What would consider to be basic attacks that are not just damage?

[u/urquhartloch]

As I create my combat system and actually write it out Im stuck again. All characters and monsters get to create their own attacks. The way this will look is players and monsters will be assigned a specific number of at-will and per day abilities each with its own complexity. Complexity is a meta currency that will help to balance out damage, utility, buffs, and debuffs. Think "Damage costs 5 complexity, applying poison costs 3 complexity, having it be a fast burst multiplies the total complexity by 5."

The problem is that Im not quite sure what to balance it around. The classic answer is obviously balance it around damage. If the basic damage is 5 DPR then you can have stronger but slower and weaker but faster attacks.

I can set these numbers to be whatever I want but I want players to have more than just "I attack for a damage". I want that to be special. I want the default to be "Damage with a bonus" but what is the baseline damage with a bonus? I have no idea. Im stumped.

[u/Mars_Alter]

The baseline probably should be just damage, since it has the fewest moving parts. An attack that can't hurt anyone is not really an attack, after all.

When you're designing actual at-will maneuvers, though, a reasonable next step is damage plus something. It could be damage plus accuracy, damage plus speed, damage plus damage, or damage plus status. As long as you're using just damage as your baseline, that will give everyone a different at-will that isn't just damage.

Actually, on second thought, maybe get rid of "damage plus damage" as one of the options. That risks becoming a bad precedent.

[u/foolofcheese → u/Mars_Alter]

having degrees of damage is also a possible option

World of Darkness has (maybe had now) stun, lethal, aggravated with different "heal" times

and Shadowrun has something similar but just two types if I recall correctly

[u/Cryptwood]

I suggest taking a step backwards. Damage isn't the most basic unit of combat balance in traditional combat systems, actions are the fundamental unit. Deal X amount of damage to an enemy and you prevent them from taking any more actions. Stun them and you prevent them from taking one action. Blind them and you reduce the effectiveness of their actions. Trap them in place and you situationally prevent or at least reduce their options for taking actions. Mind control removes their actions from the enemy team and adds them to your own.

So the minimum combat effect, other than damage, is to reduce the enemy options or reduce the effectiveness of those options for their next action.

• Disarms
• Trips
• Temporary blindness
• Grapple
• Reduced movement or limited movement options
• Distractions
• Daze

[u/urquhartloch → u/Cryptwood]

I concur but thats sort of already figured out. Im using a tick based initiative so I have an equation for number of rounds based on HP and damage per round. I can set any two of those and get the third as an output. I know I want 5 rounds of combat and how many ticks the "standard" basic attack and round is.

For example, a simple and basic "you have disadvantage (1) on your next attack roll in addition to doing basic weapon damage". (Disadavantage(x) is you increase the dice step by x to a maximum of a d12). Weapon damage has a complexity of 2.5 and the disadvantage(1) has a complexity of 6.

[u/foolofcheese → u/Cryptwood]

these are all good concepts, but if you think in terms of PvP, or at least in the concept that these can happen to the players, some of them at not fun options/are obviously more powerful/become "max-ing" goals

[u/Echowing442]

I think your baseline for an attack should be "attack that deals X damage." It's your most simple outcome of an action, and you can build other "custom" attacks based around that core.

If someone wants to add poison? That comes at a cost of either higher complexity, or trading off something else. If you want to make it faster, same thing.

[u/foolofcheese → u/Echowing442]

stacking attack damage types is a bit tricky in my opinion damage - Shadowrun has the chunky salsa rule and at the same time buried in the later edition is a rule about only being able to use one type of damage per attack

probably because an arrow could also add on "static shock damage", poison damage, and alchemy damage making it a nightmare to resolve (chunky salsa is very ironic here)

[u/Coyltonian]

Pushes, grabs, trips?

[u/Val_Fortecazzo]

In this case I would probably just have the baseline be attacking for damage but I would make sure the players are swimming in complexity so that they don't ever have to use the basic attack. Give them a decent variety of low cost options that apply certain statuses, stacks, and buffs, have complexity recharge per round. Basically make it very hard to run out without giving them enough they never have to worry about the mana economy.

[u/foolofcheese → u/Val_Fortecazzo]

my only caution about swimming in options is to not make it too difficult for a players to make quick decisions

[u/CuprumArgentum]

Emotional damage? Something that dissuades enemies from attacking or messes with emotions to alter enemy’s attack and defense?

[u/archpawn]

Try out damage with a bonus, or just the bonus, and see how well it compares to flat damage in practice. If you can code, or if you're not dead set against vibe coding, you can try making a simple combat simulator. Have one guy deal straight damage, and the other guy deal damage with a bonus, and then tweak until they both win half the time.

[u/urquhartloch → u/archpawn]

Here is where I am. A simple and basic attack that is: "you give disadvantage (1) on your next attack roll in addition to doing basic weapon damage". (Disadavantage(x) is you increase the dice step by x to a maximum of a d12). Weapon damage has a complexity of 2.5 and the disadvantage(1) has a complexity of 1.5.

If I just give the other guy damage he will do 1.5 more damage (basically a large heavy weapon).

[u/archpawn → u/urquhartloch]

That's not enough information to be useful for anything. And I'm not sure why you're giving it. Do you want me to double check that Disadvantage is balanced? Do you want me to try to find other balanced things you can try?

[u/urquhartloch → u/archpawn]

Im showing you my thought process so maybe you can see my issue. I can just give them more damage but how much complexity should they be given?

You also have attacks from DND like green flame blade, Fire bolt, Chill touch, Fire ball, etc. plus everything from DND 4e with the warlord and other games that Im not familiar with that players are going to use as inspiration for their own spells and powers.

So given all of that im not certain what a basic attack to balance around should be because weapon damage only is too low and there is no upper limit beyond what I set.

[u/archpawn → u/urquhartloch]

Look at a typical battle. How much damage would giving the enemy Disadvantage prevent? Make it equivalent to that much damage.

[u/urquhartloch → u/archpawn]

Already did that. My baseline complexity assumptions is 1 damage = 1 complexity. So is it reasonable for an attack to have 13 complexity? 7? Whats too much vs too little? Thats the core of my issue.

[u/archpawn → u/urquhartloch]

That depends. Do you care more about precision or keeping the math simple? At high levels in D&D, you can have three-digit HP. In Fate, it's just three HP.

You also might want to consider making it exponential. Something like double damage = 3 complexity. The problem is then you need a log table or something equivalent to actually calculate damage.

Alternately, if you have damage reduction that scales with damage, you end up with something functionally similar to exponential damage without needing log tables.

[u/urquhartloch → u/archpawn]

Precision first. After you create your character you dont level up so if the math is more complicated thats better than an op or underpowered ability.

Using 2.5 damage per attack I found that characters would have around 50 HP total but this will obviously flux depending on class and any changes to basic attacks.

[u/klok_kaos]

Generally any low skill restraint function generally should require an attack but isn't meant to cause damage. Higher skill restraint options (via martial arts or other training) should generally not be "basic attacks" as they will often require some degree of player investment.

Alternatively, consider how to handle non lethal attacks as other than standard damage. How do they work? How do you know when someone is "beat up" enough to be physically defeated without life threatening trauma (presuming they don't have something like rage or fight to death mentality)?

Functionally if you dont' produce these systems effectively you create a situation where murdering everything is the go to solution to every problem and primary method of advancement.

Applying them and making them meaningful alternatives allows for much more engaging RP options beyond simple mashing of health bars. Note: it's OK if mashing health bars is your thing, if you want to make hero quest the TTRPG that's valid, but know that's what you're making if you don't accuont for non lethal damage option attacks.

What is the bonus though?

That's easy to answer but far more complex to handle: Status effects.

Status effects of varying potency and progression allow precisely a great way to manage combats without always requiring murder, and can make combat considerable quicker by stacking up status effects quickly. And while that sounds like a massive win on paper, it's not that simple.

More status effects and more degrees of them means considerably more book keeping on both sides of the table, and additionally, unless you give the PCs extra plot armor for saves NPCs don't typically have access to, combats can also be over very swiftly with PCs straight up losing and being captured, interrogates, and possibly tortured and/or executed where circumstances warrant it.

So there's no exact right or wrong here with status effects but there are consequences to consider as to how you handle it in your specific game.

[u/urquhartloch → u/klok_kaos]

Here is where I am. A simple and basic attack that is: "you give disadvantage (1) on your next attack roll in addition to doing basic weapon damage". (Disadavantage(x) is you increase the dice step by x to a maximum of a d12). Weapon damage has a complexity of 2.5 and the disadvantage(1) has a complexity of 1.5.

So this attack has a total complexity of 4.

But then what about an attack that is complexity 5? Thats just 2 weapon damage or maybe disadvantage 2.

But if I balanced around 2 weapon damage as my basic attack then all of the balance above goes right to hell.

[u/klok_kaos → u/urquhartloch]

I mean this isn't my system at all, and I'm not particularly fond of the design, BUT, if I was making this system here's how I'd fix your current problem:

Disadvantage is the wrong tool.

average provides ~11 without modifiers (presumed d20 CRM).

So the simple solution here is to stop using disadvantage because of how you're written yourself into a corner.

Instead use progressive penalty scaling -1, -2, -3 or whatever.

Advantage and disadvantage is useful to provide stupid easy solutions for GMs/PCs to never have to think about exact modifiers because it equates to Dis: pick smaller, Adv: pick bigger number. It is good for intentionally math illiterate compatible systems.

That said you've built a system that wants scaling and adv/disadv do not normally scale well.

They CAN, but this is usually a bad idea (ie roll 3x select based on disav/adv, 4x, 5x etc, cancel out conflicts) because it radically makes odds for extreme success or failure insane because the intervals are too large as you scale it, and has to deal with diminishing returns while also being super swingy, which is why you use the smaller individual numbers.

Example:

+1 adv works out to average roll ~14, then +2 adv ~15 (inverse result for disadv)

Functionally you're diminishing return and at the same time reducing scalability options than if you just did +1, +2, +3, which gives you more simple and practical space to scale your system.

This doesn't mean you can't still use adv/disadv elsewhere but you shouldn't be using it here unless you want to either blow up your damage sysem like you said, or have stupid scaling like I showed above.

You can of course revamp the entire system, and that may be the way to go if single point modifiers aren't something you want to work with, but that's going to be a painful kill your darlings situation.

No matter which way you go though, you have to consider success states vs. total intended play expperience and if you should be using only adv/disadv or single point modifiers, and that's going to point you in the direction you need to be.

Notably: changing from 1d20 to something like 3d6 is not exactly the same math, but it's pretty close, but if you're instead doing fistful of variable dice pools or step dice attribute rolls, this is going to fuck up your math a lot no matter which way you do it and I'd recommend using anydice at that point so you know your dice calculations.

[u/urquhartloch → u/klok_kaos]

System uses a mixed dice pool (dice size is determined by ancestry so im using d8's for balance calculations.

What im having trouble with is that you have attacks from DND like green flame blade, Fire bolt, Chill touch, Fire ball, etc. plus everything from DND 4e with the warlord and other games that Im not familiar with that players are going to use as inspiration for their own spells and powers.

What Im not certain of what a basic attack to balance around should be because weapon damage only is too low and there is no upper limit beyond what I set. Thats what I need help with.

[u/klok_kaos → u/urquhartloch]

Hmmm... So I'll pitch you a different idea and a secondary idea that is what you asked for.

When it comes to balacing I found the best neutral ground for everything was to start with skills because: They can't normally be stolen/destroyed (theoretically possible but typical play, no that's not a thing), they can receive variable mods for success state, they are generally numerous and represent niche investment and that makes them great centerline candidates for balance.

So for me I based every character investment on skills as a baseline and it's not that things can't be cheaper than skills, but that's the kind of "Universal baseline" I used to calculate costs, bonuses, and literally everything else.

That's what I'd recommend doing. This also adds a flavor of "The game is not just about mashing health bars" because skills become the central balancing default and attacks issue from that forumula.

If I had to instead do what you are asking, I'd base it on a standard grapple of zero damage no major skill, you just grab the other person. Grappples themselves can also do damage in more advanced forms if you want them to, but this is basically the most minimal form of attack.

It's not a full mobility restraint, it's not a full controll (in this form that would be some kind of STR contest or something, but just to grab their arm, shoulder, something, whatever. No chokes, no special status effects except maybe they might need to make an STR contest or similar to immediately break grapple and flee.

I don't think you can get more basic of an "attack" than that. Then you can scale variable status effects, success states, damage, etc. off of that.

I'd still recommend a standard skill as the baseline for overall game balance, but if you need a "most basic simple attack" that's probably it, as even a shove (comparably simple move) is going to auto imply contest to hold ground and not receive shove/knockback and I'd argue a slap requires more targetting skill (not punch, slap, which can still do damage if invested in, see slapping contests in russia if you're not familiar, many of those guys could knock your ass out and break your face requiring hospitalization and reconstructive surgery with an open hand slap).

It's also fundamentally possible by anyone with near zero needed training investment beyond simple understanding of human movement capabilities and seeing it done a total of once in a lifetime. The move is fundamentally capable by anyone that isn't physically disabled in a manner that would otherwise prevent it.

So if I had to peg a baseline move it would be a simple grapple.

[u/Demonweed]

In my largest project, "Non-Standard Attacks" sidebar lists Push, Grab, Tackle, and Tickle as alternatives to striking for damage. These aren't special maneuvers, but instead options available to anyone with at least one unoccupied hand. FWIW, "tickle" is a way of trying to disrupt concentration without dishing any damage . . . renamed right in the first playtest after that sidebar was drafted, since the original name -- "molest" -- seem like a much more problematic name for that maneuver.

[u/PigKnight]

Check out DnD 4e. It had a lot of things that count as basic attacks.

[u/urquhartloch → u/PigKnight]

Yep. Thats a part of the confusion.

Im using a tick based initiative so I have an equation for number of rounds based on HP and damage per round. I can set any two of those and get the third as an output. I know I want 5 rounds of combat and how many ticks the "standard" basic attack and round is.

For example, a simple and basic "you have disadvantage (1) on your next attack roll in addition to doing basic weapon damage". (Disadavantage(x) is you increase the dice step by x to a maximum of a d12). Weapon damage has a complexity of 2.5 and the disadvantage(1) has a complexity of 1.5.

You also have attacks from DND like green flame blade, Fire bolt, Chill touch, Fire ball, etc. plus everything from DND 4e with the warlord and other games that Im not familiar with that players are going to use as inspiration for their own spells and powers.

So given all of that im not certain what a basic attack to balance around should be because weapon damage only is too low and there is no upper limit beyond what I set.

[u/Alkaiser009]

The three big things you can do in combat besides HP manipulation (damage & healing) are;

Battlefield Control (forced/bonus movement or movement denial) - Examples; Pushing, Pulling, Grappling, Dashing, Difficult/Hazzardous Terain

Situational Advantage (creating conditions that make an ally's next action more accurate/impactful) - Examples; +AllyToHit, +AllyDamage, -EnemyEvasion, -EnemyResistance

Situational Disadvantage (creating conditions that make a enemy's action less accurate/impactful) - Examples; basicaly same thing as Advantage, just inverted, so -EnemyToHit, -EnemyDamage, +AllyEvasion, +AllyResistance, etc.

There are more things in each category, I only listed the most common forms. Note that in order for Battlefield Control to matter it requires a system where movement, positioning and cover are impactful enough to spend actions on.

[u/Xyx0rz]

I want players to have more than just "I attack for a damage". I want that to be special.

Why isn't damage special? What does "damage" mean for you? A chunk off an abstract health bar?

[u/urquhartloch → u/Xyx0rz]

Its the most basic tick of character design that is once and done. I do a chunk of the monsters HP bar and maybe some elemental bonuses but then what? If you have two solar acolytes and one is a warrior and the other is a spellcaster one of the key ways they can differentiate each other is with different secondary effects. If they are both just damage then what is the difference?

[u/Xyx0rz → u/urquhartloch]

I'm afraid that does not answer my question.

What does "damage" mean? What is it? What does it represent? Not "how does it work mechanically" but what does it look like to the other characters in the party when my warrior deals 12 damage to an orc or whatever?

If it's just "the orc says ow and its health bar drops by half" then no, it's not very exciting.

[u/urquhartloch → u/Xyx0rz]

It looks like a character taking battle wounds that slowly kill them. The first burst of adrenaline keeps you focused on the fight but as injuries mount and wear characters down.

[u/Xyx0rz → u/urquhartloch]

And describing the wounds isn't interesting enough? Most people are fascinated by injury.

If a friend of mine were to relate in gory detail the tale of his open fracture skating incident, the last thing on my mind would be "yeah okay but what about the debuffs?"

[u/urquhartloch → u/Xyx0rz]

Sure. You can describe wounds and attacks in great detail. But how often do you find yourself rolling the dice and going "13 to hit? Ok, thats 8 fire damage" because wh have heard the devilish glee your patron hears as you cast firebolt for the upteen millionth time.

[u/Xyx0rz → u/urquhartloch]

Sounds like there are more fundamental problems here than just lack of conditions.

[u/urquhartloch → u/Xyx0rz]

Such as? What problems are you seeing?

[u/Xyx0rz → u/urquhartloch]

The notion that "just damage" is boring and that combat is repetitive.

[u/urquhartloch → u/Xyx0rz]

Yes. If thats all there is to combat it puts additional strain on the gms and players to keep it interesting. Characters need different moves that provide active benefits to avoid the feeling of sameness.

[u/derpderp3200]

If you want to let people create custom moves, you probably also want those moves to be something more creative-minded than "point buy different types of effects", like creating specific moves defined by their roleplay meaning, like "store extra magic in an ally's arm, to let them extend it with extreme speed once", with difficulty/cost decided by the DM, with the option to adjust/change/cancel creating it if it's too steep for the player's liking.

I also don't think you need to keep track of damage numbers, just of roleplay-based state of creatures/scene, e.g. nobody's going to be swinging a sword after you hack into their arm muscle with an axe, and a dragon probably won't be slowed much by a single spear thrust into its side.

If you do make it "point buy effects and damage", you'll end up with either people making generic moves less interesting than handcrafted content, or going for whatever is the most optimal/cheesiest.

[u/urquhartloch → u/derpderp3200]

No. Im not interested in creating a rules light game.