Duelling Blades..

[ZzaphodD]

Ok, im probably going to use the Duelling Blade rules for melee & lightsaber combat.

Some things occured to me thats not really explained in the rules.

Actions: Given the fact that you only roll one Melee/Lightsaber skill for one round of combat, which includes at least one attack and most likely one parry, how many actions would you say are used? This is not a factor in the close combat, as all strikes and parries are baked together into one skill roll. But what if the character at the same time Dodges or tries to Command someone? Is one round of combat equal to one action or several?

How (if possible) do you incorporate Lightsaber Styles into this? As DB is all about making melee more exciting, including ways of doing flashy maneuvers (even if they just modify that one skill roll or the result) seems to fit the purpuse of DB.

[atgxtg]

I'd probably say dueling counts as two actions (possibly 4 if LS combat is up), to account for attack & defense.

I think the way to incorporate stlyes into it would be to work up some manuevers/stunts/tricks and then give each style a "break" on appropriate maneuvers.

Oh, and I'd definately swap the strike for damage and trick results, otherwise you'll never see a trick. No PC in their right mind is going to do a trick (and risk getting cut into pieces next turn) when they could hit, do damage, and end the fight.

[ZzaphodD]

[atgxtg]

By break I mean lowering the difficulty for the maneuver if it fits the style.

For example, using your chart, a character can opt to pull a maneuver with a 16+ result. You could say maneuvers that fit a particular style could be done on a 13+ or 11+, making them easier, and more likely to be performed by practitioners of that style. For example, Form II practitioners could get a lower difficulty for a disarm.

But,
I still think you won't see many tricks if they are harder to pull off than a normal strike. What's better, doing a flying somersault over a foe, or cutting him in half.

For multiple foes, I'd say:

- it would count as multiple actions, basically 1 more action per foe, with the usually -1D per action penalty.

-the character must make a separate roll against each foe.


.

[ZzaphodD]

Hmmm, Im leaning on two rolls instead of one. One for Attack and one for Defence. Its not 'one attack action' and 'one defence action' per se as in the rules. Im just dividing the melee into offensive and defensive skill.

This is to have more flexibility when incorporating maneuvers. Certain maneuvers will affect the players defence and offense in certain ways. If you only have one roll, you cant sacrifice defence for offence for example as they are both 'baked' into one skill roll.

This also takes away the 'trick' result from the table, or will change it to a bonus on top of damage. For example, you hit with weapon and also knock your opponent down with a kick to the chest.

[atgxtg]

Well, with two actions you are bascially back to the standard combat system.

You're just adding a perk for beating the foe by a significant amount. Not that that is bad.

I still think the perks are going to be moot if the attack cuts the foe into pieces.

One possibility could be to adapt the martial arts maneuvers from SpecForces into weapon maneuvers and have them kick in if the difference between rolls is high enough. For example, if a Disarms is a difficult maneuver (off the top of my head), then if one duelist beast the other by 16-20 points he could do a disarm.

[ZzaphodD]

[atgxtg]

That is why I am thinking of capping the damage based on the to hit result in lightsaber combat.

So if the character has a choice between a cool maneuver or a 8 point hit (no matter how many dice he has) he will most likely take the maneuver.

Of you got with Attack & Defense, then obviously it makes sense to put in some cool defensive moves when the attack roll comes up short. Maybe even a riposte maneuver. It would certainly help to flesh out Form III in game terms.

I want to sit down and try to give this a write up one day, but I'm sort of sidetracked with other projects.

Ideally the fight should be more dynamic with characters moving around and such.

One rule that I liked from the Usagi Yojimbo RPG that could be ported over it the retreat rule. In UY, when the attack roll exactly matched the defense roll, the defender would be hit (like in SW), unless the defender chose to retreat, giving ground.

UY has a lot of movement options that make combat much more interesting. In UY fighters actually develop a fighting style. Combat is not so much about who has the highest stats and skill score as it is about what weapons are being used and what gifts (kinda of like feats and or maneuvers) that the opponent knows.

A lot of those options would port over well to SW. In fact, when I got UY, I seriously considered using it for the basis of a Star Wars campaign.

[ZzaphodD]

It looks like we think in similar ways but with slightly different paths taken..
BTW, this system is for all melee combat, but combatants with the force using lightsaber combat will have maneuvers availible that others dont.

Ok, so far

Each round in combat each combatant rolls two rolls based on their melee/lightsaber skill.

1 Attack Roll
1 Defence Roll

Each round each combatant chose one maneuver or stance. For those who are lazy a 'normal' attack and 'normal' defence are availible. These might for example be 'All out attack', 'Lunge', 'Riposte', 'Heavy attack', 'Quick attack', 'Defensive Stance' etc.

These maneuvers are chosen before rolling for attack/defence. The idea is that a maneuver might for example sacrifice D:s in the attack roll for more damage or better defence (ie Defensive Stance). These maneuvers rules are yet to be created, but will be influenced by the 'lightsaber styles' document.

Some maneuver will have a requisite. Most often it is a minium skill in melee/lightsaber. At other times it might be a force power (for example 'Leaping attack' requires 'Force Jump'). It may also be a skill (brawling, 'acrobatics'/climpjump).
Here we have tons of maneuvers from the game The Force Unleashed to chose from. The list should be long enough to have several options but not long enough to bug down combat.
Basic maneuvers are 'free' while some are 'bought' with CPs (for example 'leaping attack' above).

So the next step is:

To come up with a list of maneuvers / stances that should be availible. Divided into Basic (free) and Advanced (learned with CPs).
(Below are some results from brainstorming, not actual set rules)

Basic:
-Defensive Stance (+1D to Defence Roll, -1D to Attack Roll).
-Heavy Attack (-2D to Defence, +2D to damage. Two handed)
-Quick Thrust (-1D Attack, -1D Damage, "Attacks first"??)

Advanced
-Swing Attack (-1D to Attack, -2D to Defence, Attacks two targets(MAP problems?)
-Blade Shield (Req. Two weapons. +3D defence??, no other action except movement).
-Back Thrust (Req. Life Sense, Attacks enemy behind combatant, -1D to Attack / Damage, -1D to parry attack).

Other issues: Will initiative be an issue? Perhaps when certain maneuvers are used (like attacking first in exchange for penalty).

[atgxtg]

Yeah, similar buy different approaches.

I'm kind of against picking the maneuvers first. I find that it flows much better if they are picked later. One reason is that players are more inclined to just sit there and trade blows if maneuvers come with a penalty (look at d20).

For instance a riposte could be the benefit of a superior parry roll (it is in real life).

What I think could be nice would be if minor win's in the swordplay rolls let to some minor maneuvers with a benefit towards the next round.


One idea I've considered in the past was eliminating some rolls by allowing a character to "buy" some maneuvers by spending dice. For instance rather than making a Jump/Force Leap roll, a character could simply get to move 1m per D in their skill code or some such. Going for more that the basic amount could require a roll.

[ZzaphodD]

But maneuvers dont come with a penalty!

Ideally the maneuvers should 'balance out' that is a 'penalty' (for example harder to hit) is balanced by a 'bonus' (for example better defence). Also the situation and intent of the fighter will be a factor. For example if you are 5 meters away and need to surprise your enemy, Leaping Attack is the right choice. If you want to 'play it safe' then Defensive Stance should be used. If you need to quickly cut down both your opponents, Swing Attack is the maneuver to use. Perhaps the 'standard' fighting in the RAW is 'Balanced Stance', with no adjustments at all.

Also, the 'result table' above in the thread is still in effect, meaning that 'slightly beating' the opponent will result in a penalty to his defence next round.

Perhaps its a matter of what kind of players you have. My players are very 'story' and 'rp' focused, and would want to put actual game effects to their combat descriptions.

Another idea, if this all seems to mechanic heavy, is as a GM to use it as inspiration when player come up with 'fancy fencing' ideas. Do combat as normal, and then just apply a modifer depending on how you think the player is rp:ing his combat.

The idea, if we go back to new mechanics, is to have a few basic maneuvers that everyone can keep track of with smaller modifiers to the combat rolls (for example Defensive Stance). There will also be several advanced maneuvers, but as they are learnt separately there will not be that many to keep track of in combat as the combatants will just know a couple.