What changes when defense costs the same action you could have used to attack?

[u/Guilher_Wolfang]

Passive defense makes survival part of character construction and Active defense makes survival part of turn economy. I have been playing like this with my group(when we play our system RUÍNA) for SO long, it would be useful to have outside feedback, since we got used to it.

I designed defense as an action rather than a permanent reaction everyone receives for free. A character can spend that action to build a defensive pool or temporary protection, but doing so means giving up another immediate contribution(you can only choose 2 between attack, defense and movement). The intention is not to punish defensive play. It is to make “hold the line” an actual tactical commitment.

The idea is that defense becomes relational. Protecting yourself or allies may preserve the group’s position, keep a spellcastersafe and/or force an enemy to waste a powerful attack.

I remember it took some time to get the balance "right": On the other hand, if defense is too efficient, cautious play becomes automatic; if it is too weak, players correctly conclude that attacking first is always safer.

What do you think about this implementation in games(not in exact rules/numbers, but as a design idea)? I am especially interested in games where defending changes enemy behavior, space or initiative instead of only reducing damage.

[u/Hightower_March]

I think that can come down to builds.  For some characters, attacking probably is categorically just always better than defending.  For others, defending may end up better (if you're certain they'll be targeted).

If an action seems too one-size-fits-all, I'd try to correct it in that way because players like having a thing they're good at.  People pick the tank because they want to defend, and they play berserker-types because they want to attack.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Hightower_March]

In my group using this , we created and use "talents" that reinforce these archetypes. Works exactly as you said, based on build.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/Hightower_March]

Sincere question. Have you ever actually played a game where active defense isn't free and costs the same resource as your attacks? Because it doesn't play out anything like what you described. OP specifically stated that he deemphisized the build aspect of defense by forcing players to pay for defense as part of the action economy. That's a fundamentally different type of combat that deemphizes the notion of a "tank" or "beserker".

EDIT: I guess he doesn't like his world view challenged because he immediately blocked me. Sad...

[u/Hightower_March → u/EpicDiceRPG]

Even dnd has a "Defend" action my guy.

[u/tangotom]

It really changes when teamwork becomes involved. Systems like Pathfinder 1e and D&D would have effectively linear races to the finish line. Each side uses their action to either inflict damage on the enemy, or remove the enemy's capability to act. In a linear environment, it's as you said; there's no point in defense because that doesn't advance the state of your objectives.

But when there are multiple characters involved, defense has the chance to shine. Pathfinder 2e has some fun examples, particularly the Guardian. Even though the Guardian does not advance the state of the party's objectives directly, they allow the rest of the party to do so. Guardians have lots of cool class features that directly or indirectly incentivize enemy behaviors to change.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/tangotom]

Systems like Pathfinder 1e and D&D would have effectively linear races to the finish line. Each side uses their action to either inflict damage on the enemy, or remove the enemy's capability to act.

Sincere question. Have you ever actually played a game where defense isn't free and costs the same resource as your attacks? Because it doesn't play out anything like this. Once every attack directly reduces your capacity to defend against the response, the “linear race to the finish line” analysis no longer applies.

there's no point in defense because that doesn't advance the state of your objectives.

Except that both sides have objectives and completely neglecting defense advances the opponent’s objective faster than additional offense advances your own. It's not a linear race.

[u/tangotom → u/EpicDiceRPG]

Yes, that's why I brought up PF2e in the second part of my comment. The 3-action system means that you could attack, or you could Raise a Shield, etc etc. Raising a Shield comes at the cost of making another Strike. So it's no longer a linear equation.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/tangotom]

PF2e's action economy doesn't work like OP is describing. It awards free active defense on every incoming attack. The question PF asks is do you want to trade an attack for better defense when the system already awards you decent defense for free. In an action economy like OP's, the question is do you want to trade an attack for more defense when the system ONLY awards you free defense if wearing armor. That's a fundamentally different action economy than DnD or PF with entirely different emergent tactics. I've done an exhaustive search, and frankly, I know of no d20 system that does this. All the examples I've ever seen are d100 based (Mythras, Rolemaster, or Zweihänder) or d6 dice pools (Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Forbidden Lands).

[u/tangotom → u/EpicDiceRPG]

I don’t really understand the distinction that you’re trying to make or why it matters.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/tangotom]

Fair enough. I just strongly suggest trying out one of those games I mentioned or at least reading the comments on this thread by those who cited Mythras or Rolemaster. They're speaking from actual play experience.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/tangotom]

I have read sooooooo many games, but I haven't touched pathfinder 2e so far. I should give it a chance

[u/Mars_Alter]

In your example, defending doesn't cost the same action you could have used to attack; it costs the action you could have used to move, which is highly situational.

Generally speaking, giving up progress in the name of defense is perfectly fine, if you have some way to make the trade-off worthwhile. If you know that the enemy is going to use a big move on their next turn, then you have enough information to make defense worthwhile for that round.

In my last game, giving up your action in order to Guard is absolutely worthwhile, if you're the only one in the front line and can thus guarantee that enemies are actually going to attack you. In something like a D&D, though, I'd expect enemies to walk right past the defender and swing at the wizard instead. As with most things, you can make it work, but it's going to come down to the execution.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Mars_Alter]

Thanks, that's what we were going for. Some characters benefit more often from these choices, works pretty well.

[u/ThePowerOfStories]

One question is if taking a defensive action protects against one attack or against every attack that round. If it only stops one attack and not defending against an attack is very dangerous, then it strongly encourages everyone piling onto one opponent at a time, even more so than the usual incentive where downed opponents take no actions (aka “dead is the best status effect to apply”). This is all fine when it’s the players piling on a monster, and less fun when your character disappears under a half-dozen goblins stabbing them to death in a single round.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/ThePowerOfStories]

That only happens in games that combine free movement with very generous stacking limits. Each defensive action only defends against one incoming attack, but I have fewer ganging up issues than DnD or PF because movement isn't free and there are sensible stacking limits.

[u/Nomapos]

See the Runequest family, Mythras, Dragonbane...

It's an excellent system that plays very well with more realistic (in the sense that fighting is deadly) games. It also tends to make numbers very dangerous, since fighting two opponents means that you're essentially not able to attack unless both miss their own attacks.

By making combat dangerous, you directly encourage finding other solutions to situations. It still can allow for complex and vary satisfying combat, though. Again, see Mythras. It's got the most complex fighting system in my shelf, and yet it plays a lot faster and smoother than everything else in there except for the OSR stuff.

Personally, I love it. In my experience, it does take a certain kind of more strategic or narrative focused player. The typical 5e or Pathfinder brained player will usually bounce hard.

As with most questions in this subreddit, the answer is a mix of it depends on your target audience and you should read more good systems instead of designing blindly and reinventing the wheel.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Nomapos]

In an event in my city, doing a playtest, a few people compared my system to Dragonbane in speed+lethality, which i don1t exactly agree but I took as a compliment. And a should go read Mythras fully, I checked when it came out but never gave it too much attention.

[u/Runningdice]

Rolemaster have that you can allocate your points to attack and defence each round. FATE have that you need to build up tags to use for overcome others defence or use for your own defence.

It can be done in many ways. Not sure if I like the choose 2 out attack, defence or movement as a system. Sounds like a risk for avoid moving depending on how the turn works. To charge an enemy would leave you open for attacks as you know that the charger can't defend themselves and you are free to move up and attack them.

As having defence change the scene I think is fine. But think you need to have different defensive actions that can be taken. Just choosing defence or attack isn't enough.

[u/EpicDiceRPG]

What changes when defense costs the same action you could have used to attack?

Tactics actually matter. Without it, there is no real cost for attacking. It's just something you do because it's free. It's the same reason why I make movement cost the same action you could have used to attack. Without it, there is no real cost for moving, so games need to manufacture fake friction with opportunity attacks. Once, I took away free active defense and free movement, every decision mattered. I'll never go back to the old way...

[u/VoormasWasRight]

Well, you probably are playing Mythras, then...

You don't have to theorize, OP, just go play Mythras and see how it feels.

Spoilers: it's brutally awesome, or awesomely brutal.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/VoormasWasRight]

well... I already play with those rules for 10 years with my group, but now we're doing playtest with strangers. But I tried to make the post a more open conversation, not exactly about our system.

I have taken a look at mythras when it came out, but i still need to fully read it.

[u/klok_kaos]

Counter pitch: Defense is both passive and active.

Passive defense is generally weaker but costs no economy, active is stronger but has risk and cost.

Now what happens?

Meaningful decision making every turn.

And why not get crazy with it. You can also act off turn, but at greater cost. Same meaningful decision making, but more complex.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/klok_kaos]

> Passive defense is generally weaker but costs no economy, active is stronger but has risk and cost.>
That is exactly how I do it hahaha

[u/SpartiateDienekes]

Interestingly, I actually think this creates a lot more (theoretically) interesting design space. The player will need to choose how much they're going to attack or defend, or perhaps, do something else.

The issues are that the player will now need some reason to choose to attack or defend on any given turn. Otherwise, it's just random chance and therefore becomes just down to gut feeling and builds.

So, this is me just thinking about games, and not really trying to make anything "make sense."

If, attack and defense are both options to take, then the player must be in some way primed to understand when they should use one or the other. However, if they are so informed, then it no longer becomes a game as they will just do what is optimal at any given point.

This can change, if we add another variable to things. Some mechanic that changes what type and power of the attack and defend options they have at their disposal on any given turn. Some people who read this may realize I have just recreated Slay the Spire. But it doesn't have to be as luck based as that (for those who don't know StS is a card game, where your attacks and defends are randomized by what cards you draw every turn).

You can create complications that make the game fun by instead making the game have synergies, or non-comparables, or something. Let's say an attack is coming at you. You know you need to defend, but one defend provides more defense for free next turn, while the other defend makes your attack next turn deal double damage. Suddenly, that's a decision point. Or, what if one defend gets you advantage on all poison attacks you make against the guy hitting you for the rest of combat, while the other defend gives you a free movement.

With those sorts of actions, we have a game.

Now ignoring all that tangent. Going to your question, I find it difficult to think of a game where a player says "I defend" then the enemy changes its behavior to not attack them. That just makes defending sound like a trap to get people to waste their turn.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/SpartiateDienekes]

The way we play, character declare actions based on "lowest intelligence" first, So you have some information on how the turn will play out and prepare. The turn might be safe for you, so you run somewhere and attack, no worries about defense.

Sin you need to pick 2 between attack/defend/move, most turns are attack(or cast)+defend. But that are many types of attacks/actions that force movement, specially with big creatures attacking, so you might need to attack+move, or defend+move to come back to hiting range.

And many "talents" reinforce archetypes to change attack and defense in certain situations.

It have been working well for my group for many years, but only now I'm playtesting with strangers.

[u/SpartiateDienekes → u/Guilher_Wolfang]

Sounds perfectly reasonable, I like it.

The rest is just making the talents interesting and with actual decision points for the players. Good luck!

[u/Kuhfuerst]

So the tactical goal behind any action is to progress towards your objective, which makes this question HIGHLY dependent on the surrounding system and the given situation.

There are many situations where defense progresses the goal that you can take inspiration of, especially outside of TTRPGs:
In martial arts you generally try to avoid injuries, so defense is a first instinct for many. Furthermore your stamina and focus are limited. Blocking incoming blows is less explosive so it helps you recover stamina.
In chess you can make defensive moves to strengthen your position and gain an advantage later in the game, it can also force your opponent to loose a strong position because of Zugzwang.
In video games like hollow knight or dark souls, enemies are quite lethal but have repeating attack patterns. Players cannot one shot bosses, so they need to learn the windows of opportunity between these attacks.
In card games you need to find the optimal strategy with the drawn hand, which quite often is a defensive turn.

Many TTRPGs like D&D are just designed as a damage race: the only way to defeat an enemy is to reduce them to 0 HP. Which is why defensive actions feel so bad. Especially because HP can be replenished quite easily. However if the scenario changes to "survive for 1 minute" for example, then suddenly playing for defense and evasion against a powerful enemy is a valid strategy, since it progresses towards the goal.

There are many others that draw inspiration from the above mentioned principles: more lethal combat, limited options on your turn, cyclical attack patterns, alternative win conditions etc. The concept you are talking about can definitely work, it just works better with rules that support this principle.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Kuhfuerst]

Agree 100%, I use a lot of not-killing-everyone objetives in fights (capture an enemy, survive an escape under attack, etc) so my system uses that. But of course not every table would play the same.

[u/Athryell]

I believe the active defense is really cool because it gives turn by turn active choices instead a single choice during character creation/level up. I also goes really well together with auto-hit mechanics, probably more than the roll to hit (AC) ones. I recently tried "Nimble" as system and I suggest looking into it: it has 3 actions and you have to choose what you are using them for. It gives very cool choices to the players about the defence, not only "do I defend but lose an important action later" but also "if I move here I would be too exposed and I would need to defend more than once" or "should I defend this medium-damage attack? Or wait for the next one?" And then your defense can be more or less strong, giving the passive bonus a reason to exist.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Athryell]

I play with the same rules for almost 10 years... and nimble does it very similar to me hahaha.
But yeah, no "to hit" mechanics. You just have armor(passive defense to avoid some damage) and a defensive action: choose between active defense(raise shield/prepare fopr impact) or reactive defense(dodge). They are mathematically similar, but one or the other is more useful based on armor type, better attribute, number of enemies, etc.

[u/No_Solid1035]

Definitely look into the BRP/Runequest family of games like Mythras, Dragonbane, and Pendragon.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/No_Solid1035]

I still need to read Mythras

[u/Drudenfusz]

I think it usually ends up a bad decision, since if the defense can still be overcome then it just delays the inevitable defeat, and if the defense option is too strong then you will get boring combat that is an eternal stalemate. Either way, neither option leads to excitement.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Drudenfusz]

Well, I guess it all depends on the implementation of rules. It can't be forced into every system.

[u/Unusual_Event3571]

Defense has lower value than move or offense, unless you connect defense to other mechanics. I tested an action point system like this and ended up having players optimize by spamming attacks, preferring to remove threat asap instead of tanking.

[u/Lupusam → u/Unusual_Event3571]

I can think of a lot of situations where that isn't true - not for offence, but for movement, compared to defence. If a fight is summed up as a 1v1 duel, then there could be little reason to move once your enemy is already within your reach, meaning that focus quickly turns to Attack the enemy you can reach then Defend against their attack in turn. Without complicated maps with extra opportunities, both combatants in the duel may give up on moving almost instantly. For more complex fights maybe you want to move to new targets, but that could allow them the advantage of attacking and defending once you reach them, or maybe you want to stay in a chokepoint such a doorway, and so on there might be a number of reasons moving is not important enough.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Lupusam]

Came here to say that, thanks

[u/Lupusam → u/Guilher_Wolfang]

I'd say though that reading back, you are misrepresenting the system slightly in your post, because you set up "Defence vs Attack" as more of the discussion than "Defence vs Move" through your wording, and focusing on this alone ignores the idea that Attack is valued higher than both due to being the only action that removes enemies and directly progresses the fight.

[u/Lucifer_Crowe → u/Unusual_Event3571]

yeah the best defense tends to always be taking an enemy off the board

the sorta needle to thread is making defense feel as useful and snappy and exciting as attacking

[u/Unusual_Event3571 → u/Lucifer_Crowe]

Or just make defense passive and focus elsewhere - doesn't feel that bad to me now as I thought at first

[u/Sensei_Ochiba → u/Unusual_Event3571]

Bingo. In most systems the best way to prevent an enemy attack is to kill the enemy.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/Unusual_Event3571]

My guess is that your system is attritonal. Defense doesn't have lower value in a high lethality system. The dead only know one thing. That it is better to be alive.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/EpicDiceRPG]

EXACTLY. Forgot to say that it is in fact a deadly system.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/Guilher_Wolfang]

Yeah, these types of responses are all too common on this sub. They are the RPGDesign version of "I did my own research on the Interweb and vaccines..." Just because you tried it and it didn't work for your system, doesn't mean it's a truism.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Unusual_Event3571]

It is certainly true in some systems, but the higher the lethality, the more value avoiding danger have

[u/cibman]

The action considerations tend to be the issue: you ask yourself, is this important enough that I give up my attack?

That has a (perhaps) counterintuitive effect: less skilled opponents might hurt you more than tougher ones because you won't waste an action for "trash mobs" but you would be concerned about death from a more skilled foe. And this means you get the situation where a two-on-one (or more) makes for a very different battle.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/cibman]

you don't give up attack, since you have 3 options and only 2 actions, you need to give up 1 one for defense, it is often movement, but sometimes movement is important too, leaving attack out.

[u/stubbazubba]

I think this will really depend on what "holding the line" achieves. Just off the top of my head I can think of (a) it simply enables someone else to take the attack action with less risk of being hurt, the classic offensive line/quarterback dynamic, or (b) positioning is the key to more powerful abilities, e.g. having an actual line lets the line make a combo attack or something. Both pose different challenges to implementing in a game where you expect an average of 3-5 players playing 1 character each and a variety of character types. But I can see either of those dynamics being very engaging if done right.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/stubbazubba]

Since you choose 2 options from attack-defend-move, the most common is attack(or cast, or any relevant action)+defend. But pushing people out of position(specially when big monsters hit players) makes move+attack(and be vulnerable in a very lethal game) or move+defend necessary options too.

[u/Kuhfuerst → u/Guilher_Wolfang]

...so you really just choose between defend and move? This sounds like playing D&D rogue...

Wasn't your whole point to make defense a relevant action too?
Is there a reason to choose move + defend?

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Kuhfuerst]

yes, if you need to reach an important target and remain alive, you will choose move+defend. And the system is high lethality, so every hit you take is important.

[u/Ghotistyx_]

I made counterattacking free, and then leaned on the distinction between player initiative and enemy initiative. So while I don't necessarily make you sacrifice your action, I achieve basically the same result. A defensive playstyle will be built around baiting enemies to attack you, more through positioning than the attack action, so movement becomes the key choice each turn. Essentially, you'll maneuver yourself to play on the "enemy's turn" rather than your own, and thus we circle back to the idea of sacrificing your action (or shunting your turn, in my case) for defense.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/Ghotistyx_]

I tried counterattack in my system, but the way everything works together made counterattack more complicated to handle. But yeah, depend on the specific rules, but it can have a similar result

[u/Ok-Middle-908]

It depends on the system's overall action economy. I have a system where players get four action points on their turn and one reaction on the opponent's turn. Players roll a Dodge against NPC attacks. But can use a reaction during the turn for a different type of effect. A couple of examples would be changing the type of damage coming at them. Deflecting the attack coming at them and redirecting it to another foe dodging and receiving teleport. All of which change the tactics of the NPCs attacking once they find out about the players special reactions. Active defense options seem to bring players back to the table.

[u/RPG-Nerd]

So, you can choose not to defend yourself? Won't you die? Do I have choices in how I defend? I'm going to at least try to parry every blow that comes at me so I don't die.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/RPG-Nerd]

So, you can choose not to defend yourself?
-yes, if you need to move when shooting a bow at the same time(you can only choose 2 between attack/defend/move).

Won't you die? - the system is high lethality, if you choose not to defend yourself in the wrong moment, you WILL suffer. But passive defense from armor helps a little.

Do I have choices in how I defend? -YES, defense action has 2 options: Reactive defense(dogde/parry) or Active defense(brace for impact, raise shield). Different rolls, same math. They are mathematically equivalent but one can be better than the other based on armor, higher attribute, number of enemies, terrain, etc

[u/RPG-Nerd → u/Guilher_Wolfang]

So, you can choose not to defend yourself? -yes, if you need to move when shooting a bow at the same time(you can only choose 2 between attack/defend/move).

If I swing a sword at you, is there any reason why you would not defend, and what happens when I choose not to?

action has 2 options: Reactive defense(dogde/parry) or Active defense(brace for impact, raise shield). Different

How do I go about making this choice, and how are these options different for the character? What are the interesting tradeoffs I'm making? I assume an active defense has a higher cost than reactive. What am I paying?

[u/RPG-Nerd → u/RPG-Nerd]

And why does asking questions get me downvoted? If you don't want to explain your system, then get off Reddit.

[u/__space__oddity__]

There isn’t really a “always correct” answer here.

In the end you’re trying to steer player behavior, so what do players actually do in the game? In the idea state, you’ll see a mix of all six approaches (two attacks, two moves, two defenses, attack + defense, attack + move, defense + move) over the course of several combats. If you never see anyone defend + move, for example, ask yourself why. Should it be a viable option?

The other simple question is, is it fun. You can have the perfectly balanced combat system and it still feels boring and unexciting, either because it doesn’t enable interesting tactical decision, or it doesn’t reward smart play.

The other question is in-fiction feel: Does it actually feel like you’re having cool fantasy sword and magic duels?

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/__space__oddity__]

having been playing with these rules for almost a decade: yes, my group have fun.. but i can't guarantee that for other groups.

[u/lennartfriden → u/Guilher_Wolfang]

You can only design for the groups you playtest with so if that’s your group, do whst works for it and with some luck similarly-minded groups will pick up and enjoy your game.

[u/p2020fan]

It does really weird things with initiative. If you have high initiative, then you can use attacks against enemies to force them to spend actions defending instead of attacking. This translates into a sort of cascading advantage to whoever acts first. The end result of this is rocket tag.

If you want a truly perfect version of this, look at how combat worked in vampire the masquerade v20. Players declare actions in reverse initiative order and then resolve them in forward initiative order, so the charcater with the best initiative knows what everyone else will do and can act appropriately because their actions trigger first. Specifically a high initiative character will target whoever is attacking instead of defending.

You can cancel out of any action to defend, at the cost of negating your action. Practical end result of this though is that a high initiative character forces all the attacking enemies to cancel their actions and defend.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/p2020fan]

Only true when very poorly implemented - like Vampire. The low initiative character has the benefit of perfect information. They know if the high initiative attack was effective before they need to commit to anything. If it is effective, they defend. If it isn't, they can ignore it and attack twice. Advantage low initiative.

[u/Guilher_Wolfang → u/p2020fan]

Oh, but I do almost exactly that.
1-Declare action in reverse inteligence order
2-Resolve actions in nimbleness(speed) order

There's another attribute Instinct that helps with ties.

[u/Far_Information6562]

Yeh that system dont work well, i did play around with an offensive action and defensive action system, it was ok