I think it is inescapably true that melee combat in DnD has never really worked in a satisfying way because the level of abstraction in the core rules is so great that when two powerful, well matched combatants face off basically nothing of note happens until one of them falls over dead. Don't bother arguing about all the exciting things you are supposed to imagine and say while you grind through the interminable attack and damage rolls - we all know that's nonsense.
But most of the ways people have tried to make it better are either unplayably slow and complicated (ADnD speed factors, weapon vs. armor tables; BECMI weapon mastery; etc.) or involve extreme levels of 'grade inflation' that unbalance the game (late ADnD weapon mastery; most 'feat' and class-power-ladder systems), or involve weirdly unrealistic special powerz that ultimately just amount to a bunch of names for a damage bonus (most feats and class powers). Or sometimes two or all three of these things. It is all rather discouraging.
I recently started goofing around with a house rule that I feel like is helpful, given all the constraints of working with a highly abstract DnD like combat system, and I was wondering what others thought of it.
The notion is, Fighters, Fighter sub-classes, and non-class monsters one would reasonably judge to have fighter like skills are allowed to decide at the start of each turn of melee combat how many points, up to their level, they would like to assign to a reflexive pair of bonuses/penalties, where 1 point can be used to improve your AC in exchange for a 1 point penalty to-hit, or 1 point can be used to increase your to-hit, or damage, or initiative, in exchange for a 1 point penalty to your AC. If you are in the mood to be elaborate you could mix and match consistent with these trade offs, e.g., a 3rd level Fighter with AC 4 in the B/X system could attack with +1 to hit, +1 damage and +1 initiative, but will have an AC of 7 (total three points of penalty) for that turn. Or they could just deliver a +3 damage attack for the same penalty. Or opt to deliver a +1 to-hit attack at the cost of having AC 5. And so forth.
And that's it.
What I like about it is that it is very easy to remember, trivial to make and implement decisions on the fly, and works at the level of abstraction of the rest of the system. So it is not really complicating. But it contains within it practically every consequence 'effect' people try to model with more elaborate feat/power based systems - an unarmored duelist can fend off a horde of lesser swordsmen with a flury of parries, or a Conan type can deliver a brutal mortal blow, and so forth. And it is basically balanced, without grade inflation — in the end, the balance between your total capacity to dole out damage and your capacity to absorb damage, taken together, is as-intended by the base combat system.
What do you think?
But most of the ways people have tried to make it better are either unplayably slow and complicated (ADnD speed factors, weapon vs. armor tables; BECMI weapon mastery; etc.) or involve extreme levels of 'grade inflation' that unbalance the game (late ADnD weapon mastery; most 'feat' and class-power-ladder systems), or involve weirdly unrealistic special powerz that ultimately just amount to a bunch of names for a damage bonus (most feats and class powers). Or sometimes two or all three of these things. It is all rather discouraging.
I recently started goofing around with a house rule that I feel like is helpful, given all the constraints of working with a highly abstract DnD like combat system, and I was wondering what others thought of it.
The notion is, Fighters, Fighter sub-classes, and non-class monsters one would reasonably judge to have fighter like skills are allowed to decide at the start of each turn of melee combat how many points, up to their level, they would like to assign to a reflexive pair of bonuses/penalties, where 1 point can be used to improve your AC in exchange for a 1 point penalty to-hit, or 1 point can be used to increase your to-hit, or damage, or initiative, in exchange for a 1 point penalty to your AC. If you are in the mood to be elaborate you could mix and match consistent with these trade offs, e.g., a 3rd level Fighter with AC 4 in the B/X system could attack with +1 to hit, +1 damage and +1 initiative, but will have an AC of 7 (total three points of penalty) for that turn. Or they could just deliver a +3 damage attack for the same penalty. Or opt to deliver a +1 to-hit attack at the cost of having AC 5. And so forth.
And that's it.
What I like about it is that it is very easy to remember, trivial to make and implement decisions on the fly, and works at the level of abstraction of the rest of the system. So it is not really complicating. But it contains within it practically every consequence 'effect' people try to model with more elaborate feat/power based systems - an unarmored duelist can fend off a horde of lesser swordsmen with a flury of parries, or a Conan type can deliver a brutal mortal blow, and so forth. And it is basically balanced, without grade inflation — in the end, the balance between your total capacity to dole out damage and your capacity to absorb damage, taken together, is as-intended by the base combat system.
What do you think?