Basic Action Super Heroes!

Just a warning that what I'm about to discuss is part of my evil plan to make Bash a bit more tactical, so it won't be palatable for some.

I first came up with this when I was experimenting at making Bash fantasy more like the dreaded d20, with OA's and what not. I didn't have any real plan, however I like the bash system and wanted to see if I could give it the heartbreaker treatment. Essentially, I had an idea to deal with an aspect of fighting that seems to bother me regardless of what system I'm using - wrestling.

I'd like to say first off that I think the wrestling system in Bash is better than most, however there are times I do things a bit differently to the rules as read.

Anyway, wrestling can be a pain to resolve, and always seems to involve special rules or subsystems that can slow down the game. It also seems to be either too hard to be practical, or too powerful (I think Bash strays to this end a bit).

However, my idea is to dispense with additional wrestling rules entirely, and incorporate a passive system instead.

Essentially, the basis of the rules are that if you are next to someone in melee, you are effectively "stuck" to them. This can mean anything from rolling around on the ground, to merely being within arms reach - systematically it doesn't really matter that much (GM's discretion as always applies). The rub of it is, if you want to move away from someone while you are in melee, you have to make some kind of opposed check to do it. If you win, you get to move freely and that's it. If you lose, however, the enemy gets to choose whether to prevent you from moving (i.e grab you), get a free hit on you and let you move (i.e dnd OA's) or simply move with you, hence setting you up for a punch on their next turn.

Now, this opposed check can be your choice - any stat, your best stat versus the enemy's best stat.

Why Mind? Well I want to incorporate Mind into the affair to replicate wiseguy characters such as the Joker (you know, squirt water into the eyes, bluff them, use a smoke-bomb etc. and then escape). Thematically, it doesn't really matter what the vehicle is that you use to escape, as long as you can justify it to the GM - i.e it's "in character".

This doesn't necessarily ruin the maneuvers in the wrestling rules, as I would simply make them part of the standard attacks available to any character. Really, throwing someone, or smashing them against a wall could be extras or even criticals that you could do if you really own someone on your attack roll, or spend a hero point etc. However, I honestly haven't really thought through the ramifications of this idea on the system as a whole just yet.

Just to clarify, the goal is to make melee characters harder to escape from (i.e give them a bit more "friction"), without making them too nightmarish if they do get hands on you, without bogging down the gameplay (too much) with a special subsystem, and also to give clever characters a way of not being insta-gibbed by bigger, faster ones.

Anyway, this idea may be fundamentally flawed in all sorts of ways, so I thought I would just throw it out there and see how it flies.

Just a quick response. I'm generally not in favor of adding more tactical options to BASH. But based on another thread I had made, I wanted to at least support the broad idea of melee opponents being "stuck" to one another. Even if it's not a change to the wrestling rules, I think this is an important observation. I like some of your ideas in this regard also.

Honestly, I don't think it's a bad idea- especially if the foe doesn't want to let you up and run away.

I'm for this in theory. I often wish that a character had to give something up in some way to simply walk away from their opponent. I think the mechanics presented stray a bit to far in the other direction. I for one do not miss AoOs and have always kind of felt that they where an unnecessarily cumbersome addition that did not add to the game as much as they take away.

I like AoOs just fine in D&D. One of my players has a character built around them. But I agree that they are pretty contra (IMO) to the spirit of supers combat.

But I still like the basic contested stat vs. stat idea. If I were to simplify it (and I like it enough that I am likely to use it in some form), I'd wonder: does a character have to use an action to "hold" someone or is it automatic once you are adjacent? Instead of the AoOs, I'd be inclined to say that if the character wishing to move fails the roll, they've lost their "move action" (forgive the d20 terminology), but could attempt again to move or could just stay there and attack.

Benji you and I should start a thread - I too like the tactical parts of 4e and want BASH to be more like that.

For stickiness in melee (as well as everything else) it should follow a supers feel. Flash runs right past people and they cannot react. I think that stickiness is good - but it should be a tactic - not automatic.

I would go with making a melee attack against an adjacent foe creates the stickiness you describe. It takes no special effort - but it takes some effort.

I'm for this in theory. I often wish that a character had to give something up in some way to simply walk away from their opponent. I think the mechanics presented stray a bit to far in the other direction. I for one do not miss AoOs and have always kind of felt that they where an unnecessarily cumbersome addition that did not add to the game as much as they take away.

This is fair enough. AO's aren't necessarily a crucial part of the sticky fighting idea, they're just a possible option if the escapee fails they're attempt.

But I still like the basic contested stat vs. stat idea. If I were to simplify it (and I like it enough that I am likely to use it in some form), I'd wonder: does a character have to use an action to "hold" someone or is it automatic once you are adjacent?

No, an action isn't necessary. The presumption is that if you are involved in fighting someone in melee you are stuck to them. This could mean that you are simply adjacent to someone, or perhaps it could be a condition that you are already fighting them, as dugfromearth recommended. Grabbing someone also doesn't give the defender any special privileges, it just means you can't use your move that turn, but you can still fight.

Basically, it's like the comics where characters involved in a fight are all over each other. It really doesn't matter if you start your move prone, on your back with a gun in your face, held up in the air by your throat etc. I don't want rules like in d20 where you are constantly worried about these things, having to spend an action to get up etc. it just slows things down too much imo.

The assumption is that if you succeed with your roll you can get away and do something. It's meant to allow for more cinematic (dare I say it narrative) fighting, but also give the game table a bit more friction around the melee guys, essentially, and to stop agility and speed being an uber advantage (if in fact it is one, I concede it may not be).

Perhaps the rules could include a condition that you must have been targeted by the character in the last turn. So I guess it could possibly also apply to range powers as well. A bowfighter may be able to stop you moving with a gluebolt or something, however I haven't thought that far ahead.

Instead of the AoOs, I'd be inclined to say that if the character wishing to move fails the roll, they've lost their "move action" (forgive the d20 terminology), but could attempt again to move or could just stay there and attack.

I'm not hard on fast on these things myself, and the more I think about it, the less I think AO's are really a super-game thing either. Failing this test could simply mean that you can't move, that's the simplest method, I added the other options to better replicate d20, or a dynamic battle.

The option of being able to move with the enemy could replicate a brawl that's going from one end of the bar to the other, or some poor guy trying to run away from spiderman, thinking he's got away, and then turning around and to see him standing in front of him cracking a joke.

It's all meant to make fighting more dynamic, without sacrificing too much game time, or looking up special rules etc. It is also meant to be fast and loose, so if you think this shouldn't apply to the Flash, then it doesn't. Or that it doesn't apply to mooks.

I would be personally hesitant in allowing someone to a try another move action if they fail, however they are giving up their attack, so I guess it's fair enough. The rules are designed to kind of be there without getting in the way of fun so whatever works.

Maybe you could add the condition of getting the player to justify it in some way, or spend a hero point.

Perhaps if you are a cruel GM you could force the hero to use another stat on the next attempt or something: so the Hologram power fails to fool them, you now have to weave or bust out of the melee to get away.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, it's nice to know this idea has some merit, at least in theory. If you use it in a game, please let me know how it goes.

Benji you and I should start a thread - I too like the tactical parts of 4e and want BASH to be more like that.

Bash Tactics, perhaps? Could be a game in itself.

I wouldn't be opposed to this, although I'm still going through all of the ideas already posted in the Labratory.......