Combat Sequence

[rabindranath72]

Dear all,
I am a bit confused about how the combat sequence is supposed to work. Not sure it has been answered yet here, if so please feel free to direct me to the thread.
Now, it's clear that there is an order relationship between the phases, and that the parties act in order of initiative within each phase. What's not clear to me is whether the steps in each phase are ordered, too. I.E. does melee come before missiles, which comes before magic, which comes before movement? I can see some very interesting situations arising in case of tied initiative (and tied dex) as a meleeing character would always strike before a stationary spellcaster.

Any suggestions/clarifications are welcome!

Thanks,
Antonio

[Ghul]

Hello Antonio,

There is no internal order within each phase; it's a little more abstract in that sense. So, while the phases themselves are ordered as you note, there is no specific order between melee, magic, missiles, and movement. Just keep in mind that if any member from either side of conflict is acting in a manner that will require 2 phases, they might go last, even if their side won initiative.

For example, if the winning side elects to move full and attack, and the losing side is standing stationary and firing missiles and spells, the losing side in effect goes first, because they are acting on phase 1 while the winning side is acting on phase 2.

This is why (IMO) why action declaration is such an important part of the combat sequence. It allows the referee to figure who is going when, because it's not always as obvious as "one side wins initiative, one side loses initiative".

I hope that helps.

One of my goals in the coming months is to put together a document that shows various combat examples.

Cheers,
Jeff T.

[mabon5127]

One of my goals in the coming months is to put together a document that shows various combat examples

One down a million to go......

Morgan

[Ynas Midgard]

It has come of several times and there were given some explanation in some threads; however, it has also been promised that thorough combat examples should appear on the website.

Without that, I need to devise my own example. Say, a party of 3 PCs run into 5 bandits. No one is surprised. Their stats are the following:

• PC 1 (Fighter): HD 2d10 (hp 14), Dex 9, FA 2, MV 30, AC 5 (chain mail), two-handed sword (WC 4, 3d4, mastered)
  
• PC 2 (Fighter): HD 2d10 (hp 9), Dex 12, FA 2, MV 40, AC 7 (leather), short sword (WC 1, 1d6, mastered), light crossbow (60/120/180, 1d6+1)
  
• PC 3 (Magician): HD 2d4 (hp 7), Dex 11, FA 1, MV 40, AC 9 (unarmoured), dagger (WC 1, 10/20/30, 1d4)
  
• bandits: HD 1d8 (hp 7, 2, 6, 7, 7), Dex 10, FA 1, MV 40, morale 6, AC 7 (leather), hand axe (WC 1, 15/30/45, 1d6)
  

FIRST ROUND

Initiative and Ranger
For initiative, both parties roll a 2 - thus their Dexterity scores decide who goes first. Tha two parties are 60 feet away from each other.

Action Declaration
PC 1 charges and PC 2 shoots with his crossbow, while PC 3 moves behind cover; two of bandits throw some axes toward the charging warrior then move backwards and let the remaining three engage in melee with the fighter.

• PC 1, having a MV score of 30, may charge up to 60 feet, which is just enough; however, as he has to move his full movement rate can only engage in melee on Phase Two.
  
• PC 2 shoots his crossbow on Phase One and moves half his speed (20 feet) on Phase Two to a better position, also defending PC 3. He may engage in melee on the next round if needed, although he would rather shoot bolts on the enemy.
  
• PC 3 only moves this round, and because nobody interferes with him, let's just say he ends up some 50 feet away from the enemy.
  
• Some of the bandits throw axes on Phase One then move backwards on Phase Two; the others attack PC 1 on Phase Two.
  

Resolution - Phase One

• PC 2 attacks first (same initiative but highest Dex): d20+FA+AC = 5+2+7 = 14; it's a miss.
  
• Two of the bandits throw axes: d20+HD+AC(one higher because of the charge)-range = 20+1+6-2 = 23, a hit (for the example's sake, criticals are off the table), and 16+1+6-2 = 20, another hit. The damage rolls are 5 and 2, that is 7hp damage (another 7 remains). Ouch.
  

Resolution - Phase Two

• PC 1 attacks first. Although his Dex is lower than the bandits', it's the first round of melee and his weapons's class is 4, while his enemies' is only 1. He rolls d20+FA+AC+mastery = 19+2+7+1 = 28, a hit. He scores 3d4 (+1 mastery and +2 charge) damage, 11 points altogether - which is enough to kill one of the bandits.
  
• However, as he is a fighter battling 1 HD opponents, his attack rate is increased (cf. Heroic Fighting) to 2/1, which is further increased to 3/1 with his mastered weapon. The remaining two attack are 7+2+7+1 = 17, a miss; and 19+2+7+1 = 28, a hit, scoring 8 points of damage, killing another bandit.
  
• Now, the remaining bandit in melee attacks. He rolls d20+HD+AC(one higher because of the charge) = 12+1+6 = 19, almost a hit.
  

This concludes the first round of combat. The Referee decides that if one more bandit is killed the rest has to check for morale.


SECOND ROUND

Initiative and Ranger
The PCs roll a 3 and the bandits roll a 2. PC 1 is in melee with one bandit and the remaining two are just a few steps away. PC 2 is 40 feet away from them, PC 3 is 50 feet away.

Action Declaration
PC 1 attacks the one bandit he's in melee with, PC 2 shoots toward the other bandits, and PC 3 casts a magic missile. The bandits collectively attack the fighter.

Resolution - Phase One

• PC 2 (with the highest Dex, he acts first) shoots one of the bandits not engaged in melee. He rolls d20+FA+AC = 16+2+7 = 25, which is a hit, and he scores 8 points of damage, killing his target.
  
• PC 3 (with the next highest Dex score) casts his Magic Missile, dealing 3 points of damage to a bandit (he still has 4hp).
  
• PC 1 attacks, and rolls d20+FA+AC+mastery 16+2+7+1 = 26, a hit, dealing 9 points of damage, killing the bandit.
  
• The Referee decides to forgo the morale check and the bandit surrenders, begging for mercy.
  

Well... I hope this is understandable. Sorry for the poor quality, I am not used to writing such things, and I did from scratch. Anyway, I hope it is good for its intended purpose.

[Ghul]

This is excellent, and I like the way you did the stat blocks, noting weapon mastery and armour type. You did a great job! I can find no problems, except that I don't grok your to-hit formula, adding AC to the attack roll . . .

[mabon5127]

Feb 9, 2013 12:53:48 GMT -6 Ghul said:

This is excellent, and I like the way you did the stat blocks, noting weapon mastery and armour type. You did a great job! I can find no problems, except that I don't grok your to-hit formula, adding AC to the attack roll . . .

It appears to be T20. You add the decending AC to your to hit roll and mods to achieve or exceed a 20.

Different than RAW in ASSH which is FA on chart to find target number then achieve or exceed that number with d20 plus mods.

I think.

Morgan

[Ghul]

OK, I see. Thanks.

[rabindranath72]

So the session went quite well, combat flowed very fast; I converted AC to ascending as it avoided the players a lookup on the tables.
Unarmed combat rules were used plenty, as they are easy to recall, and very efficient (something which almost never happens with AD&D, Classic D&D or D&D 3.0.)
Also the critical hit rules where very well received, and there were a few moments of trepidation when the odds seemed stacked against the PCs, and critical (with a 6!) saved them. They killed the high priest this way!
So, even without much preparation, the game went extremely well, and everybody had fun and was hooked.

One thing which was not clear, was the aboleth special ability of domination. It's written that it produces illusions, and then that it can command the target. But how's the production of illusions tied with the mental domination? I had problems figuring a relationship between the twos.

[mabon5127]

The critical hit tables were fun for my folks as well! They do cut both ways. It makes large groups of otherwise weak creatures much more of a headache. Sounds like fun was had by all!

Morgan

[Ynas Midgard]

Feb 9, 2013 12:53:48 GMT -6 Ghul said:

This is excellent, and I like the way you did the stat blocks, noting weapon mastery and armour type. You did a great job! I can find no problems, except that I don't grok your to-hit formula, adding AC to the attack roll . . .

Thanks

Feb 9, 2013 13:01:06 GMT -6 mabon5127 said:

Feb 9, 2013 12:53:48 GMT -6 Ghul said:

This is excellent, and I like the way you did the stat blocks, noting weapon mastery and armour type. You did a great job! I can find no problems, except that I don't grok your to-hit formula, adding AC to the attack roll . . .

It appears to be T20. You add the decending AC to your to hit roll and mods to achieve or exceed a 20.

Different than RAW in ASSH which is FA on chart to find target number then achieve or exceed that number with d20 plus mods.

I think.

Morgan

Yes, I should have noted that I used the T20 model; in fact, I use it all the time for all OSR games. It is very simple and elegant, and it avoids the constant use of a table.

[Ghul]

Feb 10, 2013 4:28:39 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

So the session went quite well, combat flowed very fast; I converted AC to ascending as it avoided the players a lookup on the tables.
Unarmed combat rules were used plenty, as they are easy to recall, and very efficient (something which almost never happens with AD&D, Classic D&D or D&D 3.0.)
Also the critical hit rules where very well received, and there were a few moments of trepidation when the odds seemed stacked against the PCs, and critical (with a 6!) saved them. They killed the high priest this way!
So, even without much preparation, the game went extremely well, and everybody had fun and was hooked.

Excellent! This is great to hear, Antonio. The concept behind the optional critical hit system (as you no doubt deduce) is that some character types are better than others at delivering critical hits. Some of my players prefer the older carts, similar to the Parlagreco charts in The Dragon #39, with their specific results, but I prefer the abstract presentation. For example, if one does deliver that double or triple damage blow to the BBEG, and the damage is substantial and killing, then the referee can say, yes, you decapitated your foe.

One thing which was not clear, was the aboleth special ability of domination. It's written that it produces illusions, and then that it can command the target. But how's the production of illusions tied with the mental domination? I had problems figuring a relationship between the twos.

I believe you have chanced upon an error. The illusion ability is supposed to be separate from the mind control ability. I'll make sure this is repaired in the future.

[rabindranath72]

I ignored the illusion part, as the scenario already assumed the aboleth had used some illusion to alter the environment (that would be the illusionist spells in 3e.) But now that you mention it, it definitely makes sense.

[blackadder23]

My experience with critical hit systems is that players are enthusiastic right up until the moment they're on the receiving end of one. Then they have second thoughts. So I don't use them.

[mabon5127]

Feb 11, 2013 8:26:02 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

My experience with critical hit systems is that players are enthusiastic right up until the moment they're on the receiving end of one. Then they have second thoughts. So I don't use them.

I've never used a fumble system but have always allowed some sort of critical on a twenty. In the game Friday night we had nearly back to back criticals. One was a player and the other a thrown spear from a demonic pig pict. The collective gasping and group cheering make it worth while.

Morgan

[blackadder23]

Jeff and anyone who's tried the game so far, do you find combat in AS&SH runs slower or faster than B/X or about the same? I'm starting to nail down the details of my upcoming campaign and I need to decide whether to go with the simple B/X melee round (which is what I normally use for all versions of D&D) or whether to actually use Jeff's melee round as written. Just from reading it, it seems like it would be fairly quick in practice, but I wouldn't mind some informed opinions. I like my combat fast and bloody!

[Ghul]

Jeff and anyone who's tried the game so far, do you find combat in AS&SH runs slower or faster than B/X or about the same? I'm starting to nail down the details of my upcoming campaign and I need to decide whether to go with the simple B/X melee round (which is what I normally use for all versions of D&D) or whether to actually use Jeff's melee round as written. Just from reading it, it seems like it would be fairly quick in practice, but I wouldn't mind some informed opinions. I like my combat fast and bloody!

I don't think I've ever played B/X before, as I went straight from Holmes to AD&D when I was a kid. That being said, I've studied the system at length, and it is a fine, effective method of resolution, and I'm sure it would work fine if that is your go-to combat resolution method. The AS&SH combat rounds work pretty quickly in my experience.

[rabindranath72]

Feb 11, 2013 15:20:54 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

Jeff and anyone who's tried the game so far, do you find combat in AS&SH runs slower or faster than B/X or about the same? I'm starting to nail down the details of my upcoming campaign and I need to decide whether to go with the simple B/X melee round (which is what I normally use for all versions of D&D) or whether to actually use Jeff's melee round as written. Just from reading it, it seems like it would be fairly quick in practice, but I wouldn't mind some informed opinions. I like my combat fast and bloody!

Saturday was my first time running AS&SH, and I noticed no appreciable speed difference with B/X. I suppose if you add the Advanced Combat options, things would slow down somewhat.

[Ynas Midgard]

Feb 12, 2013 2:24:25 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

Feb 11, 2013 15:20:54 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

Jeff and anyone who's tried the game so far, do you find combat in AS&SH runs slower or faster than B/X or about the same? I'm starting to nail down the details of my upcoming campaign and I need to decide whether to go with the simple B/X melee round (which is what I normally use for all versions of D&D) or whether to actually use Jeff's melee round as written. Just from reading it, it seems like it would be fairly quick in practice, but I wouldn't mind some informed opinions. I like my combat fast and bloody!

Saturday was my first time running AS&SH, and I noticed no appreciable speed difference with B/X. I suppose if you add the Advanced Combat options, things would slow down somewhat.

I share your worries. However, while I was reading the combat chapter over and over again, thinking about how neat and simple it is yet accounting for most of the actions during combat, I had an epiphany.

If I would DM AS&SH, I would not show the chapter on combat to my players. I would explain how movement and attacks in general are resolved, how initiative and the two phases work and interact at the system level; but I would not give them a definite list of possible actions, nor any ideas how they would be resolved.

I would simply "learn" the rules and ask the players what they want to do. They tell me their ideas, I think about it, and then tell them how we are going to resolve those ideas. Basically, I would use most actions straight from the book without telling them or simply extrapolate from the given rules (e.g. if someone would try to swing on a chandelier toward an enemy and attack with his sword, I would resolve it as a charge attack with an additional Dexterity test to see if everything goes according to plan).

Although I know I am not breaking new grounds with this, it is the first time I could think of a way of explaining how I want to resolve combats (and going further with this way of thinking, what my problem is with some other games). And it makes me happy no matter how much I derailed the current conversation

[blackadder23]

Thanks gents! I'll probably try to run combat by the book, since it isn't that different from B/X and nothing about it is actually objectionable to me. It will be a little novel - since I've never really run any version of D&D "by the book" before - although it will be nice to be able to just tell my players, "pick up a copy of AS&SH and read it" without listing a bunch of house rules and exceptions. (Must... resist... urge... to... tinker...)

[rabindranath72]

Feb 12, 2013 7:54:25 GMT -6 Ynas Midgard said:

Although I know I am not breaking new grounds with this, it is the first time I could think of a way of explaining how I want to resolve combats (and going further with this way of thinking, what my problem is with some other games). And it makes me happy no matter how much I derailed the current conversation

I can tell you this technique works, as I use it all the time, since NONE of my players has EVER bothered to read ANY rules at all in the last 25 years (well, except possibly one player, who then was not a rules lawyer and accepted most of my rulings without blinking.)
The last few years that I have had to "train" newbie players, this was actually the only way to go; as 35+ y.o. people with families, children, jobs etc. practically no one has the time to read anything at all. I am quite lucky since I travel by train every day 2 hours, so I can dedicate this time to reading RPG stuff. Otherwise it would have been impossible even for me.
So, in short: go for it; the system is really easy to use, works admirably well, and it's one of the few game systems I have not felt the urge to tinker and change "for the better." ;D

[Ghul]

My good fellows, I do the same thing, particularly when working with new players, young players, or convention gamers: "Just tell me what you want your character to do, and I will inform you as to how we will resolve it through game play."

That's usually how I approach it. All the players need is their imagination.

[mabon5127]

Feb 12, 2013 8:29:13 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

Feb 12, 2013 7:54:25 GMT -6 Ynas Midgard said:

Although I know I am not breaking new grounds with this, it is the first time I could think of a way of explaining how I want to resolve combats (and going further with this way of thinking, what my problem is with some other games). And it makes me happy no matter how much I derailed the current conversation

I can tell you this technique works, as I use it all the time, since NONE of my players has EVER bothered to read ANY rules at all in the last 25 years (well, except possibly one player, who then was not a rules lawyer and accepted most of my rulings without blinking.)
The last few years that I have had to "train" newbie players, this was actually the only way to go; as 35+ y.o. people with families, children, jobs etc. practically no one has the time to read anything at all. I am quite lucky since I travel by train every day 2 hours, so I can dedicate this time to reading RPG stuff. Otherwise it would have been impossible even for me.
So, in short: go for it; the system is really easy to use, works admirably well, and it's one of the few game systems I have not felt the urge to tinker and change "for the better." ;D

Agreed.

How I run now is an amalgam of the many systems adopted for periods of time thru the years.

I do like ASSH as it adds options and flexibility particularly for the fighter without adding lots of complexity.

Getting together to play is hard enough let alone doing lots of rules research.

Morgan