[Combat] Attacks of Opportunity

[Rothgar]

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!

I'm a bit off at the moment because I haven't really been mucking with combat for the last few days, and I'm up to other things at the moment, but at first glance this looks... Surprisingly fair and measured. From the view of an Unarmed/Dagger build, it still allows people with longer-reach weapons to have an advantage over me (which is good, that's why they've chosen those weapons), but it also allows me to strike out at them, potentially slowing/hampering their defense and allowing me to focus on getting closer for a round as they struggle to knock down my HP/MV.

This appears, as well, to allow people with a high weapon skill to "reach out and touch someone," as taking the detriment to attack would be less punishing for folks with extremely high skills in weapons and the like. I'd like to have it explained a bit more in-depth, because I'm a bit slow, but like I said - I like the way this looks/sounds and hats off to Takta for taking the initiative and handling this one so quick.

Looking forward to seeing what everyone else has to say, and (hopefully) being able to make a difference in combat! Hopefully the players with a bit more combat experience can weigh in, as this is the first combat character I've yet made.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I very much like this proposal, with maybe only the small tweak that I'd add a small chance to be 'slightly hampered by range' at +/- 1, as there still should be SOME benefit to being in ideal range. This might take you 1 down the table and have only a slight -- maybe 33%? -- chance of happening anyways.

But I do really like the direction of it, allowing but still factoring range into things. It -should- solve the lion's share of the charge dance that seems to exist right now.

[Takta]

I like this touch! Consider it added.

[Applesauce]

Call me a gutless flip-flopper, but...

For a long time I was strongly against the cat-and-mouse aspect of range in combat, and when charge came in it supposedly fixed it, but apparently not so much. But really, the imms have mentioned for a while now that situations are important to combat as well, meaning 2+ vs 1 fights change things, not every fight is fair, etc.

So if your primary concern is being effective at 1:1 combat and polearm clearly has an advantage, then IMO it behooves you to learn polearm, not complain that dagger is unbalanced.

If your character would use dagger regardless, then they'd better pick up a new technique. Get 2 more dagger friends and form a triangle of sorts in the room, see how fast that polearm-wielding bastard goes down. Anywhere they go they'll be in range of SOMEone. Find yourself fighting with only a short-range weapon and no friends to back you up? Consider it a lesson learned and hope you can flee to turn the NEXT fight to your advantage.

Long story short, I don't think it's really possible to balance all the weapons/stances/defenses without destroying what makes each unique from an RP perspective. So everyone will have an advantage in some situation, you just have to try not to fight unless you've got that advantage.

IMO, YMMV, etc. etc. And it seems a potential solution has been already offered and accepted. But just wanted to note that stuff's not fair sometimes, and I believe that's fine.

[Takta]

In my mind, for situations to matter, weapons have to be balanced so that some are better in some situations, others are better in other situations, but on AVERAGE they're just about equally good. Right now, that isn't the case - unless you actually START at close range, daggers were worse, which left polearms better at arguably every other potential range. Awkward, and to me, doesn't fit the idea that the situation matters - just makes polearms better overall, at least on paper.

Now, daggers will be better at close range, and polearms will be better at far - much more situational, to me.

[Geras]

Could we also add a command to do an attack that takes up two full combat turns and ignores or mitigates the range penalties? IE you do a "lunge attack" or whatever, but it means you automatically forfeit your next round. Maybe it's somewhat random where exactly you end up position wise. Then your opponent can either attack you twice, or reposition and then attack.