Weapon Reach

[Ambaryerno]

This might be complicated to implement, but a random idea for how to actually implement weapon reach into the game, so choice of weapon has a bit more of a mechanical impact on combat.

How I envision this working is the game looks at the equipped weapon, and sets a Mode (see below) based on that weapon type. If two combatants are using differently-sized weapons they make an opposed roll (TBD).

If the larger weapon wins the check, they keep their opponent at bay, and can attack them with impunity. Every round, the fighter with the smaller weapon makes another check to attempt to close the distance. If this check succeeds he's able to close into distance, but invites an Attack of Opportunity.

If the smaller weapon wins the check, he can now engage his opponent. Additionally, his opponent suffers an AB, AC, and Damage penalty equal to the difference in the sizes between weapons. IE if the larger weapon is a halberd and the smaller weapon is a shortsword, the halberd would suffer -2 to AB, AC, and Damage. Every round, the fighter with the larger weapon makes another check to attempt to open distance. If this check succeeds he's able to open up again, but invites an Attack of Opportunity.

If the combatants have the same size weapon, or if one switches to a weapon matching the size of his opponent's weapon, then no check is made.

Long Distance Fighting (Modal, Automatic): Used when the opponent is equipped with a Large weapon.

Mid Distance Fighting (Modal, Automatic): Used when the opponent is equipped with a Medium weapon.

Short Distance Fighting (Modal, Automatic): Used when the opponent is equipped with a Small weapon.

Close Distance Fighting (Modal, Automatic): Used when the opponent is unarmed or equipped with a Tiny weapon.

Only one of these modes can be active at a time, (in case of Dual Wielding, combat range is set by the main hand) however feats such as Parry and Combat Expertise can still be utilized.

[Lockonnow]

i like the idea

[Ambaryerno]

I think the easiest check would be some combination of DEX + Character Level, with skill and feat-based modifiers (IE Tumble, Mobility, and Spring Attack could each grant a bonus). Straight BAB would favor warrior classes to too much. You could probably grant shields an additional bonus on the check (very easy in a 1v1 fight for a shieldman to turn aside a larger weapon and press in while his opponent is tied up). Say, Light Shields are +1, Medium are +2, and Towers are +3.

[Storm Munin]

Is this not already in effect?

At least to me it seems unarmed combat and tiny weapons misses their cleave (circle kick) chance when a foe isnt close enough, whereas large weapons generally prove to have the necessary reach to do the cleave right.

As well with large weaponry you can strike a foe, as is, beyond a companion standing in front of you. no such luck with shorter weaponry.

AoO are already in effect.


So beyond offering another roll for the server, what is the benefit?
Circumstansual bonuses and penalties?


But rolling with the suggestion I believe a dual wielder doing a long-short combo should use the longer mod for attack and the shorter for defense.

As well to open the distance for a large weapon or shield wielder should probably be STR or INT based, and the AoO should go to the large weapon wielder should the distance be opened up.
That would emulate shoving your opponent off to striking distance, in reality offering little to no chance for the opponent to set a proper defense (as in null DEX modifier to AC).

[Ambaryerno]

Is this not already in effect?

At least to me it seems unarmed combat and tiny weapons misses their cleave (circle kick) chance when a foe isnt close enough, whereas large weapons generally prove to have the necessary reach to do the cleave right.

As well with large weaponry you can strike a foe, as is, beyond a companion standing in front of you. no such luck with shorter weaponry.

AoO are already in effect.


So beyond offering another roll for the server, what is the benefit?
Circumstansual bonuses and penalties?


But rolling with the suggestion I believe a dual wielder doing a long-short combo should use the longer mod for attack and the shorter for defense.

As well to open the distance for a large weapon or shield wielder should probably be STR or INT based, and the AoO should go to the large weapon wielder should the distance be opened up.
That would emulate shoving your opponent off to striking distance, in reality offering little to no chance for the opponent to set a proper defense (as in null DEX modifier to AC).

I've seen AoO apply regardless of weapon size, nor have I noticed larger weapons being able to "reach past" a companion (one of my main builds on most servers is a GS F/WM, so I can tell you from experience I've never seen my toon reach past a companion like you're describing). Also, I've seen Cleave not always trigger on Large weapons. So if weapon reach is already in effect, its implementation in the mechanics is negligible.

Dual wielder only getting an attack with the longer weapon could make for an interesting dynamic, though I'm not sure a lot of DWers would like it if they only get their defensive bonuses if their weapons are mismatched (otoh, it would better reflect how off-hand weapons are ACTUALLY used; primarily as defensive while the longer main hand weapon is for attack).

If the larger weapon reopening distance is a "higher of," I would say it should be STR or DEX, rather than STR or INT. And you think the AoO should always go to the larger weapon? IE if the shorter weapon closes he gets an AoO as his opponent comes in. And if he pushes him back out he gets an AoO as he retreats to range?

Anyway, I'm thinking for the initial contact at least, something like DEX + 1/2 Character Level. Tumble provides +1 per 10 ranks. Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack all add +1. Then the Shield bonuses.

So it would look something like, a Level 30 WM (Longsword) at 20 DEX (natural or gear), with 10 Tumble and a Heavy Shield would have a check bonus of +26

That would leave a question of how it would be affected by fighting in groups...

[Storm Munin]

getting an AoO being a shorty moving in make sense, getting it moving out as a shorty make no sense since that person are the one now at a disadvantage movement wise.

If you shove someone away you get the AoO, not the little scrawny guy.

That way we would also get balanced AoO's from the melee reach challenge.
The opposite would mean dagger wielders and unarmed fighters will have a 2xAoO advantage in any fight vs anyone with a martial weapon.

INT as a DC instead of STR as a DC to shove someone away to longer distance would make sense for someone with the insightful strike feat. Thus the suggestion.
STR and INT here being a momentum attribute.
A strong person using sheer force to open the distance, a smart person using his opponents momentum to do the same.

Placing everything into DEX would unfairly disbalance the game mechanics to favor high DEXers while making no sense at all.
A STR 32 toon should be able to shove a DEX 32 away (given he wins the DC challenge) even if his own DEX are at DEX10, if you will.

DEX vs DEX to close the distance does make some sense however.

[Ambaryerno]

It's not just a matter of shoving someone away, but using footwork, agility, and positioning to escape (thus why I suggested Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack and Tumble adding +1 to the check). I'm fine with allowing any combination, so long as there's a way to allow the other.

Just to clarify what I proposed on the AoO:

When short tries to move in on long, long gets an AoO because short has to get in past his weapon to close distance.

When long tries to retreat from short, short gets the AoO because he's already in contact and long has to escape his reach.

[Storm Munin]

Ah, misunderstood there concerning the AoO's.
Still think it should be the other way around though, supposing the shorter weapon person manages the roll to close in.

Yes, melee is about all those factors, but DEX does not solely measure up to attribute for them in a challenge vs challenge roll. Depending on the circumstance.
Also the three feats and skill you mention are more prominent on DEX builds, thus I would not be surprised to see one of the stronger fighter builds starting at 2 while the common rogue starts at 14 in the epics.
Id imagine an epic fighter somewhat more adept at, well, fighting.

[Ambaryerno]

Ah, misunderstood there concerning the AoO's.
Still think it should be the other way around though, supposing the shorter weapon person manages the roll to close in.

Think of it this way: If your character moves while getting attacked in the current game he provokes an AoO (mitigated by Tumble and Mobility, or eliminated by Spring Attack). That's basically what would be happening here: The short weapon is moving while being attacked by the larger weapon, thus provoking an AoO, and vice versa. You could even have Tumble, Mobility, and Spring Attack affect this AoO the same way.

Yes, melee is about all those factors, but DEX does not solely measure up to attribute for them in a challenge vs challenge roll. Depending on the circumstance.
Also the three feats and skill you mention are more prominent on DEX builds, thus I would not be surprised to see one of the stronger fighter builds starting at 2 while the common rogue starts at 14 in the epics.
Id imagine an epic fighter somewhat more adept at, well, fighting.

Keep in mind even STR-built F/WM will use Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, (due to class requirements) while all three are generally useful to any melee build, so I'm sure they're much more common than they're being credited for.

The other options could be a Feat to change which ability modifier to use, (much like Weapon Finesse or Combat Insight affects AB and Damage) but I think DEX is the best choice as the "default" stat to use.

And don't forget that Fighter with his big 2H weapon could always carry a backup medium or small weapon for when an opponent gets inside his reach (which is what one does; IE pikemen carrying a katzbalger or arming sword and buckler for when an opponent got to close).

[Moltrazahn]

What would prevent the short-range person from just using WASD to move closer?

[Storm Munin]

I dont think we have gotten that far yet on how this thing would work, but a valid point M.


I have yet to see a MoA build with dodge, mobility or spring attack in it.
Yet, that are our take on the medieval knight.
A knight mostly defenseless when it come to keeping a high dexer at arms length in accordance to the suggestion so far.

Fighters come in many forms on the server, unsure whether the majority of them actually bother with the suggested bonus feats necessary to be a viable fighter should this combat system go in as is.


Realistic as it would be for our weapon master to drop his greatsword, in order to draw an arming sword to defend himself from the pesky rogue, it would also mean that all those feats taken to specialize in his weapon are void in that moment (except for melee mastery slashing).
Meaning the finest fighters on the server swiftly would become the tiny weapon wielding DEXers?


In a way I see that as going against anything the medieval fightning techniques stood for, whatever martial weapon we speak of had techniques to make it useful however close the foe are as long as you can strike at it.

Consider a rapier for instance, at striking distance it is overall a narrow blade for piercing.
Should the foe move too close for comfort you have the basket and pommel to make use of (light hammer?) to pummel your opponent away to proper distance again.
As long as a foe are within reach there are no safe distance from the humble quarterstaff in experienced hands, same for any weapon really.

A polearm or spear wielder arguably were more likely to drop his main weapon to go for an arming sword or equal weapon when it could no longer serve (broken or limited movement due to formation fighting).
Freedom of movement applying and I have yet to hear of any instructor telling his students to willingly relinquish the control of a weapon, barring the situation of a prone enemy (or otherwise defenseless foe) and a secondary weapon designed to finish the kill quicker.


/M

[Ambaryerno]

What would prevent the short-range person from just using WASD to move closer?

The way I see it the distance would be handled mechanically rather than physically. With how NWN2 works (a real-time skin over turn-based combat mechanics) it would be impossible to manually manage distance effectively.

So the toons would still be in adjacent squares/whatever NWN2 interprets them as, it's just that you'd have modes on top of that determining their effective distance. In that way, WASD would be irrelevant because you're not ACTUALLY moving your toon into our out of distance.

Furthermore, the advance/retreat is being handled by dice rolls. So the AoOs I'm talking about would be provoked by the results of the roll.

@Storm

As I've said, set the default stat to DEX, but then have modifying feats available on level up that allow STR (you rely on shoving away rather than footwork/agility) or INT (knowledge of lines, angles, and positioning) to maintain distance. Something like:

Push Back

Your character uses strength to push an opponent away to maintain distance in combat. When making melee range checks you may substitute your Strength in place of Dexterity.

Geometric Fighter

Your character uses knowledge of lines and angles of attack to maintain distance in combat. When making melee range checks you may substitute your Intelligence in place of Dexterity.

Those feats could also modify which skills and feats provide bonuses (IE Power Attack could provide a +1 for Push Back, with Parry in place of Tumble).

[Ambaryerno]

Wanted to bump this. Anyone else have thoughts or feedback?

[Calantyr]

Considering how much combat there is in the server, wouldn't something with few checks be best? How about if two-handed weapons got an AB bonus in the first round of combat (due to reach allowing them to hit first), but a penalty in subsequent rounds due to being cumbersome in close quarters? Good for high-damage builds that only really need to hit once or twice to kill an enemy, so just need a better chance to hit in the first place.

Small weapons get the reverse. A penalty in the first round, a bonus in subsequent rounds. Good for those that tend to chip away at enemy health, so need a better chqnce to hit with their subsequent attacks. No penalty applies if they are able to attempt a sneak attack, making stealthy stabbers even more lethal.

Flexible weapons get no bonus or penalty because they can easily switch between 1 or 2 handed, making them good all-round choices.

[Ambaryerno]

Considering how much combat there is in the server, wouldn't something with few checks be best? How about if two-handed weapons got an AB bonus in the first round of combat (due to reach allowing them to hit first), but a penalty in subsequent rounds due to being cumbersome in close quarters? Good for high-damage builds that only really need to hit once or twice to kill an enemy, so just need a better chance to hit in the first place.

Small weapons get the reverse. A penalty in the first round, a bonus in subsequent rounds. Good for those that tend to chip away at enemy health, so need a better chqnce to hit with their subsequent attacks. No penalty applies if they are able to attempt a sneak attack, making stealthy stabbers even more lethal.

Flexible weapons get no bonus or penalty because they can easily switch between 1 or 2 handed, making them good all-round choices.

The problem with this is that it leaves no option for a 2H weapon to get back his advantage if for whatever reason (DR, HD, AC, etc.) he can't put his opponent down on the first round. No, I think there NEEDS to be a check for moving in and out of distance.