Combat/Initiative

[Veknironth]

So, another thing I noticed at the Open House was how long combat took. I have a lot of ways to speed up combat, many of which involve keeping the PC's from equivocating so much. However, one thing I noticed that slowed things down was the decision run combat based on one action per character at a time before moving on to the next character in the initiative sequence. So, if you have 5 characters, you'd let character 1 do his action, 2 do her action, 3 his, 4 hers, and 5 his. The enemies are mixed in there as well. Then you start all over again. In principle this seems like a pretty easy and egalitarian method.

My old, and still beloved, home group did it differently. We'd handle one character's entire melee at once, going back and forth with his or her opponent. Player 1 wins initiative and goes toe to toe with his bad guy. Then move on to player 2, etc. It's also much easier for the GM to keep track of things like HP, SDC, etc when you can quickly go to that player's stats on your sheet (assuming you keep track). It also eliminates the situations where a player kills his opponent and then spends a minute asking the GM if he can run over and attack someone's opponent, and the GM trying to figure out if he can.

But, Veknironth, wouldn't that punish people for finishing off their opponents early? A bit, yes, but kudos to the PC for defeating the opponent! People will complain that it's unrealistic to have a character stand and not attack for 12 seconds because she killed her opponent. I disagree. If you consider the auditory exclusion you experience when in the fight portion of flight or flight mode, coupled with the tunnel vision that occurs, it's preposterous to think a character will have the omniscience of the battlefield to know where to go next immediately. I understand these are trained professionals, but that doesn't overcome the physiological reactions the body goes through, it just helps mitigate them. So, a character would have first be certain his opponent is dead and make a decision as to what to do about that, then scan the battle field, then decide what to do, and then act. Military and police refer to this as the OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) and it takes people anywhere from 3-5 seconds to go through it. Finishing one opponent and moving to another is taking the best fighter 6 seconds without having to go anywhere.

The other concern is that while it looks that way on the flat table, most of your hand to hand combat isn't taking place like Rock'em Sock'em robots where the two sides stand and attack while rooted in the same space. If you're going to join in on an attack you have to be judicious (i.e. take more time) in your attack or risk hitting your comrade or nothing.

For game mechanics, I'd make a player take an attack to recognize his/her opponent is finished, another to look around, and then any attacks necessary to move into position and strike. Or, the player can shut up and let his fellow players engage in their attacks rather than try to buzz around the battle field like the Tazmanian Devil.

-Vek
"Roll initiative to disagree with me."

[Bill]

I've found that, in Rifts at least, allowing players to declare up to two action per turn keeps combat moving at a healthy pace and encourages a bit of creativity in tactics. An issue I can see with having players execute all of their actions in a single turn is that the player with highest initiative is effectively immune to attacks that cause he or she to lose initiative and attacks, unless you're going to apply that to their next turn. Even if you do, it reduces the benefits of using those attacks.

[Alrik Vas]

I do the round robin, it's quick and efficient, i keep track of actions used for all combatants myself with just simple tally marks.

When certain combatants can't act because they used their actions to dodge, it speeds up the round. Ran my game over the weekend, had 3 PC's with 2 NPC's, 4 enemies. The average APM was 6. combat went 5 melees (a loooong fight, seriously, fighting for your life for over a minute is basically forever). Real time used? 2.5 hours, we took a 20 minute break and one of our PC's was constantly checking the book for stuff because he refuses to write anything down...in the past 5 melees has taken as little as an hour.

but just the same, a lot of fights don't even last a full round because sometimes people are awesome.

BUT...KS has stated the method of "run each fight in order separately" before. Sometimes he even bounces back and forth every few actions to make it more cinematic, that way sometimes they can interact with each other too.

[Jerell]

Combat takes so long often because players take too much time, or don't pay enough attention. Combat can (read should) flow at a good pace, it's equally the GMs and players responsibility. Every time my attack/action came up as a player in the Open House, it was declared and done in approx 10-30 seconds, with damage dealt when appropriate. When players pay attention, they should be able to get through combat fairly quickly, even if they have to confirm something with the GM, it shouldn't take long.

Keep situational awareness. That's the real key, don't get bogged down in side bar. Quicly assess the situation. Know what you're going to do, and do it when it's your turn.

I remember back in the mid-late 90s, my groups combat could take a long time. Now that we all know the rules very well, it's usually quite quick as long as everyone pays attention.

[Alrik Vas]

I have to agree. Whenever everyone pays attention and is on the same page, things go very smooth.

[Veknironth]

Well, what we used to do with combat is divide the number of attacks into the 15 second duration of the round. The result was how many seconds the player had to decide what he or she would have the character do. So, with 5 attacks a round you have 3 seconds in real time to decide. If you don't declare an action your character freezes just like you did. This can result in losing attacks or failing to attemtp to dodge or parry. People learn really quickly to make solid decisions.

-Vek
"Also, knowing your bonuses and damage helps."

[Jerell]

When GMing, I only give what I feel is a reasonable amount of time after I ask, 'what's your action.' Not as quick as Vek, but if they don't answer in what feels like a reasonable amount of time, they lose an action to 'hesitation.'

-
'He who hesitates, is lost.'

[kiralon]

One thing that can work is allowing 2 physical actions per players turn, this speeds things up and reduces the difference in action turns between spell casters and fighters if you use the # spell attacks a round.

[SittingBull]

In some games, I broke up actions like the movement chart from starfleet battles. Although, not for a fast paced or small game unless you have practiced with the method.

Player rolls a 17 and has 4 actions. He goes on 17, 13, 9, and 5.
Player rolls a 4 and has 5 actions. He goes on 5, 4, 3, and 2.

Yes it takes some rounding and such but it does prevent someone with a ton of actions being left to be unopposed for several actions.

[Alrik Vas]

So, but...a character with 9 actions who rolls a 32...?

[SittingBull]

So, but...a character with 9 actions who rolls a 32...?

32, 29, 25, 22, 18, 15, 11, 8, and 4 is what I would do.

[Alrik Vas]

I asked that because it's a tough situation, really. One guy with high init and lots of actions, then everyone else averages 9-18 in init with 5 actions. He still gets several unanswered actions, it's essentially the same as having them all at the end, but better, because he gets so many at the beginning as well.

[Whiskeyjack]

I worked on a new way to run combat over a decade ago. Never did play test it though. Essentially, everyone figured out whop they were planning to face off against, then they roll initiative. Who ever won got to go on the offense for the round, attacking their opponent until all their attacks were out. Each attack also uses up one of the defenders actions. If the defender ran out of attacks, they were so off balance that the offensive person gets to finish off their round with only the opponents armour to stop him. Next round would re-roll to see who is on the offensive. A natural one during combat would reverse the position.
I never figured out how ranged attacks would play in to this style.
The advantage would be a much more realistic and fast combat. The downside would be that combat would be much more deadly to PCs as well. I may still play with this system to see if I can work out the kinks and see if it is viable.

[say652]

Take the Characters #of attacks. 15÷#oa = exactly how ling I give a player to do something.
Ok four seconds and go. I uh..1..2...3...4. Sorry you suffered from combat paralysis and lost an attack.
O.o

[SittingBull]

I worked on a new way to run combat over a decade ago. Never did play test it though. Essentially, everyone figured out whop they were planning to face off against, then they roll initiative. Who ever won got to go on the offense for the round, attacking their opponent until all their attacks were out. Each attack also uses up one of the defenders actions. If the defender ran out of attacks, they were so off balance that the offensive person gets to finish off their round with only the opponents armour to stop him. Next round would re-roll to see who is on the offensive. A natural one during combat would reverse the position.
I never figured out how ranged attacks would play in to this style.
The advantage would be a much more realistic and fast combat. The downside would be that combat would be much more deadly to PCs as well. I may still play with this system to see if I can work out the kinks and see if it is viable.

What if the defender had more actions than the attacker?

[Whiskeyjack]

Then they would get to execute those attacks without the original attacker being able to defend. Kind of like a second wind. This way would heavily favour a character with high initiative and apm.

[kiralon]

Another thing i'm trying is having weapons have a maximum number of attacks per round, you might have 8 attacks a round but you can only use your Flamberge on 3 of them, and your Longsword on 5 of them for example, this also gives a reason to use other strikes like kicks and punches in combat.
or 2h get to attack every second action, 1h get 2 out of 3 actions, and small gets 1 every action.
I really don't like characters having more then 5 attacks a round, as it tends to slow things down for some reason, combat with everyone having 2-4 attacks per round seems the most fun and flowing.

[SittingBull]

Then they would get to execute those attacks without the original attacker being able to defend. Kind of like a second wind. This way would heavily favour a character with high initiative and apm.

So no automatic parry in your method?

[Veknironth]

Well, I quite like the idea of a weapon having a maximum number of attacks. Not only does it bring in the idea of using unorthodox attacks, but it makes certain weapons like daggers more desirable. Rather than merely looking at the damage a weapon does, people can consider how often they can actually use it to attack.

-Vek
"Makes the phrase 'my weapon is maxed out' have a different meaning."

[Alrik Vas]

But then fighter uses his +10 ps bonus in daggers to out shine his 2h.

[Whiskeyjack]

Then they would get to execute those attacks without the original attacker being able to defend. Kind of like a second wind. This way would heavily favour a character with high initiative and apm.

So no automatic parry in your method?

No. Although it opens up the ability to either parry or dodge depending on the situation.

[Veknironth]

But then fighter uses his +10 ps bonus in daggers to out shine his 2h.

Ah yes. There would be a way around it with making the amount of strength scale depending on the weapon but then you're really adding a lot of math.

-Vek
"And I did start this to make combat faster."

[kiralon]

But then fighter uses his +10 ps bonus in daggers to out shine his 2h.

Having fighters with high PS scores would make me happier because as far as combat stats go PP is king, PS needs a little help here and there as you can get decent bonus to damage weapons, but pluses to strike parry and dodge are rarer and smaller in weapon form, so my players tend to aim for high PP, as the plus to damage is cheaper and easier to get.

[Alrik Vas]

Strength needs help in PF? I understand the focus on PP, but that's because it helps too much. Though PS is just awesome in combat. Don't see why people would dump it.

[Alrik Vas]

But then fighter uses his +10 ps bonus in daggers to out shine his 2h.

Ah yes. There would be a way around it with making the amount of strength scale depending on the weapon but then you're really adding a lot of math.

-Vek
"And I did start this to make combat faster."

In that case, I see it as 2h melee should get 1.5 or x2 PS bonus if you're cutting attacks like that. Or, allow power attack. 2 actions for double damage. Still limit max number of swings per weapon, but improving those attacks, making them quality, is where it's at.

[kiralon]

Strength needs help in PF? I understand the focus on PP, but that's because it helps too much. Though PS is just awesome in combat. Don't see why people would dump it.

buying a +4 to damage weapon isn't very expensive, and getting high damage weapons is possible, so why would you go for a high strength, when PP makes a bigger difference to combat and you can still get bonuses to damage.
As a racial bonus I let humans put their stats where they like (adaptive), but non-humans have to leave them where they lay, and I can't remember the last human who had a PS higher than his PP, mostly for the reason above.

[Alrik Vas]

That's some good rolling. Most characters in my games are built around a concept. The big buff dude will be skilled, but not as quick as a more flexible, nimble character. And I was unaware that magic items with bonuses in pf were so cheap.

[kiralon]

That's some good rolling. Most characters in my games are built around a concept. The big buff dude will be skilled, but not as quick as a more flexible, nimble character. And I was unaware that magic items with bonuses in pf were so cheap.

the +4 to damage is a non-magical bonus (dwarven quality). super sharpness is 40k with a bonus of 2 from your crit range. a flaming sword that does 4d6 damage is about 40k. Double damage vs (whatever) us usually 12-15k.

I have one player in particular who, while i watched, rolled a 24, 2 22's and a 20 and an 18 on one character, and usually has more than 3 stats over 16 the lucky so and so, and put a fountain of Strength and a Fountain of dexterity in front of the players, in fact a fountain of all the different stats and they all went for the PP bonus, even the wizard (as really high IQ does nothing for a wizard, but a really high PP does). That tells me that PP is unbalanced in combat, and I use a Perception stat that gives bonuses for ranged combat rather then PP

[Veknironth]

Well, we've officially veered off topic but I'll make myself complicit in it. While bonuses to strike and parry are VERY helpful, I think STR is a pretty useful combat attribute. What evens it out is that PP only goes up to something like +8 to strike/parry/dodge at a PP of 30 and a +5 at 24. PS goes all the way up to +15 damage at 30 and +9 at 24. So, STR benefits are roughly double.

STR is also much easier to improve. In the main book, you can boost your PP by 1 for Gymnastics and 1 for Acrobatics, for a total of +2. For STR, you can boost by 1 for Gymnastics, 1 for Acrobatics, 1 for Wrestling, 1 for Athletics, 2 for Body Building, and 2 for Boxing, for a total of +8. So, an average score of 10 could end up with a strong dude with an 18 STR and +3 damage but only a 12 for PP and nothing to show for it. That would argue for your PC's opting to have more PP, but since choosing where to put your scores isn't a rule in the game, I don't think it's fair to call into question the balance. You are essentially unbalancing it by making it easier to acquire.

In terms of weapons, Dwarven or Kobold Weapons can also give you a +2 strike or parry which is equivalent to an 18 or 19 PP. The +4 to damage (again double) is equivalent to a 19 STR. That seems to be keeping with the balance.

Really, the most important Combat Stat is Attacks per Melee and the most important skill Paired Weapons.

-Vek
"I intentionally omitted dodges because no one wants to lose an attack action!"

[Alrik Vas]

I don't doubt the power of WP Paired, Vek, but what are you saying in that regard? Do the players you game with dual attack at all times?

[kiralon]

Well, we've officially veered off topic but I'll make myself complicit in it. While bonuses to strike and parry are VERY helpful, I think STR is a pretty useful combat attribute. What evens it out is that PP only goes up to something like +8 to strike/parry/dodge at a PP of 30 and a +5 at 24. PS goes all the way up to +15 damage at 30 and +9 at 24. So, STR benefits are roughly double.

STR is also much easier to improve. In the main book, you can boost your PP by 1 for Gymnastics and 1 for Acrobatics, for a total of +2. For STR, you can boost by 1 for Gymnastics, 1 for Acrobatics, 1 for Wrestling, 1 for Athletics, 2 for Body Building, and 2 for Boxing, for a total of +8. So, an average score of 10 could end up with a strong dude with an 18 STR and +3 damage but only a 12 for PP and nothing to show for it. That would argue for your PC's opting to have more PP, but since choosing where to put your scores isn't a rule in the game, I don't think it's fair to call into question the balance. You are essentially unbalancing it by making it easier to acquire.

In terms of weapons, Dwarven or Kobold Weapons can also give you a +2 strike or parry which is equivalent to an 18 or 19 PP. The +4 to damage (again double) is equivalent to a 19 STR. That seems to be keeping with the balance.

Really, the most important Combat Stat is Attacks per Melee and the most important skill Paired Weapons.

-Vek
"I intentionally omitted dodges because no one wants to lose an attack action!"

They would mostly play elves to get 4d6 PP, nightvision, and high beauty, except the one guy who would play dwarves for the bonuses they get. For a place that tends to be mostly human the players wouldn't play humans because they suck when compared to elves and dwarves, and the lower ME was a bonus for them because they would be irritating to npc's and then say i'm playing in character.
and things really change when the wizard in the party gets fleet feet as his level up spell.
I play paired slightly differently as well, whenever you do a paired strike you lose automatic parry until the start of the same action segment in the next round. You do a paired weapon strike at action 3, you lose automatic parry until your action 3 of the next round, and I allow feints, you get a negative to attack but can dodge simultaneous strikes and then attack and your opponent can then only dodge.

But I do also allow your Weapon Proficiency + to strike be your bonus to initiative as well.

and bonuses to strike is what gets you through armour, that's one of the good things about PP, but more importantly if you have trouble rolling over 10 on a d20 a high PP is handier.

[zyanitevp]

I run a 20 second timer- have been known to go down to 10, for people to take their action.
The length of battle often is due to people taking too long to figure out their next action- they should consider that while the other players are taking theirs.

[SittingBull]

I never had a problem with my players being able to say 'shoot' in rapid fashion.

[Alrik Vas]

I never had a problem with my players being able to say 'shoot' in rapid fashion.

Me neither, but it's usually a variation on the word, closer to a curse, as they're getting rolled by superior tactics.

[Veknironth]

Well, I have noticed that a lot of players suffer from that sort of paralysis. They just don't have whatever it takes to make a decision quickly. There is a lot of asking the GM questions that slows the game down as the PC's try as best they can to be certain their actions are going to be successful before trying them. Although, really, sword shouldn't take a lot of thought.

What I do notice is people changing their thoughts based on what has happened. They were going to attack person A but a teammate downed that opponent and now they have to decide between the rest. It's frustrating when people ask "Can I hit that guy? What about that guy?" We toyed around with asking people what they were intending to do BEFORE rolling initiative and making that first attack be that regardless of the roll. If two people are going to attack the Ogre, then they both go towards it even if the Initiative winner kills it on the first blow.

-Vek
"20 second? Please we give like 3-4 max. Make up your mind of suffer the consequences."

[the ancient gamer]

Well, I have noticed that a lot of players suffer from that sort of paralysis. They just don't have whatever it takes to make a decision quickly. There is a lot of asking the GM questions that slows the game down as the PC's try as best they can to be certain their actions are going to be successful before trying them. Although, really, sword shouldn't take a lot of thought.

What I do notice is people changing their thoughts based on what has happened. They were going to attack person A but a teammate downed that opponent and now they have to decide between the rest. It's frustrating when people ask "Can I hit that guy? What about that guy?" We toyed around with asking people what they were intending to do BEFORE rolling initiative and making that first attack be that regardless of the roll. If two people are going to attack the Ogre, then they both go towards it even if the Initiative winner kills it on the first blow.

-Vek
"20 second? Please we give like 3-4 max. Make up your mind of suffer the consequences."

I think that what you're getting at there, overall, is a fine point. Players need to be tuned into what their character sees, or is immediately confronted by. Players also need to have a good feel for what is going on in the encounter, in general.

[SittingBull]

Never had people who had trouble making decisions. My goal was to spread out everyones attacks evenly over the 15 second turn.

[the ancient gamer]

Never had people who had trouble making decisions. My goal was to spread out everyones attacks evenly over the 15 second turn.

Then you're doing a good job of making them aware, I think

And keeping the pace quick is important, too. Not dilly-dallying with your requests for action. If they screw around too much with making decisions (which, in my experience never happens if it's all presented properly), then the character does nothing, and is confused.