Simplifying Combat-What harm could it do?

By Tywyll, in Anima: Beyond Fantasy RPG

I've been trying to wrap my head around Anima and one of the things I've been thinking of ways to 'sort out' some of my issues with combat.

For one, I think that most of my players (and myself) would have real issues with 'lose initiative, lose your action'. So what if that were chucked?

Also, I hate games requiring the declaration of actions prior to rolling init, and see no benefit to them (they always slow play in my experience).

So, what about scraping that? You can only take a number of Active actions up to your maximum, as normal per the Agil+Dex chart, but you decide when its your turn.

I don't know, it just seems faster and more 'anime' to me.

So, since I've never actually played Anima before (unfortunately) what detrimental side effects would this have that I'm unaware of?

Tywyll said:

I've been trying to wrap my head around Anima and one of the things I've been thinking of ways to 'sort out' some of my issues with combat.

For one, I think that most of my players (and myself) would have real issues with 'lose initiative, lose your action'. So what if that were chucked?

Also, I hate games requiring the declaration of actions prior to rolling init, and see no benefit to them (they always slow play in my experience).

So, what about scraping that? You can only take a number of Active actions up to your maximum, as normal per the Agil+Dex chart, but you decide when its your turn.

I don't know, it just seems faster and more 'anime' to me.

So, since I've never actually played Anima before (unfortunately) what detrimental side effects would this have that I'm unaware of?

Anima has nothing to do with anime... to quote wikipedia "Anima was significantly inspired by Japanese roleplaying video games such as Final Fantasy and Suikoden, and features manga-like art, Eastern concepts of honor codes, mysticism and martial arts. Additionally, the world of Anima combines those elements with traditional Western fantasy ones, such as magic and medieval arms."

You don't lose your action based on initiative... Initiative just determines order of players turns. If someone has surprise on you, though, you won't be able to attack them, but you still get to take your turn.

My players all sum up their initiatives on their own, I trust them. We don't use the initiative rules exactly though. On character sheets, there is a place to write your initiative, and it varies based on your current weapon. We use that, and tack on notable side effects like being immobilized or having all-action-penalties, stuff like that. I recommend against anyone having a character that doesn't get at least 2 actions. We also tend to ignore the penalty for taking multiple actions in one turn (because usually its just attack+movement, or movement+attack). For doing lots of stuff in one turn (moving, healing, attacking) we might start paying attention to the penalty for taking sequential actions, but that penalty isn't applied to initiative, and the last time that happened in our campaign is was the Tao, and he used a technique which gave him free actions at no penalty... so there wasn't a problem at all.

So, we bend the rules some, but everything went fine for us (the campaign ended recently, about 9 months in length). Ignoring the sequential action penalty didn't seem to be a problem, however I do not recommend ignoring the penalty for making multiple attacks or defending multiple times (also note that these don't apply to initiative either).

After the first few sessions (Anima has a very big learning curve) you'll find it is very flexible, and combat will run as fast as any other (non-lite) system.

You don't lose your action based on initiative... Initiative just determines order of players turns. If someone has surprise on you, though, you won't be able to attack them, but you still get to take your turn.

Unless someone attacks you, in which case you lose it That's the thing I think would be a problem. Yes, you can Counterattack if they screw up the attack, but if they are nearly your level of competence, and faster, you aren't likely to get an action (or at least no attack). That's my problem.

I also think its stretching things a bit to say that Anima has nothing to do with anime. Graphically its definitely influenced manga and anime, and the power scale fits those themes far more than just about any western rpg I've seen. And that's a big part of the draw for people, not the indecipherable lay out of the mechanics! gui%C3%B1o.gif Besides, JRPGs are influenced by manga and anime, and they in turn are influenced by new JRPGS, and so on.

Like you I'd probably ignore the penalty if only movement were involved, and I'll definitely only use one multi-action penalty (0, -25, -50, -75, etc) if its necessary.

But my questions remain-what downsides are there to removing the rule that states if you are hit, you automatically lose your action? Also, what happens if you remove the requirement for stating you are going to take multiple actions before your turn comes up? For the record, I never said I was going to remove the penalty for taking multiple actions (unless what you meant was that you keep the penalty for multiple actions but not the one that comes from declaring multiple actions...ugh, makes my head hurt).


You can always choose to absorb hits if you think your opponent is going to hit you. If you absorb a hit you halve your base defense ability, however unless the opponent criticals you, you don't lose your activations if they hit you (page 86).

Yeah I know.

Again, that really doesn't address my questions.

What, if any, effects would result from following the more usual RPG trend of letting players have their actions regardless of whether they were hit in combat or not?

And what, if any, effects would result in not forcing characters to declare the number of attacks they were going to make before they rolled initiative?

Tywyll said:

Yeah I know.

Again, that really doesn't address my questions.

What, if any, effects would result from following the more usual RPG trend of letting players have their actions regardless of whether they were hit in combat or not?

And what, if any, effects would result in not forcing characters to declare the number of attacks they were going to make before they rolled initiative?

To the first question:

That would be like giving them all something better than damage resitance and will break the game. Note that you don't loose any active actions as long as you character does not get hit (this also means if not the character but his magical shield gets hit he wont loose any actions). The fact that you loose you actions when you are hit represent the distraction from beeing damaged and the sole fact that you are too bussy fending off attacks to do anything else (active) in this round - note that one attack does not have to be a single strike but rather refers to the "fencing" trying to get a hit in and thus defending against his could proof rather difficult.

Tought there is not realy any difference if they declare the number of active actions or if they simply take them (if they can that is).

To your second question:

This depens, note that penalties for active actions and multible attacks are two different things that stack. Also, no matter how many attacks you do, they allways count as a single active action - same goes for (active) magic and (active) psy powers (thought if you still need a active action for each of these three). You could lat them declare their number of attacks later, the realy important thing here is that they have it just before they make the roll of the first one. Don't forget that unlike penalties for active actions, the penalties für mutible attacks count for all of them, so you get the same penalty for all attacks you are doing in the same turn.

Hope this could help you.

First of all the primaraly effect of making Anima play like a more traditional RPG, is that it would feel more like a more traditional RPG. Combat is a very fluid process, in both real life and in fiction. But most role playing games make it feel like people taking turns at hitting each other. You usually have so many HP that even getting hit with a pretty considerable attack doesn't really effect much. But even if the attack does not put you down, no one likes getting a good solid hit on them.

The turn taking, HP smacking systems does work. It is the system that most Role playing games use. But I was drawn to Anima because it didn't feel like this.

When a hit means you can not attack that round, then even if you have plenty of HP left you still don't want to get hit. It really make th small quick fighter feel different than the big slower fighter, something that D20 in particulal never real did for me. It is important to note that you can choose to take the hit, to avoid losing your action, and I expect heavy fighters will do this a lot.

As for number of attacks, as long as they no how many attacks they are going to make when they make their fist attack (be it their turn or when they make a counter attack) it does not break the rules, but it is best just to decide during initiative

Tywyll, I have to politely disagree with Lagnalok. Removing the "lose your turn" mechanic has had absolutely no effect on our group's gameplay other than prevent slower characters from being murdered outright by faster (or luckier) ones. Nor will I accept the argument that removing such a silly (in my opinion) rule constitutes giving players improved resistance. Why? Because first of all, the rule doesn't even make sense. Not realistically (think boxing, fencing, anything like that), nor even in the terms the book uses to present the argument - if you were truly so busy defending yourself that you could take no other action, you wouldn't have been hit in the first place. Removing an arbitrary rule is not the same thing as, say, giving players automatic life multiples or +50 Defense off the bat.

But look a little more closely at the game design, rather than the scenario which the rule was trying to simulate. The more deadly you make combat, the more players suffer from it. You've only got a few players, and most campaigns in most game settings will have many more, perhaps dozens or hundreds of foes (depending on campaign length and combat frequency). A simple statistical spread indicates that the PC's will be on the receiving end of any battle mechanic which has the effect of increasing risk. If critical hits were enhanced, the PC's would suffer more than their foes because with all probability, the PC's were going to win anyway. Getting a critical hit on an enemy who was already going to die does little but save you the bit of damage they may have dealt you before death. But since more foes = more attack rolls against PC's, your likelihood of critical hits (or in this case, canceling their turns), goes up. It's not hard to imagine slightly unlucky PC's getting destroyed by similarly-powerful foes with average initiative rolls and a regular attack spread. Even if one PC is put down, that greatly changes the battle stats in favor of the team with +1 member, further increasing the likelihood of turn cancelling. That said, I always enjoy challenging encounters, but not those in which I have to sit out entirely because of some unlucky rolls. As for "absorbing hits" - at low levels, only supernatural and/ or damage resistance creatures have enough LP to make that even close to a plausible strategy. Moving on...

Since circumstances in battle are ever-changing, and players often have new ideas, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to require them to declare actions ahead of time. What does that accomplish, exactly? In-game, other characters don't know what your character is thinking during each round of combat, and out of game, you can only respond to circumstances your character is aware of - what's the benefit? In a perfect world, players are ever-aware and alert, pay attention to each round meticulously, and take notes. In the real world of gaming, players sometimes miss crucial details which would change the way they would react to things. If you find out after moving that the foe was just a bit further away than you thought, you might have acted differently - and whose to say you can't adjust the remainder of your turn accordingly, even if that's not what you planned to do at first? Do not misunderstand - I will never presume to tell others how to play their game. If the above rules work for you or others, use them. But since you asked, I thought I'd put in my two cents.

It may be worth noting that at the risk of player mutiny, our GM has removed or altered a number of Anima's core rules, seemingly without any detrimental effects. Despite my frequent complaints of the rule system, rules only make part of the game. It's partly other players, partly GM, partly rules, and partly you.

I would like to point out that Anima is a very play tested game. The rules work well with themselves. If you change one rule, it will likely have unforseen effects.

I would like to point out that if you take a good hit, you will likely hesitate. When a boxer gets socked good in the face, (unless he is ready for it: absorb the blow manuver) it will stop him for a sec. One of the best moves a boxer can do to avoid taking a bad hit is to hit the other guy first.

Yes, a fencer can attack immidiately after being, hit, but that is because fencing foils don't cause damage. Try to attack right after getting stabbed by a sword.

It is possible to power through getting hit. Basically letting you apponant hit you so that you get a better shot back.

Any one who does not like the combat system of Anima, is totally entitled to their opinion. It is a lot more complicated than plenty of other games I have played. It is unlikely that you will be able to fit three to five fights into a single gaming session, but that does not mean that the game is broken. Then rules are far from arbitrary. I would discorige anyone from just changing them, because they don't like them. I would recommend that you play them enough to really find out how combat is supposed to work.

Someone could make the argument that they like the supernatural rules, but not the combat rules. But those supernatural rules are balanced with the more mundane combat rules.

if it didn't change anything for you that is simply because you interpreted the rules differently in the first place, thought it does not change the fact that the book intended the combat to feel differently.

In your Understanding a combat would feel like this: A enemy slahses with a sword (344 finals score) and you get slashed (289 final score), done, nothing spectacular or anything you didn't try at all to defend you and got hit... (Yes this is exactly what you said, that you didn't make that much of a affort to defend yourself if you got hit)

In the understanding of an attack that as it is stated in the book, it would be more like this: A enemy unleashes a skillfull series of slahes against you (344 final score) and you manage to fend them off quite well (289 final score) but in the end he manages to force his sword trough your defense (attacker wins by 55 points).

- If I as a player had to choose between those two, I would choose the later one as it gives me the feeling that, even thought I failed, I had done something. Or simply said, it's not such a let down if you get hit even if you got some nice socres.

As allways with the poorly translated books, this is something you have to read between the lines as there are only some hints to this. The true meaning because revoking this rules is simply breaking the balance - every other combat important stuff was balanced against the fact that you loose your action if you get hit.

Handling a attack like this it is very close to real combat: One attack in anima represents the whole process from placing yourself in omptimal range for your strike (or not), reading your opponents real moves while trying to hide yours -

destincing between faints and actual "attacks"/hits/stabs/slices or what ever and yes even if its your attack the opponent is still in combat with you and so will throw his stuff at you the whole time until you leave combat with him - naturally same goes for you -

and finally making an attempt to brake trough his defenses to land a good one, or fail and get yourself a counter. If you'd like to make more attacks than one you would have to speed every single one of them up or/and use multible weapons (both represented in this system).

To "Absorb Hits": when you declare that you want to absorb a hit you half your defensiv abbility and then proceed like nomral,this will regain you the right to take your active actions (if you still have some), even if you got hit before this - unless you cought yourself a critical.

A starting character can viably absorb hits. With 6 con and no life multiples.

The key to the strategy: Armour.

Without looking at the numbers, armour seems to effectively increase your defence by ~ 10% per armour point (feel of experience rather than numbers)

V.

Thanks for the comments.

@Andyouneverwake-I have to agree with you, anything 'swingy' in the combat system will, by design, work against the players far more than it will work for them. Also, doing nothing on your turn is boring. If I'm going to run a game like Anima, I want it to be in all its over the top glory. Yes, you can argue the 'reality' of defending against attacks and losing your focus etc, but its hard to really buy that argument in the face of a game with characters who can level mountains and balance on tree tops. I think the rule makes since in a grittier setting, or maybe at low level but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me (narratively or enjoyment wise) for powerful characters. This is a big part of why I'd probably drop the rule.

However...

@Hrathan makes a cogent arguement for the end result of changing the defense system which is that heavily armored characters lose the incentive to avoid being hit. That's fair and something to think about.

In most games I've played with an 'attack, then parry' resolution and armor as damage absorbtion (such as Runequest/Chaosium) even heavily armored characters try to defend themselves, just out of fear of lucky shots. So I'm not entirely sure that they wouldn't continue to feel that way. But its worth considering.

However, as to the degree the game has been playtested... I'm sure that changing a rule will have unforeseen consequences. That's why I asked... :) i was hoping people could advise me as to what those consequences might be. Right now, the only concrete ones I've heard are:
1) the game will lose part of its unique feel (which may or may not be important)
2) heavy armored characters will probably be more powerful. Advising me that it would 'break' the game, without pointing to any actual mechanical side effects is not helpful.

Now, from what I'm hearing from people, other then having one less negative to keep track of, there is really no downside to taking out the requirement for people to declare their number of intended actions. Unless I missed something?

One of the things that drew me to Anima was how well the system was able to differentiate between heavily armored high str and high con fighters and the faster lighter armored characters. In most games one is just better than the other. In Anima they both have a more balanced place.

I like that a good offense can be a good defense, otherwise light fighters will focus all their DP on block or parry. It protects you from getting hit and it actually helps you hit your enemy. (In your counter attack), but as I have seen in a few practice fights if everyone has stacked their points toward defense (and this will happen) Remember that points spent on armor (without the added complexity of "absorb the hit") pretty much just raises the target number to hit you. When every one is stacked towards defense no one can ever hit each other and fighting gets really boring.

I can see how not you might think that not getting your turn might sound boring, but I played in the Heroes system for several years, and if you play that game in a fantasy setting and you get hit by an enemy, there is a good chance you are stunned and lose your next turn. (being stunned is worse that just not getting to attack by the way, you pretty much can't defend yourself either) And when I got stunned it wasn't boring it sucked, but in a good way, it added drama and immidiacy to the combat. You never wanted to get hit. you could build a character with such high con and armor, that they didn't get stunned very often, but these characters didn't avoid getting hit, much. They pretty much absorbed the hit every time (the didn't have the choice in combat)

One thing I hate about other role playing games is that I don't really care if I get hit, as long I have more HP than damage I just took, it doesn't matter. That is far more boring combat than not getting my turn when things go bad.

initiative, is much more important in Anima than it is in other games. (note: you roll it every turn) slow characters will often either get to counter attack (and not act on their turn) or get hit and lose their turn, or they will be forced to absorb the blow. The character with the higher initiative has more tactical control over the battlefield, and I think that is cool.

Remember I full expect a PC to absorb the blow anytime they think there is a good chance that they may fail to block/dodge, whether or not they have the LP and armor to absorb the damage, because they do not want to lose their turn.

The whole situation, in my opinion adds drama to combat.

I freely admit that this is just how I like it and other may not like it like this, but just as you mother tells you to try the new dinner before you decide you don't like it, I would advise anyone playing this game to at least make sure they have really played through combat (and done it right) and see why the designers did what they did, before changing things

Tywyll said:

Also, I hate games requiring the declaration of actions prior to rolling init, and see no benefit to them (they always slow play in my experience).

You don't declare actions prior to rolling initiative under the RAW. You only need to declare any mods that might apply to the roll. If you play this fast and loose, simply have each PC automatically apply a modifer based on the main weapon or attack. That's all that's needed.

Tywyll said:

So, what about scraping that? You can only take a number of Active actions up to your maximum, as normal per the Agil+Dex chart, but you decide when its your turn.

I think this would be fine for the most part.

If you are looking for some other "speed up" options, try:

Critical hits are scored when the Damage is equal to or greater than the target’s Physical Resistance. The MoS over Phy Res is an Action Penalty and Critical Level for other effects.

Mathematically, this is the same as what's in the book but with much less rolls and much quicker.

The combat system in this game is a nightmare. It's much more fun to build your own ki dominions or choose your spells rather than actually use them in a battle. Too much elements to keep track of.

I don't declare the number of actions beforehand; I let the players do as many as they can. They have to wage if they want to go all-out and have no counter-attacks left or play it safe with lesser attacks and more opportunity for counter-attacks once its the enemy's turn.

I use an automatic initiative roller; I pick up everyone's initiative beforehand (including the enemy) and then I roll for everyone. Speeds up a TON of time. The players rarely change weapons.

I keep the "losing the action when attacked" in because it actually speeds things up: if a hero hit an enemy, the enemy can't act. Thus I don't need to play out the enemy's turn, and virse versa.

I'm currently trying to figure out how to streamline the combat system. The number crunching I could handle when I was younger and had more time in my hands but now I'm honestly leaning to just abandon the system and pick up something simpler. I love the story I have built up for my players but I always dread the encounters since I know how time-consuming they are...

Edited by SSB_Shadow