Combat Capabilities 3 - Defining the capabilities

    The last time I worked on my "combat capabilities" idea it went a little off the rails.  Thinking on it some more, I really need to nail down better definitions of what each capability is supposed to do - and then figure out why that might be a better idea than "I hit it with my axe."  So, what are the capabilities?

⦁    Striking
⦁    Protecting
⦁    Grappling
⦁    Skirmishing
⦁    Buff/ Aid/ Assist
⦁    Spoiler/ Debuff
⦁    Ranged/ Archer/ Artillery
⦁    Leader/ Teamwork
⦁    Strategist/ Tactician
⦁    Controller

    I really need some better names too, so let's see if we can tighten up this list...

Strike
    Well, let's go ahead and start from "I hit it with my axe" :)  This is an easy and straightforward capability, doing damage to your opponent.  It's kind of the default that all others are measured by.

Defend
    Not getting hit is 'default action #2.'  Staying alive is always a good thing.  This is not just for oneself though, we need to remember that you can defend allies as well ('every Spartan protects his ally from the neck to the knee' - or whatever the exact line is from 300).  This is the weakest of the capabilities in a way, because it doesn't really do anything, it tries to prevent something.   Which is not glamorous, but may be essential depending on the circumstances.

Grapple
    So while the action of grappling is defined as 'putting your hands on a foe' I have thought of the effect as being to decrease every capability your foe has.  Your foe is trying to attack with his sword and shield, you move to grapple him, now he is going to have a hard time swinging that sword or blocking with that shield since you're right in his face; grabbing his shield, blocking his sword swings, and generally being a nuisance.
    Grapple seems to really be a "set up" capability - you are interfering with the foe's ability to act in order to set them up for another action, like a Strike (grab and hit/ bear-hug/ choke), Interfere (joint lock an arm, Interfering with the foe's ability to use that limb), Position (grab and throw) or Control (grab and punch them with their own fist ["stop hitting yourself']).  It doesn't seem like something you would do for it's own sake.

Position
    One definition I've seen of "tactics" is "having the right assets in the right place at the right time."  Position is about being at that right place, and also in the right state.  Being thrown to the ground is Position, so is kneeling for more stability and a better shot.  Creeping around the edge of the battlefield to backstab - or climbing up the giant's pant-leg to stab them somewhere vital - both Position.  This capability is for when you're not in the right place to do what you want to do.

Assist
    Helping someone else is like Defend, it's not really glamorous but it may be necessary.  This capability really comes into its own if there are things that are impossible to do alone.  If the monster has an AC/defense that is too high for any character to hit on their own, then you need to gang-up on it with some 'Assist's - which could be invaluable for "Solo or Boss" monsters that are meant to take on the whole party single-handedly.  All the Boss' stats may be too high for any one PC to effect or negate, so they need to team up to survive.  Does this need to be a separate capability or can you say that you can add half/ all of your capability to an ally who's doing the same action?  That's a good question.

Interfere
    Interfere is the flip-side of Assist.  While Assist increases an Ally, Interfere decreases a foe.  The difference is in targeting.  Assist helps one ally, but Interfere helps all allies.  You Assist one friend with a Strike, giving them a better chance to hit.  But if you Interfere with the foe's AC/ defense then you help every ally's Strike.
    So why Assist when you can Interfere?  Well, there would have to be a reason.  It seems logical that Interfere would be harder to do, cost more resources or have a lower chance of success.  It's also an argument for making Assist a 'default' action and Interfere a capability that would need to be bought somehow.

Bombard
    Melee and Ranged combat are similar at heart, but have enough different circumstantial modifiers that I think they need to be categorized separately - so Bombard is basically Strike but at range ("I shoot it with my bow").  This brings things like cover and 'shooting into a crowd' into play, which don't really apply to a strike.

Lead
    In my mind Lead is kind of a hybrid of Assist and Interfere.  The idea was that a player can start by using a Lead/ Leader action on one foe, that action would place a pool of points on that foe - then, any ally who acted after the leader can draw from that pool to increase any action.  So the Leader 'tags' Thug #1 with 4 points.  The next PC draws 2 points to increase her Strike, leaving 2 points on the foe.  Then the following PC draws the last 2 points to increase a Defend, which removes all the bonus points on that foe.  The benefit obviously is flexibility, Assist and Interfere are both targeted to something specific, you Assist a Strike or Interfere with Defend, while Lead lets each ally do whatever they need the most.

Read
    This capability is one that I want to include the most but have the hardest time figuring out how to do right.  Read is all about seeing what's coming.  Knowing how you foe is going to act, which should give you a big tactical upper-hand since you can then plan for how to best defend against or counter the foe's actions.  The devil for this is in the details, how much can you see and when can you see it - and then what exactly can you do about it?  But I have to admit I have always had a soft spot for the "smart guy" - the fighter who uses brains over brawn to win - so I really want to make this a cool option that does not seem to exist much in most games.

Control
    Moving in-between two foes then ducking so they shoot each other, using a spell of telekinesis to pull a shield out of a foe's hand, or a throwing a tanglefoot bag to lock a foe in place - all these are Control.  Either controlling a foe's actions, their target for an action, or denying them a choice of action.  This is one of the hardest capabilities because it can be the most powerful and the hardest to justify in the game world.  But it can create some really cool 'cinematic' moments and advanced tactics.


    One thing about this system is that it's focused on what happens to the target/ enemies/ other players.  Some "tactical" systems are built around the acting player - like "Power Attack" that gives the acting player a bonus to damage for a penalty to hit.  That kind of player-focus is what I want to get away from with this system, which is why the abilities are described and categorized the way they are.  I want each player to be focused on how her actions are effecting the group and the fight as a whole.
    These definitions give me a better way to look at actions, in a general sense.  Let's take that Tanglefoot Bag.  It is a ranged weapon, so it's a Bombard action to use.  If you target a foe's body the goop spreads all over them, sticking and hindering their actions (Grapple), if you target the foe's legs it locks them in place (Control, cannot Position).  This example also shows how different capabilities can interact - the Tanglefoot bag gives any character who can make a Bombard action/ capability the option to do a Grapple or Control - thus expanding their tactical space.  The old D&D 4th edition idea of "Marking" for the fighter could be something like: you can make a Strike, and apply that die roll as a Lead to that foe (or an Interfere (Strike) to any ally other than you).  Backstab = make a Position roll, and next turn add it to a Strike against an opponent you can flank that is vulnerable to critical hits.

    A big part of tactical combat is in setting up what is and is not possible, or likely.  If every opponent can be hit, why not always Strike?  If every attack can be defended, why not always Defend?  But if you mix it up - the Dragon's scales are too thick to penetrate with any of your weapons, now what?  Well, can we Assist/ Interfere to get the 'target number' within the possible range?  Can I Position to climb on it's back and stab it behind the ear? (I think it was the Dragon Age anime movie that had that move)  The Giant is swinging a tree-trunk bigger than you, you cannot Defend against it if it hits.  Well, can I Position to get out of the way, or Position + Bombard to "kite" it, back-pedaling and shooting?  Can the mage Control the Giant with telekinesis to make it's swings miss? (or Interfere/ Strike on the giant)  Can the Archer make a ranged attack to disarm it? (Control)  Can the party leader call out when it's going to attack, helping me dart in and out of range to stab it? (Lead or maybe even Read, or both)
    This is nothing new of course - good fights always take into account the tactical options of the combatants and the terrain; but I think that having a more explicit, clear system - like the capabilities descriptions and the combat capabilities map - would help both players and GMs to devise new strategies and interesting encounters.  Again, the idea is to expose the underpinnings that are really already in most games, just buried under the weight of individual ability descriptions (and sometimes buried under a mountain of numbers, stats and calculations).

    Here's a crazy scenario, off the top of my head:
    The party faces a dragon, and the leader Reads that the dragon's Defend is too high for any single player to overcome.  The players confer.  What, asks one fighter, if I stab it as hard as I can with my sword - and then the other fighter hits my sword with his two-handed great-hammer to drive it into the dragon?  The GM thinks, okay, I'll let you roll to Assist the second fighter's Strike - but you're now going to be disarmed.  They hit the dragon for some damage.  Well, says the thief, I can climb on it's back (Position) but it'll take me some time to find a soft spot to strike.  Hey, says the mage, what if I use my telekinesis to move the fighter's sword already in the dragon, to cause it pain.  Okay, says the GM, the mage can spend the spell slot and Interfere with the dragon trying to throw off the thief.  Or wait, says the mage, if the dragon's got a bit of metal in him, can I target that with my lightning bolt spell to bypass it's Defend?  Hey, says the thief, wait until I'm off it's back before you electrocute it will you!  The GM thinks about that...

    Anyways, just a random thing that popped into my head while I was writing this.  I will have to keep working on this idea...