Range Mods and You

[Dice]

While I appreciate the change implemented to range mods to try and fix the sticky-range problem, in practice it appears to have worsened things a little. I've fought a couple spars since it went in, and find range is more of a problem than ever.

The basic issue is this: long-range weapons can attack basically at any range, being penalized more and more outside of their comfortable range, but medium-range weapons cannot attack any further out than their maximum range. This is balanced by max-range weapons not working so well indoors (in practice, last I checked, not working at all indoors).

The problem with this method is it means either you can't use the weapon at all indoors (over-balanced) or you can use it at any range without many real disadvantages compared to medium-range (under-balanced).

This also doesn't fix the main problem with ranges: when two fighters using different-range weapons fight each other, they have to spend every turn trying to maneuver into position, in a cat-and-mouse game. Since you can't both move and attack in a single turn, this effectively grinds combat to a halt for multiple rounds.

I would like to make three suggestions to fix this:

1) Long-range and short-range should get the same fix. I.e., treat being too far away and too close as roughly the same. At a certain point, it's just too far to be feasible, but at lesser ranges, simply penalize increasingly.

Why does this make sense? You could RP somebody incorporating movements (lunges, etc.) into an attack to attack with a dagger at medium range, or to attack with a staff at close range.

This also ensures that the options are balanced again each other better than the current tradeoff system does, but it still keeps realism. It's perfectly feasible to use movement within attacks to explain this kind of range flexibility.

2) We should allow steps to be taken ALONG with attacks, in the same turn (the positioning change taking effect either just before or just after the actual attack, I'm fine with either). This allows people to not sacrifice a turn to repositioning, so that players can reposition small amounts without necessarily halting combat entirely.

3) To fit with 3, lunge should become certain success and move you more than 2 steps - maybe 3? While still taking a full round, not being compatible with attack. This greatly deepens the strategy possible in combat, because it may suddenly be worth sacrificing your attack if you can get a considerable repositioning out of it.

[Geras]

Please yes. Plz. PLEZ.

[Leech]

I like it.

[Onyxsoulle]

I like the movement thing, to be honest. But i'd like it limited. I suggest using dnd style rules for this. The old five foot step to be exact.

For those that don't know, in Dnd combat; you could take a regular action and a free action in one round, or take a full round action.

Example: Attacking your opponent was a regular action. Taking a five foot step was considered a free action(in TI it would just be 1 step). So you could take that one step to get in, get your hit in, and then it was someone else's turn. A lunge/charge/movement exceeding the five foot step(ti's single step) was considered a full round action, though the lunge actually involved an attack.

[Dice]

Onyx: that is exactly what I said. One step 'free' as part of attack, or a full-round move instead.

[Onyxsoulle]

Sorry, not quite awake yet. *is not responsible for any posts made before noon*

[Dice]

Haha, it's fine. I'm glad we see it the same way!

[Leech]

Shameless bump, because I haven't seen anything done with this and it seems to be pretty supported. Approved and on the back burner? Disapproved?

[Kinaed]

Testing done doesn't support that long ranged weapons are definitively better, due to a damage "nerf" equalizer that I suspect is due to being outside of optimal weapon range during testing. All weapons have a "sweet spot" range, and either you're in it, your damage is reduced, or you're too far away to hit. Thus, during testing mid-ranged weapons will do more damage than longer range weapons because they're closer to their sweet spot and long range weapons are being treated as 'too close'.

The movement thing is agreed to be an issue, we're considering changing lunge and whatnot to happen with an attack.

Not really considering changing the ranges AGAIN as the current setup as due to players complaining about ranges being locked with minimal overlap. I personally think the issue is around how easy it is to move and keep a distance locked in stalemate wise than the actual range of a given weapon. Thus, I'm most likely to agree with and make changes to this aspect of combat rather than the ranges.

[Applesauce]

I personally think the issue is around how easy it is to move and keep a distance locked in stalemate wise than the actual range of a given weapon. Thus, I'm most likely to agree with and make changes to this aspect of combat rather than the ranges.

Having participated in this test, I pretty much agree.

However, during testing it also became clear that if you did a "double tap" (meaning, lunge SECOND then attack FIRST) you could break the cat and mouse. I don't think it's twinky because you can't do it again without letting the other person double tap in between. But essentially if both players judiciously use double taps, they can still do damage WHILE cat and mousing around, so eventually the fight can still end. It's only a problem if you force the same player to ALWAYS go first each round, which seems wrong anyway.

I think the way combat is now, even without any of the proposed changes, is much more balanced than I suspected during the OOC Chat discussion. In small rooms, people with small weapons have a distinct advantage. In large rooms, short-weaponed people have a distinct DISadvantage at all but super close ranges. This just means, if you plan to stab someone with a dagger, you'd better do it in a bar or other indoor room, which makes total sense to me. Combat in a field is more suited to polearms, swords, and other medium-to-long range weapons.

I did like the old "no weapon is inherently better, it's just style preference" goal but I don't mind imbalance so long as each weapon has their own situations where they're better. Balanced doesn't have to mean 100% equal in every situation.

That said, I still like the proposed "lunge takes a turn, but step allows an attack" ;)