So the play testing has been going very well and the players seem to agree that the new initiative system is very good and makes for some interesting and dynamic combats. Using the Mike Mearls "Greyhawk" system of declaring actions and using that to roll lowest on different dice creates interesting scenarios where players weigh their need to act faster or take more time to move into advantage. Having initiative every round makes the combats more dynamic and players are reacting to the events rather than just waiting out their turns. Monsters have fled battle and been caught fleeing or fled successfully based on their initiative rolls over a couple rounds. Its all been pretty good.
There are a couple things I want to add to lean into this concept even more. I want to add a rule that if you are holding your action you can REACT to an opponents attack if they are later in initiative order. You roll a 3 to cast a spell and the opposing wizard rolls a 6, you can cast your spell and hope to stop them or you can hold your action and try to counter their spell. This is a more interesting choice I think. Same as blocking, if your quick enough you can move to intercept an opponents attack and block it, saving the poor halfling rogue from being impaled on the bad guys spear.
The block and counter-spell actions have been in the Beacon rules since the beginning but are rarely used. I think because they required you state your intention at the start of the round and forgo your attack, players thought they were both less fun and harder to execute. In any system where you have to choose to attack or try some mitigating action, you are usually going to attack since its the simpler option and it has a net effect of taking out your opponents and ending the combat. However in a specific instance it may be better to react to mitigate damage and so when you see those situations and can react to them its pretty fun. You are now PLAYING the game. I think it much more likely you will choose a block or counter-spell to interrupt an opponents action than it would be to declare that as your action at start of a round. It also means that blocking or countering a spell cannot happen unless you have initiative, which I think is a good limiter to those actions and so they can be a bit more powerful than they might otherwise be if they were just regular actions. I might look for other reactions to add as well, things to make the combat flow more fun, it seems to be a natural fit for this initiative system to have these type of reactions.
However not all is sweet in our delicious candy-land. The other side of this initiative system is that it means that you are rolling three times in combat for every attack and this is causing things to go slower. Rolling lots of dice is fun but also slows down the game. Picking out dice and adding up the results is slow and so usually games will try to get rid of as many rolls as possible. They usually start with initiative and I get that, but I think that's the wrong approach since initiative is such a great tool for modeling combat. Why get rid of the good and interesting rolls where luck really does play a huge part? I would rather get rid of the other side of things and get rid of the damage rolls, and in fact that's what I'm going to do.
Beacon already has simplified damage for weapons, based on if they are light or heavy, and I think its time to go even further and just set the damage for those weapon types. My initial thought is you would take the middle number and say its 3 points for light weapon and 4 for a heavy weapon and critical hits will always do double that, so 6 and 8 respectively (and +1 for two handed heavy weapons). This takes out a whole roll and makes things resolve faster, and you still add all the STR and fighter damage bonuses etc. so the numbers will work out the same as they do now. I'm not sure what to do with monsters at this point, although the obvious thing is to take half their HD type as the base damage amount. Monsters in combat need some other attention in any case.
I might in the future look at trying some kind of system where I'd lower the amount of set damage and use the value on the to-hit roll to determine how much damage is done. For example you roll 3 points higher than the target AC so you would do 3 with a light weapon and 3+1 with a heavy weapon (plus all the other damage bonuses). This might work but it would need some thought to model that out without breaking the game, since you can roll a LOT higher than the required to hit in some cases, and that number goes up the higher the character levels so it would have a real scaling effect. It would also really impact low AC monsters (and PCs) disproportionately which would be bad. Also it would be a lot of adding stuff up which is doable, but again takes time. If you know your hit is going to do 3+2 damage unless you crit that's easy to keep track of. If you need to ask the GM the specific AC and calculate it multiple times in a fight, or Hermes for-fend, make the poor GM do all the damage calculations for the combat, then obviously not so much joy.
So just the fixed damage for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment