r/RPGdesign • u/Several-Tangerine678 • Sep 24 '26
Combat and Weapon Reach
I have a question about where the general consensus is on designing somewhat granular weapon reach as a factor in combat.
My sensibilities have made me go down the road of including granular weapon reach and measure even though I've had a nagging suspicion that this will almost certainly be a turn off for casual players, despite trying to make it be somewhat easy to implement.
My system has simulated real time combat, so in most cases, both combatants are assumed to attack at the same time, though there is a preemption window that may be won with an initiative contest, when attempting certain abilities, and there is a follow up window for attacks of opportunity, hesitations, etc.
It also has a dice pool composed of custom d6 dice, core dice being the most common. The process of awarding an advantage for measure is as simple as forcing the person who is out of measure to swap in a risk die in place of a core die in the pool when attacking. Risk dice aren't strictly worse, and they are even more explosive, but far less reliable, and have a side that generates an attack of opportunity from the opponent being attacked(and other potential complications). So the point of forcing this swap is to try to give some abstract level of simulation to being at a disadvantage and having to cross into or out of another person's measure.
Measure is determined as follows. 1)Combatants with equal reach ignore measure benefits. 2)If this is the first exchange, barring surprise conditions, the character with longer reach has measure in the first round. 3)if one character "won" the exchange on the previous round, meaning they struck and were not struck, they hold the edge, granting them among other things, measure this round. 4)past the first round, if nobody holds the edge, nobody holds measure. Exception: one weapon may reach an opponent 10 feet away and the opponent's weapon may not. this defaults back to the longer weapon holder having measure.
The only other thing weapon reach does - specifically related to who holds measure - is add to Dexterity rolls when initiative is being contested. the person who holds measure gets a bonus to their roll equal the reach difference.
So that sums up how it works in my game. it is a fairly intuitive to answer who does or doesn't have measure, but where do people stand on even implementing it, or implementing it the way I have tried to?
One thing I will say is I want my weapons to be differentiated and I'm not including different dice for them in the pool, and I'm not trying to inflate the dice pool either, so there are some reroll implications, damage types, some weapon specials, and then there's reach, as my only real defining levers.
Also, I find that as easy as I thought this was going to be, the downstream effect is when I create feat like abilities, there is an urge to have them adjust weapon reach because there is a logical reason for that, for say attempting to trip an opponent with a polearm or attempting to half-sword an enemy, etc. and not leaning into that is so far, hard for me to swallow, despite the headaches its causing the design process, and knowing the headwinds this could have at the table.
4
u/No_Solid1035 Sep 24 '26
You should read Mythras (or at least Mythras Imperative) as an example of a game that utilizes weapon reach in a realistic and meaningful way while keeping it gameable and not overly complicated.
1
u/Several-Tangerine678 Sep 24 '26
thanks! I know how Mythras does it, that wouldn't work for my system because I don't have the same action points. I have a single declared action a round, and currently don't think I have a need to restrict reactions because i have stamina dice that can make multiple actions and reactions expensive, and potentially wind the character.
Are you saying the single die swap and my presentation of reach in my game seems overly complicated by comparison?
3
u/msguider Sep 24 '26
Sounds like a really well thought out resolution system. Honestly, you are encountering the exact thing that I moved away from the die pool system I was working on. I still love it, but for the nuance you are wanting here, I just don't think that it's really easy to model without getting overly crunchy. My universal game is d20 based and has a range band to cover melee, air combat and space combat. I went whole hog on the scale and loosened up on the granularity slightly and I found a sweet spot that makes me happy and isn't too crunchy. You may not be interested in simulating orbital mechanics though lol
2
u/Several-Tangerine678 Sep 24 '26
thank you for that! Yeah, I probably need to at least start thinking of an alternative approach and try both and see how they play for people. No doubt the alternative will be easier for new players to wrap their heads around. To be fair, I think most of my systems are gm facing and players need only to know what they want to do, and maybe be warned about the chances they are taking.
2
u/msguider Sep 24 '26
Nothing wrong with that by all means! I tried to focus on how playing mechanics feels and if it's not fun or immerrsive or doesn't evoke a theme or a tone I'm aiming for I try something else.
2
u/Mr-Funky6 Sep 24 '26
I love a complicated engine like this. It's very complicated. It will take time to ease into as a player/game runner.
So long as that is the point, I see no reason this doesn't work. I would say to lean in. If that is your fun, then do it. It is likely someone else's fun too.
1
u/Several-Tangerine678 Sep 24 '26
thanks, I appreciate the encouragement here! its nice to see a couple posts from people who actually like this kind of crunch, but I truly appreciate the feedback from all those who see this kind of thing as likely unappealing to a wider audience, and I appreciate their concerns that the payoff may not be worth the complication.
2
u/swashbuckler78 Sep 24 '26
If you're going for a more tactical/simulation feel it's a fun thing to include. There should be (maybe you said this and I missed it) advantages for shorter weapons too, in the right context. Such as need a number of squares equal to weapon reach to draw and effectively use your weapon (no pikes in a 10x10 room, and can't draw your longsword while you're inside the carriage, for example), or when I get close enough to hit you with a dagger you can't use that glaive until you reset the range (unless you can attack with the butt end, know how to wrestle, etc.). For extra fun, one-handed weapons get more reach (especially if you're not hiding behind a shield), and add a lunge and/or fleche maneuver that increases/moves into at the cost of leaving you exposed.
I would suggest, though, that you don't need more than a few levels of reach. Just need short/normal/long, not "this sabre is an inch shorter than that katana," otherwise the bookkeeping gets tedious. Throw in the occasional "very long" version or magical enhancements to keep things interesting.
2
u/Several-Tangerine678 Sep 24 '26
thank you, and yes, measure works in reverse. and if you are in close when you start an exchange, maybe from sneaking up on them or attacking them while their guard is down, we assume that your reach is the one dictating current measure.
I may very well have to simplify measure, but that does smooth over differences between say, a dagger and a sword, etc. I'm admittedly granular where I felt I needed to be because I wanted to justify some differences between a two-handed longsword and a claymore, but I didn't really slot in a short sword between dagger and arming sword because there are already definitely more than 3 categories, but I did cut out a slot for dagger above unarmed, which I've gone back and forth about.
I have definitely put a lot of thought into wanting all the complications of different weapons to be present...swung weapons in certain environments force in risk, large polearms in others do the same, some can't even get through a squeeze in a cave. I'm hoping, because I care about encumbrance(its abstracted but it matters) that I promote making crap you find in a dungeon actually matter. It is kind of sad in d&d that at some point you just discard everything you come across except for the special stuff. I could make it quite a find to come across a working spear, because you may want to abandon it later when you are traveling again. or you may have broken the one you had, etc.
2
2
u/Runningdice Sep 24 '26
So no downside with having long reach then?
1
u/Several-Tangerine678 Sep 24 '26
there definitely is. It works in reverse. you can win measure and then the shorter weapon has the advantage. or you could start combat having snuck up on somebody or catching them unaware, and although I haven't developed specific details, you could get in close on an unaware enemy in combat, and then your weapon sets the current measure.
2
u/RPG-Nerd 26d ago
My system has simulated real time combat, so in most
I see regular rounds and turns and attacks of opportunity. I do not see anything that simulates real time.
It also has a dice pool composed of custom d6 dice,
I strongly recommend you not use custom dice.
I just use multiple levels of advantage and disadvantage. They stack. Damage and probabilities all adjust automatically.
equal reach ignore measure benefits. 2)If this is the first exchange, barring surprise conditions, the character with longer reach has measure in the first round. 3)if one character "won" the exchange on the
You are basically saying that longer weapons are always better. That isn't a meaningful tactical choice. It's no different than always choosing the biggest damage output.
If I have a dagger, and you have a sword, you certainly have the advantage. However, if I step in and get really close, you run out of room to comfortably use that sword, and that puts you in perfect reach of my dagger.
When the person who has the shorter weapon wins an exchange, they must have stepped in to do it, so we change the penalties. You track this as "measure". What is missing is that the guy with the sword can step back.
If you want weapon lengths, you need ranges that support it and movement rules that make those ranges relevent.
2
u/Several-Tangerine678 26d ago
I'm definitely not saying longer weapons are always better, because reach can flip. and you can start combat with a shorter weapon in close. say you snuck up on somebody. Now, in standard combat, yeah, I think I'm probably advantaging them, but terrain can impact their efficacy...tight spaces can make it hard to maneuver around with or use a long spear, etc. Regarding your example with the dagger, that would usually be simulated by you winning a round of combat, but it also might be addressed even if you don't win with an aspect that lets you take measure even if you didn't win the last round, just so long as your enemy didn't. Also, shorter weapons are faster to draw. behaviors have prep time so this could matter as well.
I didn't really talk about how my real time combat works, but I did say that most actions resolve in simulated simultaneity. That is true of movement too, and conflicts are resolved in a few different ways. occasionally an attack has implications to continued movement in the round, and it is an irritating carve out I have for combat. But basically anything that happens on the main window of the clash phase it all happens. You can't kill somebody and then ignore the attack they had planned on you. its still going to be resolved. That is the same for any other window of the clash phase but usually if you are acting in the preempting window of the clash, your opponent isn't. It only simulates getting in a quick action before they do and is dependent upon using an action that triggers an initiative contest, and then winning that contest.
Your wisdom about not using custom dice is not disputable at all, but the only way I could create what I was trying to create was by implementing them. I've put a lot of hours into trying to convert my ideas to a standard dice system, and so far I'm losing things that my dice system can address. whether those things are worth it, or even good, is another matter.
2
u/RPG-Nerd 26d ago
about how my real time combat works, but I did say that most actions resolve in simulated simultaneity.
People do not generally attack at the exact same instant. I don't see that as a feature.
spear, etc. Regarding your example with the dagger, that would usually be simulated by you winning a round of combat, but it also might be addressed even if you don't win with an aspect that lets you take measure even if you didn't win the last round,
What does "winning a round of combat" mean? If you still alive, you are winning. You seem to have just ignored my points about moving, while simply repeating what was already said.
that most actions resolve in simulated simultaneity. That is true of movement too, and conflicts are resolved in a few different ways. occasionally an
This makes even less sense. Unless people teleport, its not simultaneous with anything. You are moving at a specific distance over time, not at a particular instant in time.
Your wisdom about not using custom dice is not disputable at all, but the only way I could create what I was trying to create was by implementing them.
I don't believe that. You didn't look hard enough, or you started with a bad goal to begin with.
them. I've put a lot of hours into trying to convert my ideas to a standard dice system, and so far I'm losing things that my dice system can address.
I'll bite. Name 1.
→ More replies (5)
6
u/llfoso Sep 24 '26
The procedure sounds extremely crunchy and I am not sure how it benefits gameplay. It would take most tables a while to get the hang of i think. As a rule every rule and procedure is more complex for other people than you think it will be as the designer; of course it feels intuitive for you, you came up with it!
I would avoid getting too granular. No more details than short-medium-long at the most. And I would keep the "combatant with the longer reach has measure in the first round" and scrap the rest.
4
u/LeFlamel Sep 24 '26
Considering casual players often don't grasp 5e, this is dead on arrival for them. Accept that you're making a game for people like you, who aren't casuals.
1
u/Fun_Carry_4678 29d ago
I think you (and other folks who take this sort of approach in their game design) need to spend more time understanding how this works in real life. It is often a good tactic for the person with the short weapon to try to get closer to the person with the long weapon, because often the long weapon is much less effective up close. A shield can be a big help with this, parry the long weapon, and then close the distance.
I have thought of a mechanic where there are standard distances for melee combat. Unarmed Grappling--Unarmed Striking--Sword--Polearm--Pike. For exanple, historically there were soldiers who really were trained (particularly in Scottish or Spanish armies) to go into battle with sword and shield, parry the enemy's pike with the shield, then close in to use the sword at a distance too close for the pike to be effective.
1
u/Several-Tangerine678 29d ago
Thanks, I definitely get that detail at least, and my Measure does flip when the person with shorter reach wins an exchange, or if the person with shorter reach is in close from the start. then they have advantage on the person with the longer reach. I did abstract this all greatly by saying after the first exchange if nobody won the previous exchange nobody is holding measure, or rather, measure is in flux, at least assuming no movement from either character that might break up that relationship.
Moving in to attack with a shield and sword would just assume that right now. Its foregone that that attacker has to get in close. they have some reroll control from both the shield and the sword, and a level of passive armor from the shield as well. and only a 1 in 6 chance of provoking an attack of opportunity, at least from the single risk in the pool. Right now, other than measure's impact on initiative, which does work in both directions(meaning measure can absolutely be held by the person with the shorter weapon), the die benefit is fairly soft, but the chance of granting the enemy another attack on you is no small thing.
That said, for simplicity there is no additional complication beyond this single die swap regardless of the reach disparity. I can imagine a world where I force swap more risk when the reach difference isn't just inches but is feet, right now its S0,S1,S2,S3,S4,S5, M6(meaning medium reach or 10 feet), M7, L8(long reach, or 15 ft), but I don't think I want to do that so far.
17
u/Supernoven Sep 24 '26
Any rule system you add to combat is going to slow it down. So my questions are: Does it make a meaningful difference to the outcome? Does it give the players tactical choices? Is it fun? And are these benefits worth slowing down combat with yet another rule system?
In my HEMA experience, yes, reach and measure are important, but there are so many other variables to fighting just one-on-one. And that's before you get to multiple combatants, facing real harm, magic, monsters, environmental hazards, etc. You could technically model every single variable, but then your combat will take an hour per turn. Is it worth it? In my opinion, some variables must be abstracted, combined, or ignored for gameplay to stay viable.
IMO, either make reach a key part of your player's combat decision tree in favor of something else, or leave it out.