Looking for more fun combat

>If you're just after combat
As opposed to other D&D editions' what, exactly?

The secret of fun combat lies in not paying much attention to combat mechanics.

Narrate actions the characters and their opponents do - and here's the important bit - and treat that narration as factually true. The character swung his sword and grabbed his opponent's hand while he was distracted? Good, now he has a hold on that hand and can continue from there. The character sidestepped his opponents overhead attack? Good, now that opponent has his weapon stuck on the floor and can't use it.

Just talk a lot and have it be factually real in the game world's reality, that's the key to fun combat. Pay less attention to the rules and more attention to cool stuff that can happen, then make that happen.

...

D&D was originally about getting the treasure out of the dungeon most efficiently (see: gold as experience). Combat is dangerous and isn't where you want to end up in.

This. Combat focus only came into the limelight 3e forward, where combat = exp and players were buffed enough to be able to challenge the environment instead of vice versa.
Check out some OSR games to see how the older style played but without the older game design.

There's not much point in sticking to d20 games if the d20 game you're playing is boring you.

ROLEMASTER mutha fucka!

Offensive bonus is a combination of stat bonus and SKILL. You invest points every level into skills, including weapon catagories. Someone who spends their life mastering the halberd will be poor in combat if they pick up a sword.

Defensive bonus is stats and magical bonuses from items or some spells.

Combat is d100+your offensive bonus-defensive bonus= your total

Get the CHART (yes RM is chart heavy, don't be intimidated with the quantity, they're organized and straightforward)

Across the top are numbers 1-20. These are your armour types, which you know because it says what type of armour it is when you bought it.

Down the side is 1-150. This is your attack total.

Cross reference those two and you get a number or a number and 2 letters (this is where the fun starts!)

Lets say you got 13BK.

That's 13 hit points (yawn) and a B critical on the Crush table.

Go to the Crush table, and roll a d100. Find that number on the B column and read the gory details. You will receive injuries like Sheild Arm broken, you can no longer use a sheild in combat, you are stunned for 1 round. And 10 points of damage.

You can take bleeding, losing hits every round. You can take penalties to attack or even all skill rolls for a period of time. You can lose a limb.

You can fucking die from one fucking hit.

It makes combat scary again.

Back to the first chart. Each weapon (dagger, rapier, spear, axe, etc) has a different attack chart that reflects is effectivness against certain armour types.

The heavier your armour, the easier it is to hit you generally, but it is much harder to do anything serious. (except grappling, which is done EXACTLY like weapon combat, because skills and criticals work better)

Its not a great rulebook from modern editing standards, but damn that system makes combat exciting again.

GURPS. Play Dungeon Fantasy or Banestorm.

It makes combat more lively, can't argue with results.

This. 4e was a blast to play, and not bad to GM either. It has tons of options which are (more or less) balanced and errata'd, and it has enough history that there are tons of suggestions for avoiding common pitfalls.

Also, Tactical Warlord was my favorite support class from any system.

Seconding this. It's a great system, and actually the only one I've had fun with in terms of combat.

No, that's how you get shitty combat when the game's mechanics don't back up what you're doing.

If you're okay with a different kind of fantasy, Legends of the Wulin is a Wuxia RPG with the best combat system in any RPG I've ever played.

4e or Strike!, possibly if you have someone to hold your hand through it, Legend of the Wulin.

How does one get into 4e now?

You download the PHB from somewhere, just to get the hang of the game, then get the offline Character builder tool (CBLoader) and use funin.space for finding anything you don't know.

links here : pastebin.com/85Hm56k5

Thirding that, and adding Mythras/Runequest 6 to the pile.

Adding to this, you should use funin.space and the CBLoader as rules reference, as they are the most up to date. Book PDFs may be out of date.

If you like very crunchy combat, you might like Exalted 3e. It does have the (big, big) problem that a lot of its stuff requires some houseruling because the mechanics are poorly written, but the general setup of how combat works is really cool despite that.

Basically, you have two types of attacks: withering, which reduces your target's Initiative score and increases yours, and decisive, which deals damage if it hits based on your Initiative score.

Plus, there's about a million powers that interact with combat in different ways, ranging from "inflict a penalty each time an enemy rolls a certain number" to "you can't attack for a turn but can counterattack all enemies" to "you shoot eyebeams that set people on fire". It's skill-based rather class-based, so any character can potentially get access to anything.

Wulin is great, but requires some caveats.

When it works? The system is fucking great.

Actually getting it to that point is an enormous pain due to how awfully edited the core book is, made worse by a few core balance issues probably due to them rushing the book out. It's a system with a lot of great ideas that aren't quite executed correctly. Still, past that learning curve it's legitimately great, but I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to go through all that effort.

>saying just "I hack and slash" triggers the move

Dude, it's totally clear in the game: it doesn't work that way.

I dunno OP. What is EXACTLY the problem? The options are fine per se (numbers vs numbers) but they are too few?

Or you need more descripitions?

Burning Wheel has an interesting idea for combat, but I don't know how it actually goes.

no system will ever have good mechanics for you, stay deep in crunch

Stop shilling Strike!

Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike!?

The fun bit in encounters is overcoming challenges, not just "here's a guy kill him"

If you're not having fun in combat that's a GM problem. Combat is the same in most games, the names and the math is all that changes.

You should be setting up interesting situations that makes people invested in the battle, not expecting the mechanics to be fun on their own. Every game you will ever play will eventually come down to "Roll a die, does it hit? roll damage" as a basic combat mechanic. Mix in some "I cast instant death / sleep / fuck off faggot" occasionally

>If you're not having fun in combat that's a GM problem. Combat is the same in most games, the names and the math is all that changes.

Read more systems. This is hilariously wrong.

>Dude, it's totally clear in the game: it doesn't work that way.
I know, but what I said was that choices don't mean anything if they're not mechanically distinct, so all the different ways you can say you attack someone which result in a hack and slash roll are all just different bits of fluff around the same option

So if you don't like FATAL it's the GM's fault?

But.. .they are.

>But.. .they are.
ok, in what way are two actions both of which result in a hack and slash roll (and only a hack and slash roll) made by the same character distinct choices with different effects

How do you have your hotkeys set up for max DPS?

> hack and slash, volley, backstab

Your example. Different. Deal with it.

>
>So if you don't like FATAL it's the GM's fault?
I think you hit the wrong post with that.

When you make a melee attack against an enemy in Pathfinder, tell me two actions that you can do that change the result significantly.

You can add modifiers - Power attack, weapon finesse - You can make a different ' move' - Most combat maneuvers - But most of the time, it's dice + strength + BAB.

DW just cuts the shit and tells you that all Dice+Strength+BAB rolls are this one number, your Hack 'n Slash number, and makes everything work off of that one number. That's all they've done.

Yes. But I think it's pretty clear nontheless.

System matters as in any game.

This.

OP what you want is Dungeon World

It's pretty much objectively one of the best currently out there. It has fast easy to use mechsnics and is perfect for beginners, it's a lot cheaper than most of these other rules bloated systems that cost fifty dollars. There is no reason for extra rules when it is he role playing that matters. Dungeon World is fast and innovative and still feels exactly like the spirit of ADND before DnD 3.5 destroyed the hobby and ruined a generation of role players.

You want fast, intuitive combat? Dungeon World does that.

You want real, deep roleplaying mechanics? Dungeon World does that.

You want great mechanics that reward diversity of play? Dungeon World does that as well.

My last session of Dungeon World my human fighter wrapped a vampire in a bear hug and wrestled him out a window. This is real roleplaying we are talking about here, not babby 3.5 shit. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of Dungeon World ASAP.

and my earlier list of combat options included them as different options, you then said that it didn't work like that because you described an action which caused the roll, I asked for an example of two different hack and slash rolls made by the same character

If you're saying that those are the different options then aren't you agreeing with my post here

That's true, if you ignore fictional positioning, Aid, weapons' properties (at very least range) and all that.

So, it's true if you're a retard.

I didn't say anything back then.

Yeah I love Savage Worlds for example but after playing nothing but Savage Worlds I get really fuckign sick of it. That's true of any system, except D&D for some odd reason.

While I appreciate the design of *World games, I don't think you can really recommend them on the grounds of their combat mechanics.

PbtA is very focused on getting the rolling out the way and focusing on the roleplaying. There isn't much in the way of meaningful mechanical choice, all rolls work roughly the same way with different fluff attached. And this is fine, it suits a certain playstyle, but it does not provide a meaningful or compelling combat experience the way a crunchier game can.

>I didn't say anything back then.
I'm not even entirely sure what you're arguing anymore, I list the options a DW character has in combat, you seem to agree that those were the only options, you still seem to be antagonistic, why?

I mean, OP is looking for a tactically interesting RPG, and that's the one thing it does well.

>That's true, if you ignore fictional positioning, Aid, weapons' properties (at very least range) and all that.
You think Dungeon World doesn't use those, too?

Aiding others is a roll you can make. You describe the positioning, and if you find yourself in a more agreeable position to your action, it's not as difficult. Weapons even have properties, you can add tags to them in order to give them bonuses to various things.

At the core, the base roll is the same: You roll a d20, and you add your modifiers. The modifiers are the same every time, give or take being clever. DW doesn't ascertain 'being clever' as 'forming a little congo line of fighters', but there are clearly bonuses for charging, fighting together with a friend, and using a weapon suited to the situation.

You're ignoring the GM's moves, especially the softer ones. Basically those determine a greater variety in the moves' use at the table.

Besides even if arguably DW isn't really that prone to having +1 for the character ficitional positioning, other PBTAs do it way more, like AW itself (see the Read a Sitch move).

You're buttblasted because the point is not that the choices are "dice-rollingly" limitated (they are), but because you originally said they're always the same move.
Which is madness.

I'm saying DW does it. And ignoring that is retarded.

DND doesn't, for the most part. For a bonus, you gotta have shit like spells cast on you.
I mean, there ARE options like having higher ground, in some editions at least, but they're pretty far in between. The GM doesn't really throw at you opportunities for that.

I understand this is a bit more complicated than just hammering left click like you are used to, but you can probably figure it out for yourself.

>you originally said they're always the same move. Which is madness.
I never said this, I even listed the different moves that various PCs in the game I played could use, I just think those aren't enough which going by
>the point is not that the choices are "dice-rollingly" limitated (they are)
you seem to agree with

>DND doesn't, for the most part. For a bonus, you gotta have shit like spells cast on you.
>I mean, there ARE options like having higher ground, in some editions at least, but they're pretty far in between. The GM doesn't really throw at you opportunities for that.

In 5e, the DM can give you advantage for whatever he pleases, and some things like enemy being knocked down are baked in. In 4e, Combat Advantage was handed out for all kind of shit (higher ground, attacking downed/flanked/unaware enemy, etc.), and 3.5 also has an autistically precise list of bonuses you get for attacking from a 45° angle on a sunny thursday for some sort of bonus if you got a relevant feat.

And in older editions (that inspired DW), the DM could do whatever he wants, or it was AD&D, which started the trend with making rulings for everything.

>I'm saying DW does it. And ignoring that is retarded.
>DND doesn't, for the most part. For a bonus, you gotta have shit like spells cast on you.
>I mean, there ARE options like having higher ground, in some editions at least, but they're pretty far in between. The GM doesn't really throw at you opportunities for that.

Ah, I get what you're saying. I thought you were talking about how PF/5e/etc allows things like flanking, feats, etc. to affect your combat modifiers and that, somehow, DW doesn't.

Turns out we're bros! It's a good feeling.

>I've ran dungeon world and yeah it's weird, on the player side there's not much in the way of options

And no, I don't agree. I think the number of moves if fine.

The number of moves is fine, but the moves doing numbers are not.

not much in the way of option =/= always the same move

>I think the number of moves if fine
fair enough, I don't, you do you

I'm familiar with 3.5 and 4th.

No, it's totally different. Basically in those games the players can only use the fiction that the GM "deliberately" put there for advantage (if you can get to the high ground/whatever). In DW, every soft move is prone to being used against the adversary and can be "cashed in" for fictional positioning.

Also, in DW you CAN flank, without even considering the classes' options. It's called Aid.

Yep, they are, if you don't play with retards at least.

signed, dungeon world dev.

Aid is one of the worst moves you can possibly make in DW.

> one of

So the game is full of trap options just like 3.5?

Ignore the naysayers, this guy has the right idea. Do you want a combat where each side just stands there rolling to hit? Or one where a foe charges the player as he tries to wrest his sword free from a fallen enemy, causing both to go down in a tangle of limbs, wrestling for possession for the blade as their struggles carry them dangerously close to the nearby ravine? Give your narrative events some impact by making them have an effect on the game, and challenge your players with the unexpected.

Nope. It's bollocks.

Well, okay, it's half right. How you as a GM run a fight is important to how fun it is.

But you know what really, really helps run a fun fight as a GM? Good, engaging combat mechanics.

Oh god. This stale pasta again.

I will say this guy's not wrong either. I normally run 2e, where this sort of thing is often required to make combat interesting. There's something to be said for combat systems that don't require the DM to perform a narrative trapeze act to be fun and interesting.

100%

No amount of DM narration will keep combat from becoming stale in a game with bland combat mechanics.

(This is why I don't like Mutants and Masterminds)

This. It's the best D&D for tactical combat. But then, it doesn't taste a lot like D&D.
In regards to "MMO" and "not muh D&D" comments; if Lamborghini set out to and succeeded and made the most fuel efficient car on the market and it looked dorky, regardless of how good it was at its goal, it'd get bad reception because that's not what that brand name does.

It's true, though.

I don't think M&M's combat is all that bland, honestly, it just takes a little bit longer to resolve than it should. Even in a basic slugfest of two beatsticks swinging at each other until one drops, there's a wide variety of results for attacks compared to games like D&D, and once you start experimenting with more intricate power design it's not even bland when it comes to the amount of actions you can take.

GURPS with tactical combat is a really satisfying experience, not even meming here.

I can't speak to DWs gameplay. I haven't played it yet.

However, I will point out the only things I've heard of DW are DW meme shills who whine about other games with no idea what they're talking about in those games (and generally acting like cunty brats - I told the last one I talked to I'd be willing to try DW so long as I didn't have to play it with DW players), and apocalypse world fans saying DW just slaps some shit mechanics on AW, ruining the game engine and giving you hot garbage as a result.

I haven't tried AW yet either.

But it seemed worth pointing out the two prevailing things that tend to come from someone shilling DW. It's all rather played out and Blase, and I'd rather skip ahead and see if anyone has non meme content to contribute.

So: without whining about other games, what exactly is fun about DW? What does its game mechanics do that is fun or novel? I'm not an easy sell on handwaivy game mechanics, I lean towards GURPS, personally, but I've got an open mind and play a lot of different games.

Although I enjoy Dungeon World and Apocalypse World I'm surprised to see people going gaga over their combat systems in this thread. They are fairly bare bones although not in a bad way.

Yeah, I don't really get it, myself. I want more mechanically differentiated and nuanced combat, personally.

Ideally what you want to do should depend on who you're fighting, what the enemy has for equipment, where you're fighting, what skills and equipment you have, and what powers/abilities you have, how healthy your opponent is, and what they've already seen you do.

I don't have an example system, but that would yield combat with a great deal of strategy, and would stop the combat game from getting stale.

Rolemaster 2nd Edition. You only need two d10s and MAYBE a d8 to play it, the skills table is huge and anyone can do ANYTHING even a Barbarian can cast spells granted that its way harder to learn them though, the critical table is enourmous with 100 different crits possible per crit table there are six I think and each, and the system is built towards world hopping At least in ours that is, we almost died in Shadowrun's Seattle cause we don't understand guns yet

Why RM2?

I've only played RM4.

Combat was interesting, but the process of character advancement was absolutely terrible.

Dungeon World's is barebones in a bad way.

AW's works so well because it is very quick and every single roll has clear and significant consequences.
DW's muddles the water with easily recoverable and plentiful HP, as well as the removal of meaningful consequences from moves. The false expectations player tend to have from its association with D&D further exacerbates the issue.

This.

AW if fun because it is very focused. It is made to do one thing but it does it well and can be hacked into doing other things easily enough, at least if you are willing to spend some time and have a good theme in your mind. The entire game is made with propagating interesting narrative as a goal. That is what Moves are supposed to do: produce high stakes and hard choices.

DW is a bad game because it introduces classic HP and damage rolls and that is not how combat should go. It makes basic moves rather boring. It does not incentive hard choices nor takes advantage of its genre. It can be fun in a way that any narrative-focused game can be fun, namely when you have a good GM but that is not a merit of the game itself. If your GM can narrate fights in interesting ways then you would have fun even in freeform.

In AW you don't really "fight". You try to take control of the situation using violence or are put in the middle of gunfight and try to do something about it. In DW you roll repetitively for H&S until your enemy drops and react with saving throw from time to time.

>CBLoade

It looks like the 4echaracter builder only has options from the PHB. Any idea how to fix it. Also the compendium wont load.

You patch it.
Then install cbloader.
Then install the fan patches which add the rules which came out after cbuilder was discontinued.

Look for the link in the pastebin with the instructions (you may need to uninstall and scrub a folder).

I concur.

It's basically the opposite end of AW/DW when it comes to combat, too.

I never understood why people fucking hate DW shills until I read this post, thank you.

That is just stale pasta. Your hate for it should only be as lukewarm as the pasta itself.

Song of Swords has what you need.

I'd try and weasel out of not knowing it's pasta by saying "Well clearly I was thanking him for showing the pasta," but fuck it.

It is the stalest of pastas, er, paste? Pastarum?
In any case, people hate DW shills because they do pretty much treat the game like the second coming of Christ and refuse to see any of its glaring flaws.
So basically, for the same reasons as all other shills.

That's a fucking awful analogy. It's more like if Lamborghini tried to make a sports car that was as similar to drive as a racing video game as possible.

>Any analogy in which 4e is not vidya is a bad analogy, and must be rectified immediately

You provide no basis for calling it awful and then provide a strange and nonsensical analogy of your own. Care to clarify?

There is literally nothing that can be done in 4e that can't be done in 5e, combat wise.

People are just fucking lazy and don't read the rules.

Horse fucking shit.

Martial characters who are actually mechanically interesting to play? The best you've got is the trashpile that is the fucking battlemaster.

That pasta is what they all open with before autistic ally speeding about how every other game is shit in comparison

How about marking as a core tank mechanic

To be fair to 5e, UAs now have both a Fighter and a Sorcerer archetypes who have what are basically actual defender mechanics.

The sorcerer one could even work out ok, on account of being a full caster (although it is a sorcerer).

Essentially

Both analogies suck. Cars don't translate to table top RPGs. My point is that 4e isn't taking some classic ttrpg element and doing it justice. It's completely leaving the genre entirely and attempting to do something else that's done better by video games in a needless attempt to stay relevant

typos are none of your fucking business I'm posting from my phone

Except that's horseshit. 4e is an RPG and nobody in the history of Veeky Forums has ever made a good argument that it's not. You don't like it? Fine. It tried to do something that is outside your preferences. That doesn't stop it being a fucking roleplaying game.

It's the exact same bullshit the anti-storygame idiots ramble on, trying to draw arbitrary dividing lines that only exist to separate what they like from what they dislike.

I've been looking for that pic, thanks user!

>Cars don't translate to table top RPGs

I have found them to be one of the better analogies.

> My point is that 4e isn't taking some classic ttrpg element and doing it justice.

Let me stop you there for a moment. I think I understand what you imply but... I mean, are you trying to say that combat is not a classic element of ttrpgs?