM it.

That said, the system does seem fairly robust and evocative with the Secret Arts (once you wrap your head around them) adding intriguing options. Time spent though seems to be a recurring issue though.

>>49336273
>>49336321
>>49337793
>>49336734
>>49338809
>>49339252
>>49339328
>>49342162
>>49342486
>>49342651
>>49342713
>>49344508
>ITT: People don't understand the concept of gamefeel and resort to implying everyone is just bad at games
Look, we get it, you can fluff things however you want, and describe doing all sorts of things. But pretty much every roleplaying game is turn based, and you have very little ability to react to your opponent's turn, or even in concert with allies. This is really just a result of games needing to be understandable, while actual violence is often chaotic and confusing.

Suffice it to say, "every system, if you're creative" is not a valuable answer. Because plenty of systems don't facilitate interactive combat.

>>49344287
>>49344583
What are you even talking about?
You don't have bonus actions. You have one Instant action per turn, and as many Reflexive actions as is appropriate. If you want to Dodge, you have to give up your turn AND sacrifice your Defense. Spending a point of Willpower will give you +2 to your Defense.

Whether the Storyteller is or isn't shit has no bearing on the system.

"Declaring defensive actions before your offensive ones" isn't even a thing. If you want to Dodge, at the top of the round you announce that you're Dodging this turn.

Do you even know how this game works?

>>49344754
>But pretty much every roleplaying game is turn based, and you have very little ability to react to your opponent's turn
Why? The attacker describes what he's trying to do and the defender describes his reaction to this. Dice are rolled, and the GM describes the results, which result in changes in status and positioning that affect the next person's turn.

In order to keep things immediate and add to the feel of back-and-forth, I like to have people locked in melee against each other go one after the other, before resolving other people's turns. In fact, in situations that seem conducive to it, I'll go back and forth between adversaries a couple of times before moving on.

>Suffice it to say, "every system, if you're creative" is not a valuable answer.
I think this is actually an argument for a rules-light system that is more conducive to improvisation.

>>49344932
Just because you're describing your reaction to an attack doesn't mean you're mechanically doing anything. Of course, systems with lots of dice rolling (attacker rolls to hit, defender rolls to dodge, attacker rolls damage, defender rolls soak) have high player interaction, but grind things to a halt.

This is also why systems that have, say, points allocation are good for this. You can do more things in a "turn".

>>49338809
>>49342162

Fluffing out an attack doesn't change the fact you're basically rolling 1d10+STR damage per hit against what is essentially a damage sponge until the GM tells you that it's dead.

Actually engaging combat comes about when the game gives you options that are just as viable, if not moreso, than just rolling for attack until the enemy dies.

4e had the right idea honestly, especially when most powers actually had mechanical effects that occured even if you missed, which meant that no matter what, combat was still moving forward.

As opposed to 3.PF and 5e where either you deal damage, you put your opponent at a disadvantage, or you wasted turn (as well as resources) because you missed/they saved.

File: IMG_6331.jpg (83KB, 640x368px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 640x368px

>>49344754
>no ability to react

>>49345020
it's a fallacy to think that dice rolling slows down the game significantly.

>>49345020
>Just because you're describing your reaction to an attack doesn't mean you're mechanically doing anything.
If your GM is decent, your descriptions will have a mechanical effect on combat.

>>49345484
this

>>49343201

By RAW, the rogue doesn't have abilities that allow it to throw their cape as a diversion to sneak attack with.

So the thing that you're suggesting would technically be a houserule.

>>49345500
thus houseruling

>>49335950
Shadowrun - with high enough Initiative you can get multiple attacks before opponent have their first.

>>49345563
There's a difference between a house rule, which modifies the permanent mechanics of the game, and an improvised effect for a particular action. Most RPGs at least mention the concept of giving the GM discretion in applying situational effects and so forth, so that's actually in keeping with the rules. Also, if you play an RPG like a robot picking options out of a book of war game rules, you're so incredibly doing it wrong.

>>49345644

Adding to this, combat is also lethal, to the point where if you don't have good armor on or some other means of soaking damage, a security guar will kill you with their first attack if you don't roll high enough on your soak roll.

Not to mention how the nature of runs means that if you set off an alarm or take too long, a corp's first response units will show up and murder you as well, so planning out your runs and having a dude who can disable shit like security cameras, tripwires, phone lines, etc. was also insanely more useful than charging in and blowing everything to holy hell.

>>49345517
>>49345484
That's not a situation limited to fucking Pathfinder. In fact, Pathfinder has several character types specifically built around reacting.

It's a situation in THE MAJORITY OF GAMES. Fuck, even games with lots of combat options tend to have you make those options at the start of the turn, and at best we're talking about systems like GURPS, where Addison attacks Bailey and Bailey rolls to defend. That's still only two people interacting on a set initiative, as opposed to some kind of complex clusterfuck that feels more like a real fight.

Very few systems are going to have you doing something every turn and in response to things

>>49345423
4e had a good design philosophy, but combat still took forever, and required a grid. As someone who primarily plays over IRC-likes, that shit is a dealbreaker.

>>49345499
>It's a fallacy to think that something that consumes time consumes time.
What.

>>49345500
That's houseruling at worst or situational modifiers at best. Regardless, that's still Addison rolling attack at Bailey. It's not like a video game or even a LARP, where active dodging is a possibility.
That's a limitation of the format for the most part. Just like it's a limitation that combat that should take only a few moments eats up more time than any other part of a game.

>>49345709
>>49345644
Being able to take multiple turns doesn't mean the game isn't turn based. It just means initiative passes are king. There's a reason Wired Reflexes costs so damned much.

File: ability checks in moldvay basic.png (112KB, 537x185px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 537x185px

>>49345607
If you go back to early D&D (which is where it all started) there was a lot of stuff that just plain wasn't covered, at least not explicitly. So you had to fill in the gaps. This was the way that everybody did things way back when because if they didn't, they wouldn't have a functional game. So the DM would arbitrate by fiat or would decide how to specifically apply generalized game policies, like the one in the pic here.

And deciding what happens in one instance isn't a rule, it's a ruling. There's a difference. A rule is something that affects the game on a permanent, or at least a long term basis.

>>49345733
Don't bother, they're impossible to reason with because their edition is dead and gone.

>>49335950
The riddle of steel and it's successors use d10 dice pools. You allocate dice to various maneuvers then roll opposed checks.
Check out the song of swords General for a free beta ruleset of one of the successors. Also comes with a wwii era dieselpunk gun game as well.

>>49335950
w40k rpg

>>49345666

1) Anything that isn't covered in the book is a houserule, because like it or not, the fact that you allowed it to go off means that it's now a permanent aspect of that game from that moment forward.

2) When RPGs mention the concept of applying situational modifiers, it means doing something like "oh, that guy gave me a good description and the enemy wouldn't see it coming, I'll give him a +2 modifier to their roll," it does not cover something like a rogue spending a bonus action to gain advantage from throwing their cape in a dude's face.

3) The rules are made to give everyone involved a rough idea of what can or cannot be done within the context of the game. If you want to play a game where people can spend bonus actions (or their equivalent) to pull off extra moves, there are plenty of games where the rules allow someone to do so while still staying within the context of the rules.

Just realize that D&D is not one of those games.

>>49345733
>In fact, Pathfinder has several character types specifically built around reacting.

Since when? Unless you mean like AoO stuff, reactions aren't really big in PF.

Could be in 3rd party I guess.

>>49345753
Games back them relied on the GM, not the book, that's why.
People these days can't comprehend that.

>>49345733
>Being able to take multiple turns doesn't mean the game isn't turn based.
Well, if OP wanted real time combat system he should have said so.

File: 1473292202802.gif (7KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 350x200px

>>49345733

>4e had a good design philosophy, but combat still took forever, and required a grid. As someone who primarily plays over IRC-likes, that shit is a dealbreaker.

Combat took forever because the math for HP vs. damage was fucked at the beginning. Nowadays though, they've been fixed it (pic related).

Even the grid thing isn't that big a deal since we have shit like roll20 that gives you a built in map function as well as special effects like dynamic lighting and fog of war.

>>49336262
Oh. Hell. No.

>>49345830
>>49345753
This is kind of a fallacy. Again, we're not asking "is it possible to houserule". We're asking DOES A SYSTEM LIKE THIS EXIST.
>>49345822
There's an entire fucking class based around it. The Swashbuckler gets to use Penache to make counterattacks.

>>49345821
>1) Anything that isn't covered in the book is a houserule.
That's not even remotely true. The book not telling me what penalty running through gravel while intoxicated gives doesn't mean that it's a houserule.

Situational modifiers don't really work the way you're making it out, and combat has the least situational modifiers. In fact, often in combat, you'll take penalties, and that will give the opponent penalties (i.e. -3 to your roll to give the opponent an ongoing -2 to their rolls).

>>49345859
OP is clearly asking for combat that's more involved.
Or at least that's what I'm looking for now.

>>49345887
I also dislike 4e for a lot of other reasons (d20s, being level based, being class based), but the basic ideas were good.
And I know there's stuff like Roll 20, but I've never been a fan of that. I think games are best when they're just discussions and dice. Maybe some inspirational images.

>>49345955
>There's an entire fucking class based around it. The Swashbuckler gets to use Penache to make counterattacks.

Thought you meant that. He can do it about twice, since parry&riposte costs a total of 2 panache.

And is otherwise also a fucking terrible class.

>>49345955

>And I know there's stuff like Roll 20, but I've never been a fan of that. I think games are best when they're just discussions and dice. Maybe some inspirational images.

I was honestly more miffed at the implication that because it uses grids, it meant that it was somehow a bad game.

I also wouldn't necessarily say that levels/classes in an of themselves made it bad either since WotC at least made them balanced.

But whatever, to each their own. I'm not going to jump down your throat because of an opinion or whatever.

>>49345955

>The book not telling me what penalty running through gravel while intoxicated gives doesn't mean that it's a houserule.

By definition, a houserule is a rule that only applies to your table/house.

>>49345987
I've seen them do some crazy shit.

>>49346034
Grids, classes, and levels may not be bad, but they're not for me.
I did enjoy finally playing Pathfinder when it was for real and at a physical table, though. But more often I'm playing with people on the internet.

>>49336228
4e's hardly even useful for fueling a fire.

>>49336262
>The Big Bad activates his everything-proof shield, what do?
"I use my secret never-miss instant-kill technique that was designed specifically to pierce everything-proof shields that I learned from Master N'aruto!"

>>49345821
1) Page 193 of the PHB. Even in an Adventurer's League game, a thief would be able to be creative with their Cunning Action to Use an Object to throw a cloak over the target. Even if you chose that interpretation as wrong, there is no excuse not allowing the fluttering cloak to Hide behind.

2) You mean a situational modifier like gaining Advantage in 5e? That was literally the example used you drooling mongloid.

3) It's a Rogue's codified class feature not just everybody.

I realize you know nothing about 5e, but w/e you'll still try to pull pedantic bullshit like >>49346108

>>49346114
Swashbuckler is literally the worst class in Pathfinder that was so weak Paizo's dev team immediately errata'd a Cavalier archetype using Swashbuckler abilities because it was superior to the Swashbuckler in every way. They have been trying to buff the Swashbuckler since its release.

>>49347009
Except the Daring Champion literally sucks at those things far worse than the swashbuckler, and does less damage than the swashbuckler because their smites suck ass without suing things that make everything ELSE suck ass for them instead.

>>49346989
Cunning action is not meant to be used with attack-like actions, such as throwing alchemist fire's or, in this case, a cloak. You are trying to covet a bonus action advantage out of a 3rd level feature.

>Even if you chose that interpretation as wrong, there is no excuse not allowing the fluttering cloak to Hide behind.

Nigga you kidding.
1, what action do you use to hide behind the cloak (since you used the bonus to flutter it),
2. do you really expect your opponents to lose track of where your rogue is just because you fluttered your fucking cape

>>49347051
It lost parry/riposte, but it still deals about 2-3 times as much damage and actually has useful class abilities, something the Swash lacks.

>>49345733
>>it's a fallacy to think that dice rolling slows down the game significantly.
>>significantly.

>>49337943
Look after the dark eye edition 4.1. Problem is, just version 4.0 got translated into english, and just partly. But 4.1 is the shit.
You can decide how much you commit to each attack or parry and if you commit and don`t hit you get an equal disadvantage to your next action.
there are a bunch of special moves you can learn foroffense or defense, even in different fighting styles, and you still have to pay the dice penalty for your special moves, even after learning. So you always havce to weight in the pros and cons of every move.
And it is fun to build specalised fighters in differnet styles, that per design, work better in different cirumstances.
Also: Nice world building.

>>49347102
>>49347009
Also, do note that the cavalier is considered to be in the top 5 worst classes along with the swash, because just like it, it's kinda cripplingly overspecialized.

Also note that parry&riposte are first level abilities. Cavalier could just dip for them, if he really wanted. Dip Inspired Blade and you even got a weapon focus out of it.

>>49347209
That's a completely subjective thing, anon. But for me, any unnecessary dice rolling is significant, that's why I prefer one to two rolls at best.

>>49347210
Rolemaster did this long ago with its OB and DB

>>49347102
It's advantage to one roll, which is not using it as an attack. Next you will be saying Mastermind can never use their 3rd level feature. You could not be more wrong about this, and even if you were correct it's literally up to the DM even in the most stringent "official" RAW tables. Be a bad DM all you want, but that's a nice trick to use on a fight and is seen in pulpy action films and stories (like firing a gun through a bag/flower bouquet/coat/etc.)

>>49347051
Nigga you don't even play Pathfinder do you. Mounted cavaliers suck, but no one plays them mounted because a full animal companion means two fighters for the price of one. The tier list of the Cavalier in Pathfinder was always criminally low.

A Daring Champion had all the best features of a Swashbuckler, better class abilities, and isn't choked on action economy which the Swashbuckler 100% is.

>>49347362
>Next you will be saying Mastermind can never use their 3rd level feature.

The _sole function_ of the mastermind's feature is granting that advantage... to somebody else. If the cape does THAT on top of all the other items you can use then what the fuck is the point of going mastermind?

Look, Arcane Trickster needs to be like 13 for Versatile Trickster to do that. You can't just get advantage on demand from something that's meant for drinking potions and throwing caltrops.

>>49347362
And clearly you've never actually played said cdaring champion, because those abilities you say they get that make them better really don't make them better.

>>49335950
Don't use a system. Fucking idiot.

>>49347362
Don't bother, anyone who actually thinks Daring Champion Cavaliers can excel at what Swashbucklers do don't know how the class works.

>>49347509
>>49347595
Okay, what does the swashbuckler do that a swash 1/Daring champion X (preferably Dwarf, but, if you want ot minmax it) doesn't do better?

>>49347469
You are comparing a one time advantage in melee to granting advantage to anyone within *30ft* without justification and granting advantage to *all* attacks against the creature effected as a bonus action.

>>49347509
What magical ability besides Parry/Riposte, Initiative, and Precise Strike do you feel the Swashbuckler has to justify saying they are better than a Daring Cavalier?

Base cavalier is on the high end of tier 5, Swashbuckler is tier 6. In tier 5 only Brawler is better.

>>49341985
I ran a year-long Dogs game in a nonstandard setting. Definitely in my top three favorite campaigns of all time.

>>49341985
Fuck it. I am mid stream on a powered by the apocalypse This War of Mine TTRPG homebrew, and now I realize it should have been Dogs based to begin with.

STARTING OVER!

>>49347653
All of those are advantages for one attack. The AT gives advantage to all attacks for the turn, and, you, being a rogue, also only have one attack. Help also only just gives advantage to one attack, and giving it away from the rogue is dumb, since rogue more or less has the best use for Advantage on a single attack.

Also, "I have a cape", wow, such heavy justification it requires, it's totally fair now. Such investment from your character.

>>49335950
>Any system where combat isn't like this:

OK. Here's a system where combat isn't like that. Have fun.

Player: I attack him with my sword

*Roll*

Gm: Hold that roll. His Contingent Time Stop goes off upon being attacked, because he Divined that you would attack him earlier this morning.

*Rolls*

Gm: OK, he gets 4 extra turns due to the Time Stop. With those actions, he'll cast a Maximized Shivering Touch which auto-hits since you're adjacent and stationary, since there's no save it auto-reduces your Dex score to 0. He'll cast 2 Delayed Blast Fireballs with a 1 round delay each. Finally he'll cast a Dimension Door and teleport 640 feet directly away from you. All right, those all go off, take effect instantly, and in order. The Shivering Touch damage reduced your Dex to 0, so you don't get a save against the Fireballs. Each fireball does 20d6 damage. That's 70 damage each so go ahead and make a pair of saves to avoid instantly dying from Massive Damage. And you're immobile for the next 20 rounds because you're at 0 Dex, so he'll be throwing more spells at you for a while.

Gm: Oh, and since you're immobile, your attack automatically misses.

REPEAT

>>49335950
Sword Path Glory.

Turns are 1/12 seconds.
Max speed is based on your entire items weight, speed stat, sex, height stat and str stat.
Acceleration is based on max speed and dex stat.

You move move an hex after X turns (X is based on the acceleration), and then after you make your move, you will move another hex after X -1 turns, and then after moving again one hex, you reach the next hex after x-2 turns...... this goes on until X - Y turns per hex, become your max acceleration.


Weapons can do slashing and stabbing damage (some have just stabbing and others just slashing), you decide what to use when you want to attack, they have different damages and different hit location tables.
There is also the speed, that can be normal, slow or fast. Slow cost more turns but do more damage, fast cost less but do less damage.
Turns are simultaneous, you say you want to attack and after X turns the move is made.
There is also the direction of the attack, stabbing motion, left to right attack, right to left attack or up to down attack, this influence the table you will use to check where you hit the enemy, this also influence damage since some body parts arent simmetric.

Then there is shield (you can try to parry with weapon too), when using a shield (or weapon to parry), you say you want to parry and after x turns, the action is done. On the basic rules (there is a book with even more advanced rules, that I never saw on web) this reduce the enemy chance to hit you, being hit while trying to parry also reduce the chance to hit, but less.

If you hit someone you look at an table based on the body part you hit and type of attack (slashing or stabing), to find some damage value.
You find 2 values, shock damage and usual damage.
Shock damage, make you stop battling and/or pass out, the change is based on your biggest weapon skill and willpower stat.

>>49348358
Usual damage is used on some other tables, to find the amount of time needed to roll to see if you will survive, the chance of survival if based on health skill and damage you received.
The player make this check 5 times, so if you need to roll to survive after 1 minute, you will roll again after another minute and again after another minute....... until the 5th roll, if you survive the fifth roll you will recover at some amount of time.
If you receive some damage during those 5 rolls in a row, the 5 rolls in a row thing will restart with an timer based on your current damage.

Forgot to add, damage tables have an line to each armor type, so it reduce the amount of damage you will receive. When you hit someone you roll for armor glancing that can reduce even more damage.

Based on your biggest weapon skill and willpower stat, the situation you are (and sometimes your ego stat), when you stay you will attack someone you must make a roll, this is the morale roll, if you pass this roll you will be able to do attacks at the enemy (after x turns you will need to make the roll again, is is based on time needed to attack with the weapon, weapon skill and willpower)

>>49336349
Dungeon World is good for new players. You can't just run WoW raids in it, everything needs a narrative basis and description. That said, it's very limited.
>>49336622
>>49336455
>>49336825
>>49336881

I've read a big chunk of RoS (and Band of Bastards as well). They've both got a heavy combat focus and the ability to stab people in the dick, but I haven't played either myself.

>>49337128
Dogs looks pretty damn good. I'd love to run it sometime.

>>49339144
I didn't know all this about GURPS. What's the catch?

>>49339238
I've heard the names but no details. How do they work?

>>49341985
>>49342348
I'm stealing this.

>>49343683
In my current dark-fantasy homebrew, I'm using a "martials defend" feature. Classes with military training are able to declare blocks and parries on behalf of allies (assuming they're close enough) and create openings for allies to hit back.

E.g. the Arcanist is running from a doppelganger. Ganger takes a shot at his back. Pit Fighter intercepts with his spear (as arcanist has his back turned). Crit success, so pit fighter makes a free attack on the doppelganger. Ranger then uses her turn to put an arrow straight into the ganger, who's off balance and can't dodge.


It's not an RPG system, but X-Wing miniatures has players declare their moves in advance and then make them in a fixed order. Without (expensive) upgrades there's no way to react to your opponent's movements on the fly, representing the general chaos of a space battle. Collisions are common.

>>49336671
>how fast is combat
If you're still here through this shitfest, OP, it's pretty slow the first few fights you get into what with the sheer amount of options you can do. Once you've got a little experience though it can really flow fast.
Not to mention that fights can be ended in a single round with a lucky or well planned strike.

>>49346989

1) You cannot use a cunning action to throw your cloak because it cannot be used for an attack action.

2) Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to use your bonus action to roll stealth.

3) Throwing dirt in someone's eyes using a standard action is not the same as throwing dirt in someone's eyes using a bonus action.

4) It's a Rogue's codified class feature yes, but you're using it in a way that isn't covered by the rules.

I mean, if you want to houserule that people can just get advantage with a bonus action by throwing shit in someone's face, by all means go ahead, I'm not going to stop you chief.

>>49347653
Swashbucklers are tier 5, and furthermore that's not how tiers work.

There is no "high-end", all tier 5 classes have the same problem. Every encounter has to play to their strength because they have very little going on for them outside of what they're designed to do. (Mostly fighting shit.)

>>49348550
>. What's the catch?
non linear dice, this make converting ideas to gurps way harder

>>49349013
>there'a no difference between classes in each tier
And swashbuckler is tier 6. It's not even good at dealing damage, like at all.

>>49344754
Honestly dude it sounds more like a problem on your end.

>>49349164
No they aren't, it's your own bias against the class.

I admit they probably won't deal more damage than a Brawler or even a Cavalier on average with or without optimization, but not being able to do good damage at all is bullshit.

Also that's not what I said, I said there is no "high-end" in tiers. (Unless you count the classes in red/blue)

Sounds like you're confusing tiers for a measure of power and not a measure of options available to them based on their own class abilities. I fail to see how a Swashbuckler is explicitly worse off than a Cavalier or Brawler in the three scenarios. Other than your false assumption about their damage output.

>>49349276
It's literally an impossibility of the system. It's not about fluffing, it's about the literal feel of the dice mechanics.

>>49349054
Convert the idea, not the mechanic

>>49349363
Nigga, they are tier 6 on /pfg/'s tier list right now.

>>49349363
You never answered my question: what does he Swashbuckler excel at over a Daring Cavalier? Because a Daring Cavalier does more damage and has more utility without question.

Another question what does Swashbuckler X do that Swashbuckler 3/X can't?

Hero System lets you track how someone misses, whether by dodging, parrying, taking it with armor, etc.

>>49340281
seconding this

>>49335950
depends if your players are remotly in your game for combat.

otherwise i'd resolve all combat like in monkey island, through wit not steel.

>>49345563
By RAW, the Rogue has the ability to Use an Object as a bonus action. Throwing a cape is using an object.

Also by RAW, the DM is permitted to adjudicate how various actions might affect combat.

All of that is RAW.

>>49348550

Burning wheel has several times of combat conflict resolution systems.

The simplest being you describing what your intent is, then describing your task, which is how you plan on achieving your intent. The GM will tell you what skill you need to roll in order to achieve that and a target number (or opposed by the enemies task and intent roll) and then if you succeed at your roll you achieve your intent. So essentially a description followed by 1 roll can be a combat.


The more complicated method involves rolling to determine your positioning vs your opponent, receiving combat modifiers based on situation and the length of your weapon vs theirs and then you script your actions ahead of time, as does the enemy in batches of 3-6 actions generally (based on a stat) then actions for both sides are revealed one at a time and you do various vs tests based on what actions you each chose.

>>49354375
That's an attack, you stupid sack of shit. Get your fucking head out of your ass.

>>49347737

Dude, if you htink this is bad, I accidentally reinvented GURPS once, straight up thought I had some hot shit idea with 3d6 roll under.

The life of a crunchfag is beset by torment.

>>49339864
It sounds like playing Torchbearer or mouseguard honestly, where everything is resolved at once by secretly choosing actions.

>>49336408
Seconding GURPS
>targeted attacks (that aren't just for pure extra damage; crippling an enemy's hand is a pretty good way to gain an advantage)
>telegraphed attacks
>all-out attacks (of several varieties)
>deceptive attacks
>committed attacks
>defensive attacks
>feints
>aiming
>active defenses (of three varieties)
>all-out defense (of two varieties)
>can hit the deck for a bonus to dodge ranged attacks
>can back away from an attacker for a bonus - that increases when used with technical martial arts or fencing weapons - to defense against melee attacks

And this is just some stuff off the top of my head.

>>49355656
I think all homebrewing has that issue. My first homebrew system was Savage Worlds, and my next homebrew was Blades in the Dark (to be fair I was first there, but Blades in the Dark is much more focused).

>>49346205
>secret never-miss instant-kill technique
Sounds more like Exalted to me.

>>49347554
what does this even mean

are you advocating that freeform savagery

you fool you've doomed us all

>>49335950
have you tried actually roleplaying?

alternately, 4e does a lot of that work for you.

>>49336228
pic origin?

>>49350193
well, parry/reposte for one.

that said, if a daring cavalier uses order of the dragon they can even buff allies, so that's another option available.

Or course Yojimbo with Order of Dragon does it better, but still.

>>49346205
>The Big Bad activates his everything-proof shield, what do?
>"I use my secret never-miss instant-kill technique that was designed specifically to pierce everything-proof shields

Literally Exalted.

File: 1442313137953.jpg (38KB, 588x640px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 588x640px

>>49348550

The catch with GURPS is that you can never enjoy another system ever again and you'll spend every non-GURPS session thinking "I wish I was in my basement, designing GURPS custom settings".

Also GURPS require a quite a bit of system mastery. Not as much as 3.x, but the barrier of entry is higher though.

File: 128603385689.jpg (6KB, 216x144px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 216x144px

>>49361284
>"Man, the setting and story and players and GMs are cool, but this'd be so much better if we were playing GURPS."
>tfw this happens everytime without fail.

File: 412f93787bb61630d89c7b9078c2e3b4.jpg (18KB, 236x354px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x354px

>>49335950
The best melee combat game for me is the one from Honor+intrigue. An age of sail game.

You have 4 stats: might daring savvy flair.
from 0 to 3 at character creation.

Then you have 4 combat skills:
Melee , weapon , dodge , ranged
from 0 to 3 at character creation

So how this works?

You sum stat + skill +2d6 depending of the manouver. The target number is 9+dodge skill to hit or plus another stats for manuvers
and there is like 20 manuvers.

Also you have a combat style that let you specialize in 5 manuvers and give you a little bonus with something.

The thing is that you are gonna be using manouvers all the time cos they are super intiutive and they counter each other.
For example one npc was using the cape to distract a player, using it to FEINT and CLOACK PARRY (same as parry but uses another atribute, so is for a diferent type of character). So my player without knowledge of the rules sais that he wants to knock if off to impede that and then lunge.
Without knowing (you dont need to explain the manuvers extensively just show then) he declared a BEAT to the cloak to impose a -1d6 to the use of the cape (that is huge) and then he uses LUNGE that does +1d6 dmg but gives you some penalties and kills the noble cos he failed the parry.

>>49335950
>>49336228
4E definitely has that, but it's not very different. You hit more often, but everything has 100x hit points.

>>49361411
you have a lot more options than basic attacks, anon. people compared it to a WoW hotbar. WoW isn't "I swing he swing," that's runescape.

>>49361284
>>49361338
I played GURPS a couple of times (Fantasy, Cyberpunk, Bab 5), it never occured to me even once.

>>49360973
>>49361252
Literally why a third edition had to be made and perfect defenses and attacks were thrown out. (Especially when house rules come into play)

File: rothtired.jpg (613KB, 1584x888px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1584x888px

I've tried to homebrew this problem away with counter-attacking, active defense, cover, terrain penalties, flexible turn orders, etc, etc, but I just can't get away from the need for turns in the first place. If you remove the system entirely, you descend into chaos because no one is sure of what they can do and when, or what the enemy can do to them.

>>49364701
>but I just can't get away from the need for turns in the first place

Dungeon World functions without turns. Popcorn initiative sort of turns the notion of turns on its head and makes the resolution of turns a game and strategy in and of itself, which is cool.

Sounds like you just need to git gud.

>>49361176
literally kill yourself, why are you here if you don't know shinobu.
why are you alive

>>49336493
There's a shit load of these posts, but they're all basically wrong.


OP is asking about systems that don't have that kind of combat. Of course you can make that sort of underlying combat system interesting/fun through various means, but it's still there essentially, having an infinitely good go will not actually resolve this issue.

>hey guys what flavors of ice cream do you have besides chocolate
>you just haven't given chocolate a chance! chocolate is a classic flavor, have you tried fudge, double chocolate, triple chocolate chip?

>>49366972, >>49367024
Short version; no.
Long version; not one that's actually easy to use and your players will actually stick with.

>>49365526
>Dungeon World
>Quality combat
Nigga...

>>49361241
>Parry/Riposte
Literally errata'd a month after release because of how bad the Swashbuckler is. Thank you for just proving my point.

>>49367221

>Games that rely on their GM to make an interesting encounter confuse and terrify me

>>49367364

>Look at how dangerous I made this dragon with only 11 HP by abusing FIAT, aren't I a master DM?

DW is trash.

>>49367364
I *like* Dungeon World, but I would never say it has good combat rules. It is a game that is very good at the B/X style quick cinematic combat reaolved by a few rolls that requires an in-fiction justification as to how it is happening. That is not a good combat resolution system, that is a good generic resolution system.

There's next to no actual tactical depth, and having a really great idea doesn't have a good way to express that with a poor roll.

>>49335950
Highlander

File: 1456707476337.gif (1014KB, 391x267px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 391x267px

>>49341927
>HAHAHAHAHAHA GOOD JOKE ANON

>>49368054
I remember hearing that the dev's podcast games he hands out +2 bonuses for good ideas like candy, making the chance of a bad roll screwing up a good plan rather miniscule.

>>49367364

Strike! Is so much better at combat than DW.

>>49366734
>How does he live without knowing this obscure anime that I like?
>Instead of sharing this thing that I like with someone who's interested, I'll shitpost and mock him! That'll show him for not knowing about things I like! Maybe he'll post in my anime girl thread tomorrow!

>>49372719
>anything is so much better at combat than DW
FTFY.

>>49335950
Im personally a fan of Fantasycraft's combat system. While not entirely free from the 3.5/pf attack tennis combat, it does allow a myriad of offensive actions and maneuvers other than smacking them with your weapon of choice( or at least you can do it without taking a feat for each one you want to use without getting smacked in the face).Grappling, tripping, taunting, threatening etc. are all valid options, plus a series of advanced tricks and improvements let you enhance your role in combat beyond how much damage you can do how quickly. Sure, you're gonna have one guy who'll just go full brick soldier who can't get off unless he's making big attack rolls all day, but the system gives enough options that the player has genuine tactical choices. It also goes without saying that the GM/NPCs also have these same choices, as well as a variety of group tactics/specializations available to them. It's not a great departure from the typical D20 style combat, but it feels a lot more open.

Also not only are the grapple rules not ass, but they have proper rules for using a screaming club.

I run games in D&D 5e but I use a bargaining system with my players. Where one of them describes their attack and we haggle for dice bonuses.

Like, if they want to throw everything into the attack I give them their damage multiplied by 1.5 but it's gonna either cost them a -4 to their attack role or -4 to their AC for the next round.

Or they can play it defensively, adding to their AC by not attacking this round or taking -4 to their attack roll.

It's basically giving agency to my players and keeping it from being a tennis match of back-and-forths that produce no results.

Or they lose part of their AC the next round

>>49335950
The system in your example isn't the problem, the player and the DM are the problems.

>>49335950
Any realistic system, the problem is combat take forever

Aces and Eights breaks down combat to 1/10th of a second

what system haves the fastest combat? savage worlds?

>>49376523

If the game doesn't give you a mechanical boon to match the fluff that's being presented, the majority of people won't bother to describe their attack beyond "I swing my X at the enem(ies)y ahead of me."

Especially if the system not only makes combat in and of itself the poorest choice you could make, but also makes any special ability you could've spiced things up while adding mechanical depth an even poorer option to take.

>>49376980

Combat only becomes a slog when nothing is happening.

And I say this as someone who has run and played in campaigns where combat lasted the entire session.

File: have you been to a doctor, are you healthy.jpg (25KB, 429x288px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 429x288px

>>49346205
>"Help me /tg/! I need a game that fixes the problems of 3.x and 5e D&D!
>"Try 4e"
>"But 4e is shit!"
>mfw

>>49379221

Don't bother getting too mad.

These are the same people who make "what system would I need to run X?" threads yet get pissy when you suggest GURPS as a system.

I treat anyone who makes those sorts of threads like I treat fat women who ask "does this outfit make my ass look big?"

Most times, they just want someone to say something they want to hear, rather than say something they need to hear.

>>49379106
The DM could add in weaknesses, terrain, events, items etc. In the example it's just a guy fighting a guy in a void.

>>49379730

When you add weaknesses, you need to add strengths.

When you add terrain, you need to add grids.

When you add events, you need to consider the pace of combat.

And when you add items, you need to add qualities, such as the item's functions and how often you can utilize said functions.

And when you consider all of the variables that each one of these individual elements add, and the general apathy of your players, you begin to realize that it's all just added complexity for little to no benefit since most GM's are NOT game designers who know how to properly balance shit.

Fighting a dude in a void is the most boring way you could spend combat but at the same time, the only reason why combat takes place in a void is because the system doesn't give a GM, or their players, any reason to think beyond the void since anything beyond that is just pointless detail that offers no mechanical benefit.

And you can call me a rollplayer all you want but that's just the way humans are.

>>49372719
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

>>49379280
>It's fine to dislike 3.x, but if you also dislike 4e or GURPS that's just unacceptable.

>>49379871
It's not about balance, and it is beneficial to add those thing because it's fun.

File: jRzpANy.jpg (143KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1920x1080px

>>49372752
calm down bro, i gave you the name you need to find the source
I just also felt disparaging you for not knowing this relatively mainstream anime I like.

>>49381433

Which is all well and good provided that the game is built around those elements of play.

If they aren't, then you're just adding complexity that your players will never use, while also sacrificing limited time which could've been spent on campaign shit to do produce it.

File: eba.jpg (56KB, 579x567px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 579x567px

>>49372752
>obscure

>>49381522
Games with systems like in the OP are built around those elements of play.

>>49335950
Burning Wheel

>>49382025

Games where you can say "I attack" and either you deal damage or fail are games that would be the equivalent to a beat-em-up.

Sure you have combos, unique weapons, different characters with their own strengths and weaknesses and shit like that but if I can get through the game by mashing buttons and jump+kicking anyone who would stand in my way, I have no reason not to do it.

This is called "optimum strategy" in game design and if the player can ignore an option in favor of a simpler one that gives more benefits, the player will chose that option each and every time.

Which is why when OP asked for games that DON'T do that shit, he was really asking for games where charging in and swatting one another until one of you died was less viable than taking your time, looking at your environment, and considering your approach since one mistake could set you back further than you could afford.

Of course, combat is moot when magic can destroy any encounter.

>>49382146
The OP clearly shows that continuously rolling for attacking isn't the optimum strategy. Both because it's a better idea to do something else on your round, and because it's boring.

>>49376980
Not RuneQuest

>>49382219

First off, it's not the better idea because anything else you do is either situational or not always the best means of confrontation. There's not always going to be a boulder to topple on top of a boss and there isn't always going to be medium sized humanoids to trip/grapple/shove into submission.

Attacking is better because there are relatively few monsters that can outright no-sell your damage rolls and the by the time there are, you or someone else in the party will likely have a means of dealing magical damage yourself.

Also, the most optimum strategy is not considered one because it's exciting, it's considered one because it's effective in most situations.

You don't win anything for style points.

>>49382338
>There's not always going to be a boulder to topple on top of a boss

Not with that attitude there isn't!

>>49382146
>he was really asking for games where charging in and swatting one another until one of you died was less viable than taking your time, looking at your environment, and considering your approach since one mistake could set you back further than you could afford.

Oh, so Shadowrun does that - you're much more often focusing on doing your objective and enemies are only a thing you absolutely have to kill when the GM sets up encounters to force it that way, the rest of the time combat is just stalling to give the less combat intensive PCs time to do their job before everyone hustles back into the night.

>>49379871
Every single thing you mentioned, including enemy strengths, could have a mechanical benefit for the players.

>>49382338
There should be stuff that lets the players be creative at every encounter area, and if they're forced into rolling to hit-tennis then the DM hasn't done his job or the players are stupid and should be punished by enemy brutality. Basic combat should never be the the most effective method in a situation (unless the people playing seriously think that's fun).
Also, you do win something for style points, you win fun.

File: who comes overdressed to a battlefield?.png (162KB, 204x248px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 204x248px

>>49385952

Though one thing that has to be pointed out is that "I roll to hit my opponent" is a thing one character can specialise in, that can be their "style" of play - in a sense, even that needs to be interesting and have more interesting and varied choices of how they "hit" their opponent.

>>49335950
Play Streetfighter, the rpg by White Wolf.

No, seriously. Combat in that is far more descriptive and interactive. They truly did try to capture the back and forth of video games fighting.

And if you have a decent ST and group, you can put far more complex stories then what the setting was built for. I remember having a lot of fun with this as a player. I didn't expect to either.

Hey guys, I am a massive retard. What's the point of sword stances with regards to affecting the match up? Like, does one stance really "beat" another stance, assuming the fight takes place in a vacuum, so to speak?

Are there any systems where you declare a few actions in order of priority, then everyone rolls initiative to see what order they're executed in?

No hit rolls, just "I cast magic missile, and dive behi-" "A goblin hits you with an arrow before you dive" "Okay, now I dive behind the wall." "Two other arrows plink against the wall. Next turn."

>>49388248
Stances make executing certain techniques slower/faster and those techniques are the ones that RPS with each other.

>>49388325
They also offer different amount of protection just by being in them i.e. ox stance protect you a lot, fool doesn't.

>>49339252
The combat system in Eon works somewhat similar to this.

Each character has two initiative values. One for the start of the fight and one for the rest of the fight.

Spearmen usually have a massive bonus to starting the fight with initiative while swords are better at staying as the attacker.

Whoever gets initiative truly does have initiative. He is the one who can attack with all the kinds of blows he wants to do. The defender can dodge, block or counterattack at a 50% penalty to damage which also takes away a block. Combat is a bit of a blind bet since both sides at the same time reveal their moves. "Attacker stabs high once, slashes low once", "Defender dodges all blows by ducking" leading to the first attack probably missing while the second attack hits no doubt.

After that the round is finished and only the defender rolls initiative to see if he becomes the attacker. The attacker has some options to fight more defensively leading to a harder retaking of the initiative or more brashly leading to initiative being lost easier. They do less and more damage respectively.

It's not all bad to fight with all you got though, since a knockdown or knockback automatically keeps you in initiative. Judged by total damage value compared to the defenders "chock value" used for both standing your ground and staying conscious when hit.

I really enjoy it.

>>49335950
you should get a better DM

Player : I attack him with my sword
*Rolls*
GM: Your blade strikes his shield as he pivots to block you, bringing his sword about to swing at you.

>>49388502

Oh look, you're as retarded as everyone else in the thread who has made that comment.

>>49388502
Maybe he wants fun mechanics in addition to fun storytelling?

>>49388248

Sort of. Stances are sort of like a mid-windup. Let's say there's 3 fighters in 3 different stances: One has their sword pointing forward, one has their sword pointing up, and one has their sword pointing behind them.

"Forward" is able to stab someone in the face or chest just by leaning forward a bit, so he's very good at stabbing and very fast. Anyone who wants to attack him has to figure out a way around his sword, but will have an easy time engaging the sword itself.

"Up" is able to slash at someone's head or arms just by dropping the sword forward. She's good at slashing but can't really stab all that well until she's made at least one cut. She's very predictable but also very fast and very strong, and people attacking her don't have any way to engage her sword until she's attacking with it, so in a sense her "threatened area" is what protects her.

"Behind" is actually in a better position than it looks, but also in a worse position than it looks. They also are hard to attack because unlike "up" their angle of attack is going to be unpredictable, and unlike "forward" it's going to be very, very strong. It's also going to be very, very slow. It could be anything from a one handed slash at the legs to a jumping two-handed overhead smash, which means a lot of areas are being threatened with a lot of big attacks. Because the attacks will be slower, though, they're not going to be able to counter-attack as efficiently.

(cont)

>>49388522

(cont)

It's not exactly rock-paper-scissors. A very fast person using a "forward" is going to have an easier time poking holes in a "behind" because the sword is already there but a very strong or very clever "behind" is going to have an easier time crashing in on a "forward" because they will have an easier time engaging the sword.

Each stance changes the moves available to both competitors, highlights certain strengths, downplays certain weaknesses, and introduces brand new strengths and weaknesses. None of them are universally "better" or "worse" although some may be more universally useful ("forward") and some a bit more specialty ("behind"). Worse, you can't even white room it between two equally matched competitors because two equally matched "fast" competitors will do better with certain stances than two equally matched "strong" competitors.

>>49388325
>>49388409
>>49388522
>>49388535
Awesome, thanks bro-hams.

>>49354506
The book doesn't really say where this would fall. However, I'd say it doesn't really qualify as 'use an object', so either way it wouldn't count for cunning action.

>>49388522
>>49388535

To be fair just giving sword users the option of starting or ending a turn in either up or forward stances, which in turn makes their subsequent attacks either peircing or slashing, would be a neat touch to distinguish swords from other weapons that only do one particular damage type.

>>49389539
Don't fall into this DnD damage types trap. Many weapons can deal different types of damage with pommel, back spikes or striking with the butt end of the shaft.

>>49361411
>100x hit points.
That was fixed with 3rd generation monster math m8

>>49389862
actually it's a harnmaster damage aspect trap. D&D was, as usual, not the first to do it by any means.

I don't get the complain about GM fiat in Dungeon World? It's IMO the thing that makes RPG:s interesting and different from wargames. If I want to do combat that is balanced and follow strict rules i play Warhammer. Combat in RPG:s should allow stuff like "I use my axe to strike holes to the roof, so sunlight can strike the vampire.", "I yell insults to the sailors to scare them into submission.", "I release a hundred chikens from my bag of holding to distract them.", etc. All these different scenarios are limited by the players and GM:s imagination and CANNOT be covered by the rules (and if they were, it's a wargame). They should have mechanical effects. And they are ten times more enjoyable then "I hit him with my sword".

Is there a "right amount" GM fiat you prefer? For me, more is better.

>>49390555

Stop, you're talking to paizodrones and d&dfags. These people think the GM is a negative force in their games who must be curtailed at every moment with layers upon layers of rules.

>>49390555
That's just a big strawman. Every RPG has provisions to do everything you just said, but some (3.pf D&D mostly) make it so difficult to do anything interesting that it's better to chose the most boring path. In a good game, you must always weaken a target to get a better chance to kill it. Even in highly lethal, tactical games.

What's boring about DW is that everything you just said is either "Defy Danger" or "Hack & Slash" which you roll over and over and over. Other systems have a little more back and forth in conflict resolution and it means your actions are not just responding to a roll.

>>49391373

Well ok, kind of a strawman. But i mean, rules CANNOT cover all possible situations. And thats exactly why i play RPG:s instead of wargames. There are no RPG:s without rulings (or "houserules", as soem here call it). In systems that try to make combat more "tactical" and give the players more "options", i just fell constrained. In DW I can do anything i want in combat. In DnD, i can "attack", or use one of 3 feats/abilities. Thats a thousand options vs 4.

>>49335950
Wushu. You describe what you do up to a certain limit. Then you cash in each thing you describe yourself doing for a die, assign some to offense and some to defense, and roll 'em against the relevant skill on your sheet.

One offense success is cancelled by one defense success. If you take any uncancelled hits you die.

If nobody dies, then you have another exchange for as long as you continue fighting.

>>49341985
I think it would make for a really good Star Trek game. Especially in TNG era Trek, a game about when to escalate or de-escalate a conflict would be really on point.

>>49367221
I'm in a HEMA club and aside from Riddle of Steel I think DW provides some of the most realistic and interesting combat of any RPG.

>>49391114

Misread that as "peizodrone" which sounds like some sort of weird squeezable modron.

>>49389862

Well it's always a simplification - the question is how much complication can be added to things to make things interesting and spice up your love bashing.

>>49391533
>all D&D is 3.pf
>there is only D&D 3.pf era games or DW
>here is my meme response even within the constraints of 3.pf vs DW

>>49384180

It could but at that point, you might as well sit down and come up with a custom system.

>>49385952

D&D is a game where your effectiveness is determined by how effectively you can perform iin a combat scenario.

Even if I sit down at the table and "roll for attack" in every combat scenario of the session, there should still be some interesting choices with mechanical depth to make things interesting.

Take 4e for example, in that, you weren't limited to rolling attack all the time, because each class had powers that moved combat forward and had power proportionate to its status as either a daily, encounter, or at-will power.

Hell, there were a lot of powers that still did something even if you failed to hit with it, so you weren't really punished for using a power, which meant that you could afford to go balls to the wall whenever you wanted.

If you want people to stop saying "I roll to attack" then give people options that would allow them to do more in addition to their attack.

File: 1385077672205.jpg (591KB, 806x1024px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 806x1024px

>>49335950
Ironclaw.

Counter-attack is default resolution for an attack. No feats or special build required.

One ALWAYS takes damage EVERY turn.
Resolves more than twice as fast, literally.

>>49397947
>don't waste rounds of combat
>by design
which edition? google says there were like 3 and spinoffs

makes me wonder, why the fuck have systems like D&D been around for 20+ years and still waste time simulating multiple rounds of MISS-MISS-MISS

>>49381966
Some of us have not watched a cartoon since they canceled JLA:U.

>>49398094
it's a dice gaming. by exposing yourself to probability, you are exposing yourself to the potential of (repeat) failure. on the flip side, when dice are going spectacularly for you, it is more satisfying than a GM just pulling an epic victory for you out of his ass.

if you want to have epic success due to dice rolls, you need to accept the probability of boring fights as well. same in sports, btw: some football games are boringly uneventful, some are tense back-and-forth affairs.

>>49397947
Always takes damage? Does that mean you can't even block?

"Miss" is supposed to be about evasion, blocking, parrying, and all the other forms of damage cancellation. Ironclaw doesn't have any of that?

I respect the auto-counter system, but it seems strategically shallow

>>49344624
I'm in the exact same boat.
I got the PDF awhile ago from a friend, thought it looked cool but ended up shelving it for awhile because life reasons.
Then picked it back up and got really into it.

Its a book you can really read a few times and still not be 100% on what the fuck you're supposed to do or when.

If you want to exchange notes I can make us a Wulin Roll20 room

>>49400016
That anon fibbed a bit. Your four defences are Counter, Parry, Dodge, and Special. If you succeed at a Counter, you hit the attacker (if you tie, both attacks hit). Shields grant cover dice to Parry and Dodge.

Reminder that the reason that combat pretty simplistic is because no one wants to wait for 15 minutes before it's their next turn while their comrades roll for complicated maneouvres, positioning, feints, autistically coreographed fighting combinations and so on.

>>49400161
So they don't like roleplaying?

>>49335950
I once had two players get into fisticuffs in game.

Neither of them had improved unarmed, and both were in half plate. They were level 2.

>>49400043

There's also #LotW on the sup/tg/ IRC server. It's quiet but there's a lot of people there who know the system and can offer advice.

So can anyone here tell me why this thread is retarded?

Its because all actions, regardless of context or intent, can be rationalized into two categories. Causing damage to the enemy, or preventing it. The only things that don't fall under this are healing, which can be rationalized as post-emptively preventing something, and allowing the recipient to continue hurting something, qualifying for both.

Literally any action, from martial to casting to social, can be put under these two broad categories of offensive and defensive.

So at the end of the day, no. There is no system that is more than hit and defend, because at the end of the day its not feasible because anything can be considered as one or the other.

Just be more creative with your regular actions.

File: smug0017.gif (855KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 500x281px

>>49398140
>anime isn't a cartoon

>>49401001

Why were your players wearing half plate at the table?

>>49401424
To get into character.

>>49401001
Just make a system up on the fly, like whoever gets the highest roll wins the fight.

>>49401480
They wanted to do stupid shit, i let them do stupid shit and take the full waste of time and consequence for it.

If they had a legit reason, i'd agree, but they started it over something retarded.

besides, afterward our bard used prestidigitation to make the knight that lost's armor gleam like the fucking sun.

>>49337128
Can you skip the other steps and escalate faster than your opponent? Can you draw down when he says you have an anger problem?

>>49339864
>Come back and reply days later.
Everyone declares their intent and then rolls all at once. If your roll is higher then your action happens first. If your roll is too low, it doesn't even work.
In this instance, if the SnB had rolled better, the attack made by It would have been intercepted by the SnB. In the narrative, it would be the SnB thrusting himself between It and the wizard to deflect It's attack with his shield or maybe reaching between them with his weapon to deflect the attack.

It's a modified death spiral system so just soaking damage is fool hearty and tactical decisions like position and defensive posture are important.