SEIGE Attack Roll

[Dristram]

I was inspired by the simplistic to hit rule in the Barbarians of Lemuria (BoL) where two d6 are rolled and with penalties and bonuses a 9 or better is needed to hit. For C&C, I thought it could be a simple application of the SEIGE Engine.

My initial brainstorming would be as follows:

Challenge Base

Melee Attack (Strength): 12 prime, 18 non-prime

Ranged Attack (Dexterity): 12 prime, 18 non-prime

The opponents BtH, dexterity modifier (if any), and shield modifier (if any) would make up the Challenge Level to add to the Challenge Base making up the Challenge Class.

Now, my main hiccup is that in BoL armor is treated as damage reduction, so Id have to assign damage reduction to armor in some way, and then also figure out the DR for the monsters from their AC.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else messed with such an idea of using the SEIGE mechanics for attack rolls. And also Im accepting any and all feedback on this idea.

[DangerDwarf]

Dristram wrote:
I was inspired by the simplistic to hit rule i

That first line is where I'm hanging up on the idea.

1d20 + BtH is pretty simplistic so I never thought of needing another mechanic for it.

[Emryys]

Dristram wrote:
I was inspired by the simplistic to hit rule in the Barbarians of Lemuria (BoL) where two d6 are rolled and with penalties and bonuses a 9 or better is needed to hit...

Sound like Classic Traveller 8+ to hit
_________________

[serleran]

Or RIFTS. Any roll of 4+ hits, but might not do damage.

Technically, and arguably, a "to hit" roll is not even a "to hit," but a "did I do damage" check. If this were the case, the opponent would need a BAC, to oppose the BtH, since its doubtful wizards would be as defensible as monks.

[Dristram]

Quote:
1d20 + BtH is pretty simplistic so I never thought of needing another mechanic for it.

Actually, thats still how it would work. Just instead of an AC being the target, its a SEIGE CC.

Quote:
Sound like Classic Traveller 8+ to hit

Quote:
Or RIFTS. Any roll of 4+ hits, but might not do damage.

Huh, Ill admit that as far as role-playing games go, D&D has pretty much been it for me. The only other roleplaying games I played were Top Secret, Star Frontiers, a Sword and Sorcery ICE game (forgetting the name), and d6 Star Wars. So the beat the target number to hit mechanic is new to me.

Quote:
Technically, and arguably, a "to hit" roll is not even a "to hit," but a "did I do damage" check. If this were the case, the opponent would need a BAC, to oppose the BtH, since its doubtful wizards would be as defensible as monks.

Precicely. The BAC would be adjusted by the listed BtH. I guess its kind of like a system in the 3e D&D UA and Iron Heroes(?).

Anyway, I was just thinking how the SIEGE mechanic could actually be used for attack rolls as well as saves and skill checks in an elegant manner.

Anyone see any immediate pitfalls?

[serleran]

One immediate pitfall... very long combats, due to an awful lot of missing, especially at low levels.

Example:

Level one fighter with BtH +1, Strength Prime, a Strength of 16, and WS, against a kobold, BAC +5 (or the difference in standard AC and 10.)

d20 + 1 + 2 +1 >= 12 + 5. The Fighter needs a 13+. This is worse than what he needed otherwise, by 10% (the kobold has standard 15 AC, so the fighter would need an 11.)

Now, let's look at a higher level (9th) Fighter, with the same Strength score, but his opponent is different... its a lich, with a BAC +10 (same rule as above...)

d20 + 9 +2 + 2 +3 (magic weapon)> = 12 +10. The Fighter needs a 6+, which is slightly worse than the C&C standard of needing a 4 (AC 20 for a lich.)

If one uses the standard AC as the difficulty, the odds sway even more heavily, and becomes practically impossible for low-level PCs to be hit, or to hit, especially if they use armor.

One advantage, though, is it works in reverse, too... so, high HD monsters with not-so-good AC for their HD are easier to hit.

[Dristram]

I think you're misunderstanding. The CL for a kobold would be 2 (+1 for BtH and +1 for shield). So, that 1st level fighter has a total adjustment of +3 (1 for BtH and 2 for Str) with a CB of 12 because Strength is Prime. The CC for the fighter to beat is 14 and so needs to roll an 11 to hit.

The lich has 18 HD which equates to a BtH of 18 and with no shield, the CL for hitting a lich is 18. The 9th level fighter has an adjustment of +11 (+9 for BtH and +2 for Str) and lets assume another +3 for a magic sword for a grand total of +14. With a CB of 12 plus a CL of 18, makes the CC 30, meaning a fighter needs to roll a 16 or better to hit the lich.

That's much worse than trying to hit an AC of 20, but I'd rule that because it's a lich (and saves are only M), I'd only give it 1/2 its HD for BtH making its BtH a 9 and a new CC of 21 and now that fighter needs only a 7 or better to hit.

[irda ranger]

Dristram wrote:
I was inspired by the simplistic to hit rule in the Barbarians of Lemuria (BoL) where two d6 are rolled and with penalties and bonuses a 9 or better is needed to hit. For C&C, I thought it could be a simple application of the SEIGE Engine.

My initial brainstorming would be as follows:

Challenge Base

Melee Attack (Strength): 12 prime, 18 non-prime

Ranged Attack (Dexterity): 12 prime, 18 non-prime

The opponents BtH, dexterity modifier (if any), and shield modifier (if any) would make up the Challenge Level to add to the Challenge Base making up the Challenge Class.

Now, my main hiccup is that in BoL armor is treated as damage reduction, so Id have to assign damage reduction to armor in some way, and then also figure out the DR for the monsters from their AC.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else messed with such an idea of using the SEIGE mechanics for attack rolls. And also Im accepting any and all feedback on this idea.

How is this simpler? You haven't changed anything.

D&D combat looks like: d20+Bth vs. AC 10+Modifiers

Your system looks like: d20+BtH vs. CC 12/18+Modifers

All you've done is renamed "Armor Class" to "Challenge Class" and raised the base numbers. This is no different than current D&D ... except that you've also made it impossible for anyone who isn't [Str,Dex] prime to hit the side of a barn with a [melee,missile] weapon. Does this force all knights, bards and paladins to be Str/Dex/Chr Prime (assuming they're human) or forever give up one type of combat? I guess my half-orc ranger (Pr:Str,Wis) can throw away his longbow.

What's true for kitchen appliances is true for game engines as well: the more jobs a tool tries to do, the worse it is at all of them. The SIEGE engine is good enough for out-of-combat skills & such. It doesn't need to do combat too.

Oh, and just to prove that I disagree with your post in its entirety, the Barbarians of Lemuria mechanic is more complicated than D&D combat, not simpler.

D&D Combat: d20+Bth vs. AC (a fixed number)

BOL Combat: d6+d6+BtH-AC vs. 9

There's twice as many dice, and you've introduced a second variable for no reason at all.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Joe Mac]

Dristram, you might want to check out Mongoose's D20-based Conan RPG. While I'm no fan of D20, it will give you a lot of ideas along the lines you're thinking here: attack rolls against a defense that is based on fighting skill, with armor acting as damage reduction.

If it's available as a cheap PDF, I recommend it as a mine for ideas. The book is rather expensive.

[DangerDwarf]

I'm agreeing with Irda here. I'm not understanding why you would change the mechanic. And it appears that with this system the CK would have a larger variety of modifiers to consider.

[Dristram]

irda ranger wrote:
How is this simpler? You haven't changed anything.

I think you misunderstand. I didn't say it was simpler, but simplistic, or straight forward in its application. Everyone just needs to beat a 9 to hit. And then I thought it could be translated in C&C terms essentially that everyone needs an 18 to hit. I like the AC rule fine, but I also liked the idea of being able to apply the SIEGE engine to every aspect of the game. So I looked into it. That's all. What can I say, I'm a big fan of the SIEGE mechanic
Also, consider this. A fighter that does not choose Dex as Prime will not be as good with the bow or thrown weapons as one who did. It's an intriguing aspect to me.

Joe Mac wrote:
Dristram, you might want to check out Mongoose's D20-based Conan RPG. While I'm no fan of D20, it will give you a lot of ideas along the lines you're thinking here: attack rolls against a defense that is based on fighting skill, with armor acting as damage reduction.

Ah, another game system with it. Definitely makes sense for a Conan style game. I'll definitely look into it. Thanks!

[irda ranger]

Dristram wrote:
I didn't say it was simpler, but simplistic, or straight forward in its application.

So, it's "simple", just more complicated than the system we already have? Well, I guess I can agree with that...

Dristram wrote:
Everyone just needs to beat a 9 to hit. And then I thought it could be translated in C&C terms essentially that everyone needs an 18 to hit.

On a d20? That means I only have a 1 in 10 chance of hitting each round. You're going to have some very frustrated players.

Dristram wrote:
I like the AC rule fine, but I also liked the idea of being able to apply the SIEGE engine to every aspect of the game. So I looked into it. That's all. What can I say, I'm a big fan of the SIEGE mechanic

I'm a big fan of Diet Coke. That doesn't mean I put it on oatmeal. Some things just aren't meant to go together and SIEGE and Combat is one of them. It's too static, and the difference between Prime and non-Prime too great.

Dristram wrote:
Also, consider this. A fighter that does not choose Dex as Prime will not be as good with the bow or thrown weapons as one who did. It's an intriguing aspect to me.

Er, except that all fighters have to take Str as Prime, and demi-humans only get two primes. That's a really lousy character generation system.

Also consider that Weapon Specialization grants a +1 to hit. This effectively grants a +6 to hit with Missile Weapons. Anyone who doesn't take Str or Dex prime can forget ever getting in a fight.

Dristram wrote:
Ah, another game system with it. Definitely makes sense for a Conan style game. I'll definitely look into it. Thanks!

I have done the same and already adapted it to C&C. If you like, you can check the house rules at the link in my sig.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Dristram]

irda ranger wrote:
So, it's "simple", just more complicated than the system we already have? Well, I guess I can agree with that...

Am I sensing sarcasm?

irda ranger wrote:
On a d20? That means I only have a 1 in 10 chance of hitting each round. You're going to have some very frustrated players.

Well, of course, it will still work like the SIEGE engine in that BtH will apply to the roll and essentially a +6 is added for prime stats. Non-combat oriented characters will feel the pain, but those who are combat oriented will do just fine.

irda ranger wrote:
I'm a big fan of Diet Coke. That doesn't mean I put it on oatmeal. Some things just aren't meant to go together and SIEGE and Combat is one of them.

I'm not so certain, but it could very well be the case.

irda ranger wrote:
Er, except that all fighters have to take Str as Prime, and demi-humans only get two primes. That's a really lousy character generation system.

That's a pretty harsh flat statement. Is there some particular situation in your head leading to that?

irda ranger wrote:
Also consider that Weapon Specialization grants a +1 to hit. This effectively grants a +6 to hit with Missile Weapons. Anyone who doesn't take Str or Dex prime can forget ever getting in a fight.

I'm not sure of your math on the "+6 to hit" part but for my S&S style games, it fits pretty well.

irda ranger wrote:
I have done the same and already adapted it to C&C. If you like, you can check the house rules at the link in my sig.

Nice house rules! I will be very interested in your weapon damage table because it's also something else I've considered implimenting.

[Dristram]

You know, although opinions on whether or not a person likes an idea are fine, my post is simply looking for viability of such a system. If you don't like it, or feel threatened by a non-AC based combat system, knowing that doesn't help me. Please keep comments on the constructive side.

This is the first time I've felt biased negativity towards the expression of an idea of this forum.

[irda ranger]

Dristram wrote:
You know, although opinions on whether or not a person likes an idea are fine, my post is simply looking for viability of such a system. If you don't like it, or feel threatened by a non-AC based combat system, knowing that doesn't help me. Please keep comments on the constructive side.

This is the first time I've felt biased negativity towards the expression of an idea of this forum.

Yeah, sorry about that. I typed it out pretty fast, so I spent more time thinking about the rules themselves than how my words could be read.

Look, I'm in no way "threatened" by your system. I wouldn't want to play in it, but I certainly don't have any bones about it being your cup of tea.

I just think it's a "bad idea" in the sense that it's more complicated then that current system, and more frustrating to play, with no advantage other then getting all rules under one roof. It might be aesthetically pleasing to use the SIEGE engine for everything, but I don't think you'll like playing in it. If you and your group give it a shot and have a lot of fun though, well, I've been wrong before and it didn't bother me then either.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[irda ranger]

Dristram wrote:
Am I sensing sarcasm?

More like honest confusion.

Dristram wrote:
That's a pretty harsh flat statement. Is there some particular situation in your head leading to that?

Yes. Any time you have a character who wants to make a character other than Str/Dex prime, they are screwed in one type of combat. What about an elven Ranger who wants to take Str/Wis? Or a half-elven Bard who wants to take Chr/Str. Why does he have to give up missile weapons?

Also, because the SIEGE engine is used to replace skills/feats, you're "bundling" combat styles in with that as well - and that doesn't always work. Imagine the "three musketeers" half-elf bard who wants to take Chr/Dex and dual-wield the rapier & dirk. Now that's impossible.

Also, what about a half-orc barbarian - is he going to take Str and use a two-handed sword, or Dex for the spears and tomahawks?

Even a human Fighter, with three primes, might have a reason for not taking Str and Dex. What if he wants to do Str/Con/Int, as a strategist? Or maybe he wants to dual-class into wizard. He has to give up missile weapons now. I just think that's no fun.

Fundamentally, any character design system has to make a trade-off between "bundling for simplicity" and "more options to better fit your concept." From what I hear (I've never played it), Rifts is at the complex end of that scale, and C&C is at the simple/bundle end. You've taken the bundle one step farther, and now skills, feats, and combat style are all locked into one choice. That's very limiting, and allows for very few character concepts.

Dristram wrote:
Nice house rules! I will be very interested in your weapon damage table because it's also something else I've considered implimenting.

Thanks. Most of the rules have been borrowed for "inspired" from other sources, but I hope I have done a good job of integrating them into a working system.

My problem with getting the table finished however is that I don't know how I want it to scale. If you want it to scale at the same rate as magical items typically do, it would be easier to give a +1 dmg per +4 Bth. That would get the Fighter to +5 dmg with all weapons at 20th, and everyone else caps out at less than that. I think that's boring though, to give a flat bonus. I also want them to do more damage, so that fights don't last forever at higher levels.

Basically, what I think I'm aiming for is that I always want a fight between two fighters of the same level to last 4-8 rounds. That should mean that at 20th level (when they have 100 HP) they should be able to do 20-30 HP of damage per hit. That sounds like a lot (and it is!), but I expect my 20th level fighters to fight dragons and giants. Their orc-slaying days are long behind them.

I've done the math, and I think a 20th level Fighter should be doing about 4d10 dmg with a longsword*.

*-This is for my campaign only. IMC magical swords do not grant any bonus to damage, they're "just magic", and do magical stuff, like glow in the presence of orcs. Also, Armor grants DR, which has to be figured into the calculations. In a regular C&C campaign, where Armor does not grant DR, and you have swords that do +5 dmg, +1d6 from flaming, I would top out a sword's "base damage" at 3d6, max. Either way, considering what a Magic-User is throwing around at that level ...
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Dristram]

irda ranger wrote:
That's very limiting, and allows for very few character concepts.

I think there is the key communication issue between your's and my view on this idea. I'm not a fan of variable and customizable character concepts. I'm a fan of strict classic archetypes with player creativity spent on character development and narrative description of actions. 3e D&D was very torturous for me!
I think I will work out a playtest and see how it goes.

[Nifelhein]

If I am not mistaken that system is a derivation of the Unisystem, where the original dice is D10 and the DC or TN is always 9, the modifiers do not change the DC/TN itself, but the die roll, it is a classless system too and armors are only DR.

I think emulating that kind of thing also has to consider how armor and chances to hit evolve alongside the odds to penetrate armor though.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I'm going with a system a bit similar to Palladium:

A 5 or higher hits a person, unless the person is wearing armor.

If the roll is 5 or greater but less than the Armor Class, the blow instead hits the armor and damages the armor.

Sure, it means that people need to keep track of the Armor points, but there's always something about how a combat system works that someone doesn't like.

An alternative that I considered but didn't go with is that instead of the armor absorbing all of the damage, it does Damage Conversion. Armor would still be damaged as normal, but some of it would "bleed through" to the character.

[cheeplives]

NovaSIEGE (formerly known as StarSIEGE) uses the SIEGE Enginer for all parts of the game, including combat.

In NovaSIEGE there are skills rather than attribute primes, but the concept is the same: If you have the Combat Skill (STR or DEX Prime) then you make all attacks at 12+ Challenge Level while if you don't it's based on a 18+CL. The Challenge level is based only off of Armor and a Defense Skill. It could translate into C&C, but non-prime characters will have a pretty big gulf in things they can hit... Plus, the STR/DEX split makes it hard to be a combat character in C&C. It works in NovaSIEGE but that's because there is only one "Prime" for combat... To make it work for C&C, I'd suggest only having Armor factor in to the Challenge Level to hit, leaving attributes and skill out of it. Otherwise, use armor as damage reduction (reduces attacks equal to the former AC) and let creatures add 1/2 their HD if they have Physical Prime or 1/3 their HD if they don't. Finally, I'd base combat solely off of STR Prime, even if you're using a missile weapon. You'd still att DEX to Missile attacks, but your "combat prime" is STR. Monsters with Physical or characters with a STR Prime make all attacks at 12, otherwise you're starting at 18.

Just my opinion on the whole matter.

[Dristram]

That is cool! Thanks a bunch for sharing!
I've been thinking of using armor as damage reduction and adding an "armor penetration" value to weapons as in the Conan RPG.

I've also thought of the armor having a SIEGE save to prevent damage.

I've also thought of attacks based off of a "touch ac" which includes the shield. If the attack roll falls between the touch ac and normal ac, the armor takes the blow and half the damage is taken as subdual. If the attack is over the base ac, the armor was bypassed completely.

Lots of idea floating around in my head right now.