Homebrew systems

So, Veeky Forums, here's an idea I've been playing with for a rules-lite, generic medieval fantasy system.
Long story short, I want a system that is more streamlined, and more accurately represents swordfighting, than the "take turns rolling to hit" most systems do.

So far, this is what I came up with:


Melee combat is a contested roll of 2d6. Higher roll is the attack die, lower roll is the damage die.

Combat Advantage (momentum, higher ground, support, etc.): Roll 3d6 instead of 2d6, and discard lowest roll.
Edge (better equipment, skill, physical conditions, etc.): +1, +2, or +3 attack modifier at GM's discretion.

Winner of contested attack roll calculates damage as

weapon damage x damage die vs armor class (AC).

If attack roll is a 6 (before modifiers), the hit is critical.

weapon type: Weapon damage/critical damage

Light: 1/3 (knife, dagger, improvised)
standard: 2/3 (sword, axe, mace, etc.)
Heavy: 3/4 (longsword, pole axe, etc.)

Armor Class:

shield only: 4 (5 with helmet)
helmet only: 4 (5 with shield)
light armor: 5 (6 with helmet or shield, 7 with both)
heavy armor: 7 (8 with helmet or shield, 9 with both)
plate armor: 10 (11 with helmet or shield, 12 with both)

Additionally, helmet grants +1 AC vs critical hits, shield wins draws (unless both combatants have shields).

If calculated damage is greater than Armor, the target is Wounded. Otherwise, target is dazed (grants advantage).
If already dazed, target is stunned (grants both advantage, and edge). If already stunned, target is knocked out.

What about multiple opponents against one?

I was thinking along the lines of "add one extra die per additional combatant, and use the normal rules for advantage/edge"

Just an extra 1d6, I assume.
I would personally divide the weapons between 1h and 2h.
and a separate category for professional weapons and tools.

basically, part of the idea behind this was to do away with having to stat different weapon types.

So if you have two opponents wearing plate, and one has a longsword, and the other a pole axe, the guy with the pole axe will have an edge.

Also the relative skill level is key to winning fights, since at +3 edge there are 3/36 results where the less skilled opponent wins.

Criticals happen some 30% of the time, and fights generally end in one or two exchanges, like they should.

At the same time, I (think), I'm avoiding the squishy level 1 characters problem from ad&d, where a level 1 wizard wearing no armor, attacked by a goblin with a short bow, has approximately 25% chance to be instantly killed by an attack he has no way of avoiding other than hoping it doesn't happen.

>professional weapons vs improvised

i think the edge covers it.

>1h vs 2h

standard is the default 1h weapon category, heavy are the 2h weapons.

as a side note, the working title is "Talisman RPG", because it feels like a more elaborate version of the combat system in Talisman, which was sold in Poland as "Magia i Miecz" - literally Magic and Sword, and later ripped off as "Magiczny Miecz" (Magic Sword).

Also, because fuck GW.

>want a system that is more streamlined, and more accurately represents swordfighting, than the "take turns rolling to hit" most systems do.
>roll attack
>roll damage
>repeat
I don't see how is this more accurate or even interesting at all.

in D&D, your chance to hit depends only on your own skill (level + modifiers), and your opponent's armor type (AC).

Here, you directly compare the two combatants' skill and equipment. Then they both roll, and one, or the other may get a modifier for having an advantage over his opponent. You roll both dice at once, not attack first, and then damage if you hit, so the system favors more skilled fighters, rather than just stacking AC.

You also aviud (i hope) that situation, where a fighter with full HP, gets randomly instagibbed by a freaking kobold, with no way to respond.

there's also less rolling, since low level fighters in other systems like AD&D, or WFRP tended to miss a lot, so you could have the whole thing be a show of swing and miss on both sides.

I;m also not very fond of the high HP, dps-based approach to resolving combat.

okay, so basically you're just telling us that you are playing dnd and not any other system
have you ever heard the phrase: "Stop playing DnD ?"

I also played WFRP (1e and 2e), WoD (vamp and mage), Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, CP2020, a couple of niche Polish systems (Witcher before witcher was a thing), Mutant Chronicles (2e), and Mechwarrior (2e).

So far, every combat system has been firmly rooted in Hollywood tradition of alternating attacks and defense. Worse still - in many cases, the only factor in wether or not your attack connects is your own skill, and your opponent's armor type, with the target having no way to actively influence the attack roll.

Having opposed rolls literally doesn't matter and just makes the game slower.

You could take 4e (since it actually has scaling AC instead of static "10+stat+armor" AC), reduce AC by 10 and the target rolls for defense, and you are in the same spot.

Rolling the damage into the attack roll is rather nice, however. I'm not sure how the math works out for this pseudo 2d6, but it's pretty elegant, kudos for that.

rolling damage and attack at once favors the fighter with more skill, since it lowers the chance of getting stuck with a low roll.


I thought about using scaling AC, but that goes right back to having to assign values to everything, and back to flynning.

With the contested roll, both combatants are attacking at once. In the "traditional" system, you hit, or you miss, here you hit, or get hit (unless there's a draw), which I find to be a more accurate representation of swordfighting - instead of parrying your opponent's attack and then attacking him back, you are trying to thwart his attack and strike at him at the same time.

Also - no hit points. The damage roll is to see if you can overcome his armor outright, otherwise you get an incremental advantage in what might be a grapple or whatever.


And since I'm getting rid of weapon-specific stats, it's up to the GM to decide if a type XV sword is better for fighting an armored opponent, than a type X.

Final also - i don't want to clog up the combat with detailed rules for things like halfswording, murder stroke, krumphau, etc. - that's why advantage/edge covers everything relative to the combatants.

>Having opposed rolls literally doesn't matter and just makes the game slower.
It can work in systems that are built for that. Off the top of my head, FATE works almost entirely on opposed rolls (granted that's a far cry from DnD), as does whatever Wyrd's Malifaux RPG is called.

It's not something you want to tack on to an existing system, but it can work in the right context.

>rules-lite
>requires several math operations including multiplication and at least three rolls per attack
You already fucked up man.

Not every fight happens in a single tempo.
Just because you hit doesn't mean you won't hit back.
There is nothing inherently hollywood-ish or unrealistic in parry-counterattack sequence.
Again, you make claims without anything to support it. You just want fight to be that way because you like it so.
are you doing sport fencing?

Open Legend and OVA both have mechanics for similar interactions, but they're nonstandard/optional things in both of those with tradeoffs or risks. But, you might find some interesting mechanics to glean all the same.

And Open Legend's damage system is also conceptually similar to what you have going on: Damage is simply how much you beat their defense score by, with a minimum of 3, and each weapon's stats are essentially just fringe benefits. What you actually roll for an attack (and thus your potential for damage) is based on your ability scores, so in the end a character's skill is the primary way damage is decided.

I can't decide if this film was total shit or okay

Honestly, I hate the "stupid stoner comedy" genre, but this was fucking hilarious. The effects were mindblowing for what the movie was, the acting was solid, and the crass humour made me think of middleschool D&D games. Its a better Dungeons and Dragons movie, than Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie. Totally a guilty pleasure.

The first time I saw it, I was very much thinking
>I can't decide if this film is total shit

But it's one of those that becomes increasingly funnier on repeat viewings. Once you know the beats are coming, for some reason it makes the ludicrous lines and acting seem even more ridiculous.

That might just be a Danny McBride thing though - Hot Rod has a similar quality to it.

>Its a better Dungeons and Dragons movie, than Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie
To be fair - not exactly a high bar to reach, that.

More like one roll for two attacks. And if you can't do multiplication up to 3x6, you should be in special school

Try hema. Empty paries happen very rarely. Alternating offense and defense is pure stage fighting designed for dumb audience to understand what's going on. And nothing changes the fact that passive defense (armor) is secondary to active defense.