[Combat] Attacks of Opportunity

[Geras]

There's already a damage adjustment to not being perfectly in range. You can still generally hit until you're so far out of range that it doesn't make sense for the weapon.

It be worth extending that further, and adding an extra message about you "lunging into range" or something like that to make the attack.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I seriously like range in general being the big differentiator between weapons. The "Cat and Mouse" aspect of one-on-one combat is really un-fun to RP around, as -- like Dice and others have pointed out -- it just creates a scenario where one person tends to have a clear advantage rather than both players being able to feel like they're benefiting in some ways from the choices they are making. Personally, I'd suggest removing range all-together, except perhaps differentiating between "melee", "throwing", and "projectile" -- being arrows, sling, what-have-you range -- and coding in the range differences into something the game's system expresses automatically.

This could be done by keeping with the idea of "Comfortable Range" for each weapon and comparing them against the skill of the opponent and considering damage reduction based around that. For example, someone with a Dagger (range 1) skill of 35 going against someone with a Polearm (range .. 4?) skill of 60 could find that, while they are able to hit the other person, the blows are much more likely to be glancing and light than if they had equal skill with their weapons. While, in general, the weapon with the longer reach should have natural advantages over shorter-ranged weapons, this could be offset by benefits of things like having two knives allowing two hits with the weaker weapons, or the use of a shield and an axe/mace/sword, etc.

Honestly, while it's a "lame" issue and while I do like uniqueness 9 times out of 10, I feel like Staff could look at any of the extensive number of good, workable combat systems that exist and modify them from there to just ignore range in typical close-quarters fighting. As it stands now it's a chore rather than an enjoyment to fight, and there seem to be some severe balance/code issues that make the weapon matchups, more than the skills involved or the luck of the roll, determine individual fights.

To wit: when I was voicing a bit of my frustration to a Staff member about feeling entirely useless at being unable to close to a workable distance as a sword user (which has a good range!) vs a pole-arm user, I was told "Well polearms generally suck in a real fight anyways." ... which ALSO shouldn't be how it is. Finding a balance between allowing all weapons the ability to let the player feel happy in most scenarios should be the goal. Maybe a -single- bad matchup, like "someone with a dagger will almost always lose to someone with a spear .... so carry an axe with you too!" rather than "hope you've got a bow to go with that dagger, thief, else the Reeve with the whip is always going to win!"

[Voxumo]

To wit: when I was voicing a bit of my frustration to a Staff member about feeling entirely useless at being unable to close to a workable distance as a sword user (which has a good range!) vs a pole-arm user, I was told "Well polearms generally suck in a real fight anyways." ... which ALSO shouldn't be how it is. Finding a balance between allowing all weapons the ability to let the player feel happy in most scenarios should be the goal. Maybe a -single- bad matchup, like "someone with a dagger will almost always lose to someone with a spear .... so carry an axe with you too!" rather than "hope you've got a bow to go with that dagger, thief, else the Reeve with the whip is always going to win!"

There's a reason why almost every time misune runs into a new recruit in the Knights he asks what type of weapons they are using, and if they are using only one type, he strongly recommends they have something to counter the flaw of that weapon, aka range. I mean completely icly he says this, but it still is based on this exact thing.

[Takta]

I did say that about polearms, to note, but it wasn't meant as an endorsement of the situation - just a note that, while polearms feel unstoppable in spars, it is actually the opposite in real play, and close-range weapons have much more of a benefit. I do not in any way think it's ideal, but I wanted to make the point that the experience in that spar wasn't necessarily comparable to the experience on the ground.

[Leech]

Would definitely vote for this to take high priority vs anything else. Generally think it's a good idea to test/fix/optimize before adding anything new.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I did say that about polearms, to note, but it wasn't meant as an endorsement of the situation - just a note that, while polearms feel unstoppable in spars, it is actually the opposite in real play, and close-range weapons have much more of a benefit. I do not in any way think it's ideal, but I wanted to make the point that the experience in that spar wasn't necessarily comparable to the experience on the ground.

Right, sorry if that wasn't clear — I'm saying that it seems like there's no "good" situation for a lot of players, and that in general the range and charge situations feel really lame for one party involved unless you play a very specific way to adopt your RP to the code (where I think it should be the other way around!).

[Pixie]

What if range mattered less as skill level went up? If you're a master with a dagger it's assumed you can compensate for the couple steps forward and stab somebody without being penalized with coded range limits. If you're a master with a polearm it's assumed you can find a way to swing or thrust the thing effectively even at close range without coded range limits. Etc. ?

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

What if range mattered less as skill level went up? If you're a master with a dagger it's assumed you can compensate for the couple steps forward and stab somebody without being penalized with coded range limits. If you're a master with a polearm it's assumed you can find a way to swing or thrust the thing effectively even at close range without coded range limits. Etc. ?

I think that's an awesome, elegantly simple solution! Maybe code in a %skill check as an adept of any weapon to ignore distance penalties at the risk of greatly mitigated damage? Like at 55% in dagger you'd have a 55% chance of hitting at a sub-optimal range (maybe changing for the distance steps away from optimal?)

[Takta]

I don't like that solution as it 'double counts' skill - you get the benefit of skill already factored into your attack value, and then you get skill helping you AGAIN in range. That'll really suck for weaker PCs! I'd prefer we simply mucked with range and/or movement for everyone.

[Takta]

Here's my current proposal:


Ideal range: No penalty.
+/-1: No penalty.
+/-2: -2 ranks on the table, message: "$n's attack is moderately hampered by the range."
+/-3: -4 ranks on the table, message: "$n's attack is seriously hampered by the range."
+/-4: Cannot attack: "$n's weapon simply cannot reach <target> at this range."
(no melee weapon can attack at extended)

So a dagger fighter can attack at close or medium-close without penalty, is hampered
at medium by -2, hampered at medium-far by -4, and just can't attack at far.
(We could assume this represents quickly darting in, just long enough to strike, but
far is simply -too- far to dart in.)

A polearm fighter can attack at far or medium-far without penalty, hampered at medium
by -2, hampered at medium-close by -4, and just can't attack at close. (We could
assume this represents shifting your grip on the polearm.)


I welcome thoughts/comments!