Crazy idea...

[Wordwarrior]

So, I've been using C&C as my system of choice since about 2006. I love the SIEGE system. I am also particularly enamored of the 12/15/18 Tertiary attribute option on page 231 of the Castle Keepers guide. I like that it adds a bit more granularity without complicating things too much.

So it occurred to me; since the SIEGE system powers attribute/skill checks and saving throws, why not use it for combat as well? What I'm talking about, is doing away with BtH progression and replacing it with SIEGE mechanics. I was thinking about this a lot lately, as I have an idea for a home brew sci-fi game that I want to be SIEGE based.

Instead of BtH progression, each class could have a CAR (combat aptitude rating). Mercs and Soldier types would have Prime CAR, Cerebral types like doctors and scientists would have a Tertiary CAR, and classes with moderate combat training would have a Secondary CAR. Or maybe I would do away with class archetypes and do some kind of point build system.

What do you guys think? Is this doable? Am I out of my mind?

I must admit, I'm not really a math guy so I would welcome advice from anyone who's good at crunching numbers.

[NJPDX]

I think the only way to find out if it really works is to play-test it. On face I'd say it "could" work, but it would depend an awful lot about how you quantify the challenge class for landing hits.

So, flesh out your mechanics, simulate some combat rounds and record the results, repeat the process a bunch of times and decide if it feels satisfactory as a conflict resolution mechanic for combat.

[Relaxo]

I think that would totally work. In fact, I've had a similar/nearly the same idea and just never really got it down on paper. In fact it has worked in other games, see Marvel Superheros, the old FASERIP version (aka Zebbs RPG system, IIRC)

So yeah, do it to it!

[Wordwarrior]

Yeah, I guess the only way to figure it out is to scrawl out the notes and do some test fights. I'm having trouble figuring out what to do with armor, though. Meh, I don't know, I'm so strapped for time these days it may be a project that I have to put on the shelf until I'm less busy.

I need to dedicate a notebook so I can jot down ideas as they come to me. I'm terrible about getting these great inspirations and then forgetting what it was I came up with, a few days later.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, guys.

[Relaxo]

make Defense a score too. armor soaks damage instead of adding to AC.
There's a game or two that does this, but I can't recall which.

[Treebore]

So, I've been using C&C as my system of choice since about 2006. I love the SIEGE system. I am also particularly enamored of the 12/15/18 Tertiary attribute option on page 231 of the Castle Keepers guide. I like that it adds a bit more granularity without complicating things too much.

So it occurred to me; since the SIEGE system powers attribute/skill checks and saving throws, why not use it for combat as well? What I'm talking about, is doing away with BtH progression and replacing it with SIEGE mechanics. I was thinking about this a lot lately, as I have an idea for a home brew sci-fi game that I want to be SIEGE based.

Instead of BtH progression, each class could have a CAR (combat aptitude rating). Mercs and Soldier types would have Prime CAR, Cerebral types like doctors and scientists would have a Tertiary CAR, and classes with moderate combat training would have a Secondary CAR. Or maybe I would do away with class archetypes and do some kind of point build system.

What do you guys think? Is this doable? Am I out of my mind?

I must admit, I'm not really a math guy so I would welcome advice from anyone who's good at crunching numbers.

Check out my house rules, I have been using BtH based SIEGE checks since I started using C&C in 2006.

[Fizz]

Yep, i've been doing this for years.

Since it's a SIEGE check, attributes and primes matters. Thus a rogue with Dex prime could use a Dex-based weapon (dagger, rapier, etc) to great effect, but he would be very poor with a heavy axe (which is Str-based where he's not prime).

In addition, everyone has a Defense Score which replaces Challenge Level (and AC). Armor works as damage reduction. And finally, all characters have far fewer hit points.

All this makes for a gritty campaign. So planning and tactical decisions matter a lot.


-Fizz

[Treebore]

I actually have not been allowing attribute modifiers. I have been treating it as a "pure skill" check, so have only allowed fighters to add their specialization bonus to their BtH. Its also another way to allow Fighters to stand out more in comparison to the fighter types in combat.

[Fizz]

I actually have not been allowing attribute modifiers. I have been treating it as a "pure skill" check, so have only allowed fighters to add their specialization bonus to their BtH. Its also another way to allow Fighters to stand out more in comparison to the fighter types in combat.

Interesting. I allow the attribute modifier to attack, but not to damage. Strength then gets it's own "bonus" through the ability to wield heavier weapons. And my specialized fighters use a higher damage die instead of a straight bonus (though i guess it averages out).

Not everyone's cup 'o tea, but it all seems to work pretty well if you like gritty campaigns.


-Fizz

[Treebore]

Yeah, I do it primarily to make the fighter stand out more as the bad ass on the field. So since they have the highest BtH, by one point, and get to add specialization, they stand out more when attempting to do extra attacks, etc...

[Wordwarrior]

Do you guys have any links to your house rules? It sounds like you've already hit upon the idea I had and have figured out how to make it work. I would like to take a look at what you've got and see if I could implement it in my own game (assuming I can ever convince any of my group of Pathfinder fanatics to try C&C; which seems more and more unlikely, I'm afraid... ). I would really appreciate it. It could potentially save me a lot of time and headache.

[Treebore]

Its simple, roll d20, add BtH, fighters add specialization bonus. CL is HD of opponent, or highest HD of opponent in a mixed group that is effected by what the fighter is attempting. So if they want to do an extra attack versus an opponent, roll to beat their lvl/HD as the CL. Success means they were able to manipulate an extra "opening", failure means the opponents defensive remained too good. If they want to do something like a cleave, they must drop an opponent that round, then roll a check to see if they can then get a strike in on a new target. Things like that.

I allow spell casters to do similar, but with their low BtH, they will rarely succeed. I do also allow them to try to alter their spells, but it is a level based check, CL is usually spell level+3, so CL is usually 4 to 12. Alterations are things like maximizing damage, extending the range, increasing area of effect, and I use the 3E feats as my guidelines for what is allowed. Typically, I only allow 1 such roll per round, with 1 or two exceptions.

[Wordwarrior]

Its simple, roll d20, add BtH, fighters add specialization bonus. CL is HD of opponent, or highest HD of opponent in a mixed group that is effected by what the fighter is attempting.

I'm not sure if I'm following you here. Do you mean you use HD as the target number, rather than AC, but retain the usual BtH method of resolving attack rolls?

I actually want to ditch BtH all together, using Primary/Secondary/Tertiary as a replacement, and using Armor as damage resistance, like Fizz does. You would add the creatures HD to the P/S/T target number to determine the number needed to hit.

For example, you have a 3rd level fighter type with a Primary Combat Aptitude Rating, trying to hit a 4 HD opponent. Target number is 16 (Base of 12 for a prime CAR + 4 for the HD of the target). Fighter guy rolls 1d20 +3(level modifier), +ability modifier to hit.

Calculating DR for the monsters would be done by subtracting 10 from their listed AC. A critter with AC of 16 would have DR of 6, for example. Players DR would be determined by whatever armor they're wearing. Full plate would give you DR of 8, for example. Energy based attacks would ignore DR (fire, lightning, cold, etc.)

Using SIEGE to manipulate spell effects is a cool idea, btw. I already use SIEGE for combat stunts but, for whatever reason, spellcasting stunts never occurred to me.

In addition, everyone has a Defense Score which replaces Challenge Level (and AC). Armor works as damage reduction. And finally, all characters have far fewer hit points.

Btw Fizz, I was wondering why you reduce PC hit points? They already seem low enough to me- particularly with regard to wizards and illusionists. Do you lower the hit points of monsters, as well? How much do you reduce the hit points by? Do you just make them roll the next lowest hit die, or... what?

[Fizz]

I'm not sure if I'm following you here. Do you mean you use HD as the target number, rather than AC, but retain the usual BtH method of resolving attack rolls?

He is using a standard SIEGE check for attacks. That's why he has a CL = HD of the target. But instead of adding level like a class skill would, he adds BtH. Otherwise, a wizard would be just as good in a fight as a fighter.

I actually want to ditch BtH all together, using Primary/Secondary/Tertiary as a replacement, and using Armor as damage resistance, like Fizz does. You would add the creatures HD to the P/S/T target number to determine the number needed to hit.

So if you have primary/secondary/tertiary, it's just an extension of what i described above. Armor as damage reduction is independent of resolving the attack.

For example, you have a 3rd level fighter type with a Primary Combat Aptitude Rating, trying to hit a 4 HD opponent. Target number is 16 (Base of 12 for a prime CAR + 4 for the HD of the target). Fighter guy rolls 1d20 +3(level modifier), +ability modifier to hit.

I don't use the level modifier for combat, i use BtH. Otherwise all classes are equally good at fighting (at the fighter's level). But that's just me.

Calculating DR for the monsters would be done by subtracting 10 from their listed AC. A critter with AC of 16 would have DR of 6, for example. Players DR would be determined by whatever armor they're wearing. Full plate would give you DR of 8, for example. Energy based attacks would ignore DR (fire, lightning, cold, etc.)

It's more complex for monsters (at least for me), because i try to distinguish between physical toughness and difficulty in being hit. AC combines both of these things, so i do a bit of interpretation. For instance, a tiny faerie might have a high AC, but that's because it's manueverable, not because it's tough. So i'd give it a higher defense (CL) to be hit, and nothing to armor. Something like a stone golem would be the opposite- all armor but little defense.

Btw Fizz, I was wondering why you reduce PC hit points? They already seem low enough to me- particularly with regard to wizards and illusionists. Do you lower the hit points of monsters, as well? How much do you reduce the hit points by? Do you just make them roll the next lowest hit die, or... what?

Because i like having gritty campaigns. Fighting is a dangerous thing to do. I want my campaigns to have a true feel of danger- that jumping into the midst of 5 goblins is not a good idea unless you are really really skilled. Base hit points are the same. What i do is reduce the rate of hit point advancement. A barbarian does not gain an extra 1d12 hit points every level. He's lucky if he gains 3.

-Fizz

[Treebore]

Yep, that is why I use BtH as well, otherwise everyone is as good as the fighter types doing such combat "maneuvers".

[Wordwarrior]

He is using a standard SIEGE check for attacks. That's why he has a CL = HD of the target. But instead of adding level like a class skill would, he adds BtH. Otherwise, a wizard would be just as good in a fight as a fighter.

Hmm... I see what you're getting at, but then what is the advantage of using HD as CL rather than just using AC as the target number to hit?

So if you have primary/secondary/tertiary, it's just an extension of what i described above. Armor as damage reduction is independent of resolving the attack.

Okay, I'm with you. *nod*

I don't use the level modifier for combat, i use BtH. Otherwise all classes are equally good at fighting (at the fighter's level). But that's just me.

Right- I don't know why that didn't occur to me. I see what you're saying now.

It's more complex for monsters (at least for me), because i try to distinguish between physical toughness and difficulty in being hit. AC combines both of these things, so i do a bit of interpretation. For instance, a tiny faerie might have a high AC, but that's because it's manueverable, not because it's tough. So i'd give it a higher defense (CL) to be hit, and nothing to armor. Something like a stone golem would be the opposite- all armor but little defense.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense; particularly with the faerie and golem examples that you describe. I'm going to have to think more carefully about monster size/agility/toughness in relation to armor and combat checks.

Because i like having gritty campaigns. Fighting is a dangerous thing to do. I want my campaigns to have a true feel of danger- that jumping into the midst of 5 goblins is not a good idea unless you are really really skilled. Base hit points are the same. What i do is reduce the rate of hit point advancement. A barbarian does not gain an extra 1d12 hit points every level. He's lucky if he gains 3.

Ah, so he might roll 1d12 every 2nd or 3rd level, instead of every time he levels up? That would be pretty grim, though I could see why you would implement the rule, if you were going with a setting that had a very Warhammer Fantasy type feel to it. I think it would actually be pretty interesting to try that sometime (it would make combats far more frightening, desperate and deadly) but my current bunch of players would never agree to play in a game like that.

[Arduin]

Because i like having gritty campaigns. Fighting is a dangerous thing to do. I want my campaigns to have a true feel of danger- that jumping into the midst of 5 goblins is not a good idea unless you are really really skilled. Base hit points are the same. What i do is reduce the rate of hit point advancement. A barbarian does not gain an extra 1d12 hit points every level. He's lucky if he gains 3.

-Fizz

If you keep spells and spell caster advancement the same, non-magic users get the shaft.

[Fizz]

If you keep spells and spell caster advancement the same, non-magic users get the shaft.

It is true that magic becomes quite more potent in comparison. So in that case one can easily modify it so any magic that affects hit points has only half the effect. Cure spells heal half as much, fireballs cause half as much damage, etc.

As it happens, i play in low-magic settings. The magic that does exist is more subtle; flashy damaging spells like fireball are pretty rare. So the setting helps to keep that in check.

-Fizz

[Fizz]

Hmm... I see what you're getting at, but then what is the advantage of using HD as CL rather than just using AC as the target number to hit?

Because AC is a combination of maneuverability and armor, whereas HD is more associated with combat ability (ie, the ability to fight and hence, not be hit). So i use HD as the base for the CL, but that can be tweaked based on the monster type; much higher for a tiny faerie, but likely much lower for our giant golem.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense; particularly with the faerie and golem examples that you describe. I'm going to have to think more carefully about monster size/agility/toughness in relation to armor and combat checks.

I just do it on a per-monster basis as i need them. Or you can cheat and use a 3E monster book, as 3E divided up AC by speed and armor, etc.

Ah, so he might roll 1d12 every 2nd or 3rd level, instead of every time he levels up?

More like 1d12 / 3 every level. Yes, that means some levels the character might gain nothing.

That would be pretty grim, though I could see why you would implement the rule, if you were going with a setting that had a very Warhammer Fantasy type feel to it. I think it would actually be pretty interesting to try that sometime (it would make combats far more frightening, desperate and deadly) but my current bunch of players would never agree to play in a game like that.

Yes, like i say, it's not everyone's cup o' tea. And that's fine. It's meant to be gritty. It's kind of my own version of the Grim-N-Gritty system that came out for 3E. You can look it up for some more advanced ideas too (still easy to find on the interwebs).

-Fizz

[Relaxo]

I haven't read this thread in weeks, but it's been percolating in the back of my mind...

Ok, just for brainstorming fun, I worked up this rough draft of your idea to rplace the attack bonus progression with ATTACK as another Attribute. Some classes have it Primary and some secondary. (naturally)

Make attack as a Siege Roll, Strength for Melee, Dex for ranged. This is pretty coarse and strips the Fighter of one of their advantages, the best To Hit in the game, unless you give Fighters a bonus +1 for being fighters.

Thus, rough draft 1
Class Attack
Fighter: Primary, +1
Ranger: Primary
Rogue: Secondary
Assassin: Primary
Barbarian: Primary
Monk: Primary
Wizard: Secondary
Illusionist: Secondary
Cleric: Secondary
Druid: Secondary
Knight: Primary (or perhaps “knight weapons” primary and others secondary… nah
Paladin: Primary
Bard: Secondary

Frankly, I don’t like it.
For this to work, I feel three levels of CB are needed, Primary with CB 12, Middle with CB 15, and Secondary with CB 18. (I avoid using the terms “Primary, secondary, tertiary” to emphasize that the other Siege checks remain only Primary and Secondary) ((unless they don’t in your game, LOL)) {edit: which you said in the OP, oops}

This makes Rough Draft II
Class : Attack
Fighter: Primary, +1
Ranger: Primary
Rogue: Middlin’
Assassin: Primary
Barbarian: Primary
Monk: Primary
Wizard: Secondary
Illusionist: Secondary
Cleric: Middlin’
Druid: Middlin’
Knight: Primary
Paladin: Primary
Bard: Middlin’
Better…

This might work better with a Defense attribute statted similarly, so that you roll an attack Siege Check against a Target’s Defense siege check instead of a static AC. (or too many rolls?) perhaps armor does DR instead of making it harder to hit you, the DR = the AC bonus from normal rules.
and perhaps the DR = a penalty to your Defend roll (which sort of makes no sense… like I said, rough draft here, maybe it’s a penalty to all rolls? Or not, K.I.S.S.)

That makes:
Rough draft III
Class : Attack / Defend
Fighter: Primary, +1 / Primary
Ranger: Primary / Primary
Rogue: Middlin’ / Primary
Assassin: Primary / Secondary
Barbarian: Primary / Primary
Monk: Primary / Primary
Wizard: Secondary / Secondary
Illusionist: Secondary / Secondary
Cleric: Middlin’ / Primary
Druid: Middlin’ / Middlin (or maybe Primary / secondary?)
Knight: Primary / Primary
Paladin: Primary / Primary (or middlin?
Bard: Middlin’ / Primary

Aaannndddd…. Maybe racial modifiers:
Race : Attack / Defend
Dwarf: +1/+1
Elf: - / +1
Gnome: -1 / +1
Half-Elf: -/-
Halfling: -/+2 (or -1/+2)
Half-Orc: +1 / -1
Human: -/-

Any good?

[Relaxo]

that bad, huh?


(shameless bump)

[Arduin]

that bad, huh?

The added complexity far overshadows any benefit...

[Relaxo]

I was afriad of that!
exactly that.