Player Facing Combat

[Rhino]

Has anyone else considered player facing defense rolls in combat instead of having their opponents roll to hit them?

I was thinking of having the players roll to defend against an attack using Scuffling, or Weapons, Fleeing or Athletics (depending on whether they are fleeing or fighting and what the form of attack is). They can spend points form the appropriate General Ability pool.

The target number to avoid an attack would be set at 4 unless the thing attacking them had a Scuffling, Weapons or Firearms ability of 8+, in which case the target number would be 5. If the creature was reallly nasty, with a relevant General Ability of 16+, then you could set the target number to avoid getting hit at 6.

This avoids the autohit ability of foes and enhances the player facing mechanic of ToC. It provides more opportunity for players to make tough decisions about spending points from their relevant General Ability pools, both when attacking and when avoiding attacks. Am I missing something?

[devonapple]

That seems to me like it would work out poorly for the players: they would be motivated to drain their combat pools for both offense and defense, while the monsters could theoretically attack at full strength until they are somehow killed.

[Rhino]

This variant might actually be easier on the players than the standard rule of allowing the foes to roll to hit and allowing them to spend points on their rolls. Under the RAW, spending 3 points guarantees a hit. Even weak foes can do that a couple of times. Tougher foes will be able to do it until all the characters are dead or they are defeated.

Yes, the players will burn through more points if they want to use them on both attack and defense. I am betting that for the most part they would save them for defense because the odds of hitting are pretty good without spending. But they always have the option.

[OlderNick]

I've actually had some thought about making the entire game player facing, though I haven't gotten around to actually doing any numbers.
If one is worried that pools will drain to quickly in combat, I suppose you could allow the defensive roll to be made either with Scuffling or Athletics.

I wonder what appropriate numbers to avoid getting shot would be?

[GrahamW]

I like this. I'd probably create a separate "Dodge" ability or similar. It'd create real tension when it ran low.

Personally, I'd do it on a single die roll. Roll to hit your opponent as normal, but if you roll an odd number, your opponent hits you. You'd treat all hits as simultaneous. It's not perfect, but something like that.

Graham

[Rhino]

If one is worried that pools will drain to quickly in combat, I suppose you could allow the defensive roll to be made either with Scuffling or Athletics.

I wonder what appropriate numbers to avoid getting shot would be?

Yes, use whatever pool makes sense based upon the dramatic narrative; Fleeing if the player is just trying to get away, Athletics if the player wants to stick around and do something that does not involve hitting back with Scuffling or Weapons, and Scuffling or Weapons if the player is trying to fight back with those skills. I suppose defending against firearms from range would be Athletics.


The base to avoid getting hit from firearms with partial cover would be a 4. If you had no cover it would be a 5. If you had good cover it would be a 3. This is the equivalent odds of getting hit by a firearm in the RAW when you have an Athletics less than 8. Now, the benefit from having a high Athletics is not that it makes the target number to hit you higher, but that you have more points to spend to avoid getting hit.

[demoss]

Whispering Vault does this, FWIW.

To attack, players roll vs opponent's Defend. To defend, players roll vs opponent's Attack.

This could be especially nasty if using the purist option of not telling the difficulty beforehand...

The base difficulty could be 2, and you would use the opponent's combat pool to increase it, maybe?

[Rhino]

I think that in order to keep it simple you set the base target number at 4 and modify it by +1 per 8 points the foe has in the ability it is using to attack. Simple and effective. I like not telling the players the difficulty. Just watch them sweat and spend their points.

[OlderNick]

The base to avoid getting hit from firearms with partial cover would be a 4. If you had no cover it would be a 5. If you had good cover it would be a 3. This is the equivalent odds of getting hit by a firearm in the RAW when you have an Athletics less than 8. Now, the benefit from having a high Athletics is not that it makes the target number to hit you higher, but that you have more points to spend to avoid getting hit.

And then you raise the diff further if the shooter is very skilled, or lower it one if the shooter has no rating at all, just like Scuffling. I like it!

I suppose my idea to go player facing all the time should work for just about everything apart from contested rolls. Maybe you could have some sort of system where the opponents rating determines the difficulty and how many times you must succed to win. Maybe...

[Rhino]

Looking at the really high Scuffling ratings of the Mythos creatures, I think perhaps a +1 difficulty to the roll to avoid an attack should be applied for each full 12 points of Scuffling the foe has.

Contested Rolls could be handled easily by making just one roll, with a base difficulty of 4, modified by +1 for each full 8 points the foe has in the contested ability.

Thus evading a foe with Athletics requires a roll of 5+. You could modify this up or down based upon narrative circumstances.