Combat sequence

[elf23]

As jcftao suggested here, I thought I'd post my ideas on a variant LL combat sequence.

In my Labyrinth Lord game (running tonight for the first time!) I'm planning on using a simplified weapon damage system, whereby all one-handed weapons deal 1d6 damage and all two-handed weapons deal 1d8 damage. This gives characters the choice of whether to use a shield and gain extra AC or to use a two-handed weapon and gain extra damage. One additional point I had in mind to differentiate weapons was that weapons with a longer reach would get to attack first (a goblin with a spear vs a magic-user with a dagger, for example). I think that's a pretty nice idea, but the only trouble with it is the way the standard combat sequence works - one side resolves all its actions, before the other side resolves its.

So I've been thinking about a variant system, which would enable long-reach weapons to get the advantage. Here's the sequence I've come up with (which is now a bit different to the one I posted on my blog):

1. General intentions are declared - spells to be cast, weapons used to attack, other actions. Labyrinth Lord rolls morale, if applicable.
2. Each side rolls 1d6 for initiative, ties are re-rolled.
3. Attacks and actions are performed in order of reach and quickness, with the initiative roll breaking ties.

The order of individual actions will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the following principles apply in general:

• Missile attacks go before melee attacks and spells. If it matters, they are ordered by speed of firing.
• Spell casting occurs before melee attacks. If it matters, low level spells are quicker to cast than high level spells.
• Weapons with longer reach generally get to attack first, if the defender is kept at a suitable distance.
• Actions which involve movement generally go last.

This means that generally missile attacks go first as they have the longest "reach" and are the quickest, followed by ranged spells, followed by melee attacks and finally unarmed attacks and touch spells. However in the situation where someone making a ranged attack is being attacked in melee, the melee attack would be resolved first (because at hand-to-hand range the character attacking making the ranged attack is effectively unarmed).

One thing I really like about this system is that it makes it so that even with initiative, running up to attack someone who's brandishing a polearm when you've only got a shortsword is a dangerous business! This makes a player's choice of weapon more tactical, as weapons with long reach incur a higher encumbrance.

I just noticed that this system actually makes the initiative roll virtually redundant, as it is only used to break ties. Probably it'd be better to only roll initiative in a tie-break situation.

Any thoughts? Does anyone else use a variant combat sequence?

[Blood axe]

Hmmm...interesting. I can see longer weapons(spear) being quicker at first- but once you get inside their each- that length would be a disadvantage. Imagine someone with a spear fighting someone with a dagger. That length is a great advantage, but once that enemy gets really close- that spear isnt much use.

[kiltedyaksman]

We play down the marching order (regardless of ranged or melee), this helps facilitate play using miniatures. Spells are decalred before initiative.

[scadgrad]

You might want to give the unified damage dice idea from the recent BX Companion a go. We've been using that for quite some time with very satisfying results.

http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/

As for the combat sequence, I try to keep it simple, players roll for any PCs they control, adding DEX bonus if they have it. I roll for NPCs and monsters. Unmodified roll of 6 means you go first, an unmodified 1 means you go at the end which serves to balance the advantage if DEX bonused characters to some extent.

[jcftao]

I like the idea of weapon length to have some bearing on initiative. If a warrior charges into battle against a spearman, the spear wielder should get the initiative. If the same warrior closes to attack the spearman w/o charging, then it may be a cat and mouse battle of two opponents looking for an opening and then I'd rule that weapon length has less bearing.

I've read that in the Holmes' Basic, dex played a factor and initiative determination was quite complex. I'd like to find a simple way to account for weapon length/size and initiative, yet easy to implement.

[elf23]

It's interesting to see that people use a lot of different systems!

I've read that in the Holmes' Basic, dex played a factor and initiative determination was quite complex. I'd like to find a simple way to account for weapon length/size and initiative, yet easy to implement.

Yeah, personally I like to leave Dex based initiative for "advanced" games. I read about the Holmes initiative system recently too at Jeff's game blog - it sounds weird and complicated!

I like the idea of weapon length to have some bearing on initiative. If a warrior charges into battle against a spearman, the spear wielder should get the initiative. If the same warrior closes to attack the spearman w/o charging, then it may be a cat and mouse battle of two opponents looking for an opening and then I'd rule that weapon length has less bearing.

Yeah I guess, depending how the DM wanted to handle it, it could either work as a kind of "first strike - ie only affecting the initial round of combat as the opponents close on each other, or it could (as I envisaged it) be a general advantage for long weapons, as long as they can keep the weapon's length to their advantage. I was intending the system to specifically require the ability to back up - to keep someone at spear point, say, to keep the advantage. A spearman backed into a corner might begin losing initiative.

I also like the idea (just a theory as I've not tried it yet!) of keeping initiative really fluid, and just judging round by round, from the players' descriptions of their actions, who should get to go first. It may get tedious in the end, I'm not sure, but I like the idea at least. So basically my current thoughts on the combat sequence are: 1 - describe what you want to do, 2 - LL judges who goes first (1d6 initiative roll to break ties where it's not clear).

[jcftao]

I think that could work well if the players are up for it. Sometimes all they want to do is hack away. One thing I truly love about coming back to basic dnd is roll for init each round! It adds more unpredictability instead of just going down the roster.

[elf23]

I think that could work well if the players are up for it. Sometimes all they want to do is hack away. One thing I truly love about coming back to basic dnd is roll for init each round! It adds more unpredictability instead of just going down the roster.

Definitely! It's much easier and more fun!

[jcftao]

One thing I keep forgetting is that the combat roll is meant to reflect all the attacks in that round. Many more sword thrusts, hacks, kicks, shoves, and general hard feelings towards your neighbor go on during the 10 seconds of a combat round. Like many, I often want to see that die roll as one swing in combat.

Something interesting and particularly deadly for PCs would be to have both the attacker and defender roll in a combat round and both take damage if the rolls warrant it. The skillful fighter may easily dispatch the lowly kobold, but the kobold got a shot in too. Something like this may do away with initiative altogether. (I'm not saying that I'd go for this idea, but it is interesting to consider...)