An Alternate T&T Combat Method

[derv]

I hope you don't mind if I play around with your ideas dan? I ran a short adventure with two of my kids the other day and their characters were in slight contrast to the party of dwarves over the weekend. One of the characters had a CA 11 and 0 adds, the other a CA 12 and 6 adds. But, it brought up certain questions. The one question I have is when a PC is using their adds defensively and being attacked by multiple foes, do all the foes have to add these to their SR attacks, or must the GM divide up the defensive adds between the foes, or the player chooses one to suffer the defensive penalty?

There's two other problems (to me anyway) I have with T&T combat in general. The one is when it is unlikely that a PC or monster can even possibly make a hit due to dice disparity. The other is how armor can make a character untouchable to receiving damage (the 1st level dwarf warriors the other day with complete leather armor and shields worth 20 hits). I know spite damage is part of a solution in traditonal T&T combat. Any suggestions using your method?

As I mentioned, I limited the amount of defensive adds a player could use. I also crunched some numbers and may try an alternative SR chart for monster attacks. I plan to continue using your chart for PC attacks, except I think it should incorporate a 0 level SR for MR 1-9 encounters only.

Here's my monster SR chart. It only uses SR levels divisible by 10 (except the 0 level):

.....................................CHARACTER LEVEL..............................

MR.................0.....1.....2.....3.....4.....5.....6.....7.....8.....9.....10
_______________________________________________________


(0)1-9*.........0.....1.....3.....5.....7.....9....11...13....15...17....19

(1)10-23.......0.....1.....3.....5.....7.....9....11...13....15...17....19

(2)24-36.......0.....1.....1.....3.....5.....7.....9....11....13....15....17

(3)37-50......0......1......1....1......3....5.....7.....9.....11....13....15

(4)51-63......0......1......1.....1.....1....3.....5.....7.....9......11....13

(5)64-76......0......1......1.....1......1...1.....3.....5.....7......9.....11

(6)77-90......0......1......1.....1.....1.....1....1.....3......5.....7......9

(7)91-103.....0.....1......1.....1......1.....1.....1....1.....3.....5......7


*generally, MR <10 are nuisance encounters that would appear in greater numbers. It is an option to combine their MR and treat as a single foe of a higher level, but they would still be hit on a 0 level SR by an opponent.
*any PC with a CA of <9 and negative adds I would consider 0 level. The min. CA possible is 3 with -18 adds unless using TARO, then a min. CA of 7 with -6 adds is possible.
*I would also allow 0 level characters or monsters to combine their damage totals with their peers if they were fighting the same foe.

[danhem]

No problem at all Derv, I like that you are using it for a group game. All of my play testing has been with solo adventures.

In response to your previous post:

In 7th edition, spell casters must make a Saving Roll on INT at the level of the spell being cast regardless of their own level. So every Wizard needs to make a L1 SR on INT to cast Take That You Fiend. But if you power it up to a 2nd level spell, then you need to make a L2 SR. Presumably your INT goes up as you increase in level, so making the lower level SRs would not be a big deal of high level spell casters.

I like the idea of limiting the amount of adds that can be allocated to attack or defense. I'd say 1/2 would be sufficient, but I'd need to play with it to know for sure.

In response to your new questions:

Defensive adds (and attack adds) are applied to a single adversary. So you you are attacked by three goblins, you'd need to assign defensive adds to each one individually. How the adds are allocated is the players responsibility. This is how it worked in my last combat example. Freya and Olaf pooled their defensive adds against the small ogre but those had no effect on the large ogres attack.

Regarding damage, I was considering using a variation of the spite damage rule. When you roll your damage dice, each 6 you roll can be counted as spite damage if the target takes no other damage as a result of armor. Of course, that can result in taking more damage than if you just took one hit after armor protection was factored in. A simpler method would be that each hit resulted in at least 1 point of damage.

You're giving me lots to think about Derv. I'll be posting a larger combat example soon illustrating a lot more points of the system.

[derv]

Look forward to more of your examples. They do help clarify things for me and bring up situations i would not have thought of.

I've continued to tinker with the Monsters Combat SR table and I think I may have come up with something that addresses some balance issues. I couldn't quite put my finger on it at first, but at higher levels the SR's were becoming a non issue because a monsters CA would be so high and they would essentially have major bonuses to their rolls. It seemed logical that a 1st level character facing a 1st level monster should be making a 1st level SR and, following that logic, a 10th level character facing a 10th level monster should only have to make a 1st level SR. But this resulted in automatic hits on both sides at the higher levels, unless they rolled 3 (which didn't feel right). So, I took the Combat SR table I shared above and re-applied the odd number SR levels. This is what I came up with and it addresses some of these issues. I still have to try it out though and truthfully, I've never had real high level characters in my games. It seems to balance pretty well at the mid levels also.

..............................................PC LEVEL...........................................
MR.............0.....1.....2.....3.....4......5......6.....7.....8.....9......10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-9*..........0.....1.....3.....5.....7.....9......11....13...15....17.....19

10-23.......0......1.....2.....4.....6.....8.....10......12....14....16....18

24-36.......0......1.....2.....3.....5.....7......9......11.....13....15....17

37-50........0.....1.....1.....2.....4.....6......8......10.....12.....14....16

51-63........0.....1.....1.....2.....3.....5......7.......9.......11.....13....15

64-76.......0......1.....1....1......2.....4.....6.......8.......10.....12.....14

77-90.......0......1.....1.....1.....2.....3.....5.......7........9......11.....13

91-103.....0......1.....1.....1.....1......2....4......6.......8.......10.....12

104-116....0.....1.....1.....1......1.....2....3......5.......7.......9.......11

117-130....0.....1.....1.....1......1.....1.....2.....4......6.......8........10

131-143....0.....1......1....1......1.....1.....2.....3......5......7.........9
____________________________________________________

Thanks for clarifying the 7.5e Magic SR. I'll be putting that into my game as well. Have a nice Memorial Day weekend

[derv]

Well, I started to post on this yesterday. Then thought I should look at it a little closer. I played some more with these rules, using my Monster SR Chart above. Then I realized that what I did with the MR spreads was essentially raise the CA at each level. So, if you took the above chart and re-applied the standard spreads per level (1-9, 10-19, 20-29, etc.) and calculated a monsters CA as = MR, you would have the same results. This basically boosts a monsters CA, but it works out pretty well at base levels. In other words, a MR10-19 monster facing a 1st level PC or a MR50-59 monster facing a 5th level PC. I did make a slight change to the chart above and I think it would work for both monsters and PC's for combat SR's if figuring CA in this way.

I also looked at three of the kindred and tried to calculate a low, high and median CA + adds for each. I did this by starting with the lowest and highest scores possible for each without using TARO. Then I applied level bonuses to LUCK only. This is what I came up with:

Dwarf
1st level low CA3 -15 >>>high CA22 +33>>>median CA12 +9

5th level low CA10 +9>>>high CA29 +61>>>median CA19 +35

10th level low CA30 +89>>>high CA49 +141>>>median CA39 +115

Human
1st level low CA3 -24>>>high CA18 +15>>>median CA10 -5

5th level low CA10 +0>>>high CA25 +43>>>median CA17 +21

10th level low CA30 +80>>>high CA45 +123>>>median CA37 +101

Hobbit
1st level low CA2 -25>>>high CA18 +15>>>median CA10 -5

5th level low CA9 -1>>>high CA25 +47>>>median CA +23

10th level low CA29 +79>>>high CA45 +127>>>median CA37 +103

As you can see, at higher levels PC's start to outmatch the MR monsters. Even a Hobbit starting out with low scores could (if he survived to 10th level) match up to a MR100 opponent. So, I think it is reasonable to allow CA=MR.

Separately, as you suggested, I started using Spite on damage die rolls. I use Spite as +1 additional pts. of damage that get through armor. So, if a PC made a successful combat SR and was armed with a scimitar, then rolled 6, 6, 2, and 3. He would do a total of 19 pts. damage, 2 pts. of which would apply even if his opponent had full plate mail and a tower shield.

So far, these methods have worked well.

[derv]

I keep tinkering with your Combat SR Table and had another thought worth considering. What would you think of doing away with the progressive table and allowing all monsters and PC's to make their Combat SR based on their opponents level. This would look like your 1st level table alone (plus a 0 level for MR1-9).

SR...............................Level and MR................................................

0......1........2........3........4........5........6........7.........8........9........10

Lower level SR would naturally become simpler as characters/monsters progress in level. This would also allow for higher levels fighting one another not becoming a non-issue and it would account for the growing expansion of adds for PC as they increase in levels. It would also simplify the process because there really would be no need for a table. I believe I would still limit defensive adds to 1/2 and I would calculate CA as equal to MR (again this simplifies things). Averaging CA for PC's and monsters with stats seems to work well as is.

This is just something to think about. I have not attempted this method yet. The other day, we had a mixed party of 1st thru 3rd levels. So it did not diverge much from the above table for the PC's.

[danhem]

Wow Derv, you've been busy.

I do prefer your simple chart above. In designing this SR-based combat system I was trying to make it a simple as possible. Having separate attack charts for PCs and monsters kind of goes against that goal.

My intent in making the required SRs go down as a characters level increased reflects my own view of what levels mean. To me they reflect experience that is beyond the characters physical and mental attributes. So a 2nd level warrior that has the same DEX, LK, and SPD but has a lower STR than a 1st level warrior and as a result has a lower CA and Personal Adds is still a more experienced and skilled warrior.

But making the SR level equal to the opponents level also serves this purpose, if from another direction (the 1st level warrior above would need to make a L2SR while the 2nd level warrior only a L1SR). In this way increasing level helps with defense which was not factored into my original system except for the application of Personal Adds which only applied to PCs. It is also certainly simpler in that it does not require any tables. It will take some testing though; but I like the idea.

Determining the CA of a MR-based monster is not a rule that I tried to make set in stone. My experience with low level (1-3) play was that 3/4 MR was sufficient. But as I said in the original post, a GM is free to adjust CA as is needed. You could even make CA higher than MR if you wanted a really skilled but physically weak creature. In that case you'd likely want to use the higher value of CA and MR to determine the monsters 'level'.

Of course you could just do away with MR entirely (blasphemy!). Each monster could be assigned a Level, CA, CON, and damage. Yep, getting complicated again.

Life is keeping me busy, but I'll get that new combat example posted soon. Maybe I'll run it again with this new SR table.

[derv]

Wow Derv, you've been busy.

I guess your rules really sparked my interest. I'm one of the odd balls that doesn't particularly relish the idea rolling hand fulls of d6's and then tabulating HPT's.

I hope you could see the progression of my thought process with all the other charts and what I was trying to get at versus just some ramblings. It's funny because, like I mentioned, I increased the spread on the MR's so the base SR's would work out. Then I realized that all I accomplished was raising the CA on the standard MR spreads. And finally, if you look at my last progressive table and compare each base SR by level, you will see it actually matches pretty closely to your 1st level table (level 1 to 1, 2 to 2, 3 to 3, etc.). So, that's how I came full circle with the suggestion of using your 1st level table only and calculating CA=MR. The beauty of MR is that it tells you just about everything you need to know- CA, Combat Dice, Adds, & amount of damage it can sustain.

My intent in making the required SRs go down as a characters level increased reflects my own view of what levels mean. To me they reflect experience that is beyond the characters physical and mental attributes. So a 2nd level warrior that has the same DEX, LK, and SPD but has a lower STR than a 1st level warrior and as a result has a lower CA and Personal Adds is still a more experienced and skilled warrior

One more idea to give levels more meaning without a progressive SR table would be to allow PC's and monsters to also add their level when figuring out their SR target number (Is this a 7.5e thing? I recall reading something to that effect).

So, if a 1st level fighter and a 2nd level fighter were in a duel to the death, the 1st level fighter could add an additional +1 and the 2nd level fighter could add an additional +2.

ex. 1st fighter CA 13 +3 would have to make a SR2(25) to hit the 2nd level fighter. If he used all his adds for offense he would have to roll a 9 or more. But he would also add his level, so that would result in a target number of 8. This character has ST18, DX8, LK8, SPD 18.

2nd fighter CA 11 -2 would have to make a SR1(20) to hit the 1st level fighter. To hit he would need to roll a 11 or more. But, if he also adds his level, it would result in a target number of 9. This character has ST12, DX8, LK8, SPD 18.

[danhem]

Your thought process made perfect sense Derv.

You're certainly right about MR, but sometimes I like to mix things up a bit with more personalized creatures.

In 7.5e Warriors get bonus "Warrior Adds" equal to their level, which is what you showed below. So this would help reflect increased attack ability with higher levels. There is also a rule in 7.5e that states that you can add your level to any Saving Roll. So a Level 1 character can add 1, Level 2 adds 2 and so on.

With this mechanic applied to the Combat Saving Roll a Level 1 Warrior could then add 2 to his SR while a Level 2 Warrior could add 4. A Level 2 Rogue or Wizard would add 2.

Of course the Warrior Adds could be allocated toward defense or damage as well just like other Personal Adds.

More thinking to do.

[derv]

This looks good Dan. I like that it's already part of the rules and it's not another mod really.

[derv]

I've pretty much settled on these house rules. I've used them a few times and they hold up well. They're pretty intuitive and I think quicker then the traditional combat method. The system blends well with the rules with out major changes. The only thing that a GM may have to tweak in published adventures would be extreme MR ratings. MR's should match combined PC's levels and adds within reason or the PC's should recognize they are out of their league rather quickly.


Combat SR Chart

Lvl 0.......1.........2........3........4.........5.......6........7........8.........9..........10...
....1-9...10-19..20-29..30-39..40-49..50-59..60-69..70-79..80-89..90-99..100-109

SR 0.......1.........2........3........4.........5.......6........7........8.........9.........10..
..(15).....(20)....(25)....(30)....(35).....(40)....(45)....(50)....(55).....(60).......(65)

Other Additions:

*CA=MR(-1) or (ST+LK+DEX+SPD)/4
Combat Dice=(MR/10)+1
Total Adds=MR/2

*Monsters retain their CA and Combat Dice by MR, but lose their Total Adds as MR is reduced in combat.

*CA can be set higher or lower by the GM if he feels the creature has special abilities that warrant it or the monster is feeble with age, disability, or disease.

*PC’s and monsters can add their level to their SR adds.

*PC’s can use up to half of their adds defensively. This is added to opponents SR target number.

*Ranged attacks use CA and Personal Adds, but do not double DEX adds.

*Spite: Rolling 6’s on damage is considered Spite damage. Each 6 = +1 pt. of additional damage that gets through armor. Alternatively for some monsters, 6’s will trigger a special effect (i.e. poison, paralysis, etc.).

*Burning Armor: PC’s may elect to take additional hits that would have inflicted damage to their CON, up to armors hit total. This additional damage permanently reduces the armors hit totals by the amount of additional damage taken (i.e. A warrior could take up to 24 hits before his leather armor would be worthless and he takes damage to CON). Armor is repairable if it retains 1 hit of value/ 2 hits of value if armor & shield. When this total reaches 0, armor is worthless.

*If after allocating offensive and defensive adds a PC’s SR target number is <0, all additional adds would apply to damage total if making a successful hit. (i.e. If a PC’s target SR resulted in a -3, he could do +3 additional pts. of damage.)

*If multiple PC’s or monster’s make a hit on a single opponent in the same round, they may combine their damage totals before accounting for armor.

*Casting spells requires a SR at spell level and costs ST.
*No AP’s are rewarded for ST used casting spells. Only for successful SR’s.

So, that's it in a nutshell. I'm sticking with this unless someone points out a flaw. The "burning armor" is left to a persons own tastes, but I like "Shields Shall Be Splintered" rules because they might save a PC's bacon and it makes armor subject to permanent damage and in need of repair. Also, I'm allowing combined damage on a single foe before accounting for armor to limit it's invulnerability and allow for lower level NPC's or MR monsters a possibility of damaging a heavily armored opponent.

[danhem]

That looks great Derv. I'm glad you've gotten so much mileage out of this system. Have an Exalt for all of your great ideas.

I'm still working out the tweaks on my system, I just need the time to write them up.

Limiting the number of adds that can be used in attack and defense certainly works well, especially at higher levels. I'm using a 50% limit (rounding up) for both offensive and defensive adds now.

[derv]

Every time you tell me something new you're doing with this, a new idea pops into my head. I personally haven't been limiting offensive adds, only defensive adds. But if you do limit adds 50/50, that creates fixed numbers that a player could put right on their character sheet.

CA + (Total Adds/2) = Combat Total (CT)

A player could easily write down all his SR target numbers for each level at the bottom of his sheet.

That wasn't my bright idea though ;D If a PC's Defensive Adds are fixed to Total Adds/2, it would be possible to change the nature of armor in T&T also. Instead of armor absorbing hits, it could modify a players Defensive Adds and, as a result, make him harder to hit. A suit of leather armor worth 6 hits would instead offer 6 defensive adds.

It would look like this:

(Total Adds/2) + Armor = Defensive Total (DT)

The DT would always be added to an opponents SR target number when in melee. If a PC is being attacked with a ranged weapon, then only armor would be added.

This might make armor too effective though (especially for warriors). It may have to be armor hits/2? The other side of this is, when a PC is hit they're taking all the damage the dice and adds deliver. Not sure how this would actually work in play. It was just another idea to toss around

[danhem]

I prefer to keep the armor and damage system the way it is now; I think it works pretty well.

The idea of a list of fixed SR targets is good, but keep in mind that players do not need to devote the full limit of their adds to offense or defense. If, for example, a player can score a hit with a SR of 7 or greater against a heavily armored target (mail and shield), that player would be better off allocating more adds toward damage and maybe none toward offense in order to get through that armor.

[danhem]

Ok, I've posted my own modifications to my Saving Roll based combat system at The Lone Delver.

danhemsgamingblog.blogspot.se/2013/06/fighting-with-saving-rolls-part-4-few.html

Saving Roll Level To Hit: The target Saving Roll level is equal to the level of your opponent or MR/10 (round down). This reflects your targets ability to defend itself from attack. This does require the addition of a Level 0 SR with a target of 15.

Combat Ability (CA) for Monsters: CA for opponents with Monster Ratings is equal to their MR. The GM may raise or lower the CA of an opponent from this base as necessary. CA is not reduced as MR is reduced. Damage done by MR opponents is determined as usual.

Personal Adds (PAs)for Offense and Defense: Players may allocate up to 50% of the PAs toward their attack roll and up to 50% against their opponents attack roll rounded up. Offensive PAs may only be directed at a single opponent per turn whereas defensive PAs may be split among as many opponents as the character is directly engaged in hand-to-combat. Any number of PAs may be applied to damage.

Character Level Bonus: As with all other Saving Rolls in 7.5e, characters add their Level to their attack SR. This reflects the increased fighting ability of characters with higher levels.

Warrior Adds: As in 7.5e, Warriors get bonus Personal Adds equal to their Level that may be applied to offense, defense, or damage. This reflects the specialized training of Warriors.

Missile Fire: Personal Adds may be applied to missile attacks (up to 50%), but not to defense on a turn that a missile weapon is used. The Level bonus also applies to the missile fire SR. Characters being shot at, and know they are being shot at, may apply defensive adds against one missile attack per turn.

Spell Casting: Any character casting a spell may not allocate PAs to attack or defense during that turn.

Spite Damage: As in 7.5e, for each 6 rolled in the damage dice 1 point of Spite Damage is delivered. If an opponent is hit, the target must take the maximum of EITHER (damage rolled - armor) or spite damage. So if only one hit gets through an opponents armor but three points of spite damage were dealt, the opponent takes 3 hits to CON or MR. This rule applies to characters and monsters.

Combat Stunts: A player may choose to perform an action other than a direct attack in a turn (trip an opponent, sneak up on an opponent, throw sand in someone's face, do a backward somersault, etc.). The success of that stunt is determined through a Saving Roll on the appropriate Attribute or Talent. No attack may be made or spells cast on the same turn and no PAs may be allocated to attack or defense.


Those are the modifications and elaborations that I have now. My next combat example will include these new rules. Brion and his companions will be facing a large group of opponents this time equipped with both melee and missile weapons and wearing armor. There may be more tweaks forthcoming as I try out more scenarios and (hopefully) a MR conversion system for published adventures if you want to try out this combat system in some solos or GM adventures.

Special thanks to Derv for all of his help.

[derv]

Thanks for the shout out Dan

I wasn't sure if limiting offensive adds to 50% or less was going to be effective or whether monsters would end up being too powerful at higher levels. But it seems to work well with warriors who get to double their level in adds. I'm curious if it will work out with rogues and wizards who will only get to add their level once? Like I said, I had not been limiting offensive adds, so I may have to look into this. A question for you, are you allowing the bonus adds from the players levels (especially warriors) to be added before or after the 50% limit (adding to total adds) or allowing them to apply this bonus on top of the limit any way they choose? I was thinking it was the later, but wasn't sure.

The other thing that I had not been doing was allowing players to choose to use their personal adds for damage. I was just allowing surplus adds to be added to damage if their SR target was <0 (maybe this should be <3, since 3 is a miss and 2 is DARO). Otherwise damage was strictly by weapon (dice + adds).
I hesitate to go this route with a GM adventure because the players often do not know what they're up against and it's another decision for them on how they want to handle their personal adds. Though I can see how this would be a nice option for solo play where you usually know the monsters dice and adds. I'm on the fence with this one.

Thanks again for all the clarification. Hitting the karma button.....

I'm really interested in what you come up with for MR conversions of published scenarios- MR 850