Needing help with a decision on a completely homebrew game system's rules.

A few years ago, I was discussing P&P RPGs with a friend of mine, and I mentioned how I'd kinda like to make my own system, rather than use a pre-existing one. They thought this was crazy, and way too much work for me to pull off. I took this as a challenge. Years later, the system is nearing completion, with combat getting the kinks out of it now. One of said kinks is my counterattack system. And that's what I want advice on. If someone misses an attack, it can be counterattacked. The roll to hit is 1d10+{bonuses for skill and weapon}-5{counter attack penalty} This was added in an effort to keep combat moving faster and more interesting. But here's the question: Should counterattacks be possible to counterattack? Or should they give a penalty to defense next round? This is just a lot of rules to sort out for one guy and a friend, so any advice would be appreciated. There are some other problems I'm trying to work out currently, like how much XP should be required per level (D&D is a 1-20 game. The system I've designed is more of a 1-200/250 game. This is to accommodate my brand new skill system I designed, where getting all skills to max would require level 250.) Any advice is appreciated. Thanks

You could counter a counter that was just countered, the real question is how long do you want your battles to go, if you have intence multi-action rounds the battles could be quite long, it also depends how combat in general works.

Here's the important details of the combat system: Every character/Monster/Whatever has an Offense score and a Defense score. Defense is typically higher. To attack, you roll 1d10+Offense and try to hit higher than their Defense. If you hit, roll for damage, which varies on the weapon. There's also parrying/blocking/evading which have their own rules, but must be rolled for by the defender during the attack round. But the decision to roll parry/block/evade must be made known before the opponent makes their attack roll, to prevent metagaming.

I think it depends what you want from your system, you can probably balance either. I'd go back to your original idea and think about what you're trying to achive with the system. Is there a genre you're trying to emulate, if so what happens in action scenes in that genre - and how are you going to build systems that support it? I can see a system with heavy counter attacks having a good swashbuckling feel, as well as working for brawling or wrestling as there is a lot of turning it around in those styles. It makes a system highlight the important of speed, skill, and finesse, but it's probably going to feel off if people are using slower more powerful weapons - especially if you have multiple counter attacks.

I'm not really aiming for any one genre. Really I'm trying to emulate any setting desired by a GM or players. But I'll definitely make some restriction for two handed melee weapons. Good advice though, thank you.

My vote would be to not allow counter attacks on a counter. The reason you are open for a counter attack is you missed your attack and are off balance and have left your self open. This also gets rid of a potential time sink where you are stuck in a counter spiral until someone gets hit if you have two poor offence characters. Perhaps add a feat or skill that allows counters off of counters.

For your XP system with that many levels you might also want to think about keeping your XP linear and low digits, instead of 100 xp make it 1, maybe its just me but these huge numbers in some games just seem exsessive. And also think about awarding it off of story progress or some other metric and not kills. That would open the system up to other uses besides hack and slash games. Just some food for thought.

Andrew K. said: I'm not really aiming for any one genre. Really I'm trying to emulate any setting desired by a GM or players. I think you'll find that is difficult. What is a great mechanic for one genre can be entirely unsuited for another.

cursingbulldog said: My vote would be to not allow counter attacks on a counter. The reason you are open for a counter attack is you missed your attack and are off balance and have left your self open. This also gets rid of a potential time sink where you are stuck in a counter spiral until someone gets hit if you have two poor offence characters. Perhaps add a feat or skill that allows counters off of counters. Adding a feat (My system calls them Talents) for countering-counters would be a good thing. Like for a sort of... Duelist class? Like your classic rapier wielding, wisecracking dashing swordsman from old movies. Good suggestion. I put down a note before for some classes to have a smaller counterattack penalty. This seems like it would work together. cursingbulldog said: For your XP system with that many levels you might also want to think about keeping your XP linear and low digits, instead of 100 xp make it 1, maybe its just me but these huge numbers in some games just seem exsessive. And also think about awarding it off of story progress or some other metric and not kills. That would open the system up to other uses besides hack and slash games. Just some food for thought. That's a really good suggestion. I'll probably roll that into my next "patch." Works a lot better than some sort of exponential increase system. Story XP is something I do try to do already though. It's a must, really. Heck, a few months ago, I ran two sessions a week and went for two months without a single round of combat. Star said: Andrew K. said: I'm not really aiming for any one genre. Really I'm trying to emulate any setting desired by a GM or players. I think you'll find that is difficult. What is a great mechanic for one genre can be entirely unsuited for another. That's true. I'm trying to make sure the core rules are kept separate from the various setting-specific rules I'm writing. My main goal though, is to support Fantasy and Sci-Fi especially, as those are always my favorite genres. Basically, that just means I need to allow for Swordplay and gunplay. I suppose I should note that Ranged attacks can't be countered, nor probably countering with a ranged weapon. Doesn't make sense.

As others have stated, I'd stick with one counter to avoid spiraling out of control and keep pace moving along. Would be interested in rationale for the high level cap as well as mechanics. I've often wondered why elves and humans both cap at lvl 20 when elves can live so much longer. In a mixed group epic campaign, a group can gain several levels. All at the same pace. Are you going low/mid/or high fantasy?

Paul S. said: As others have stated, I'd stick with one counter to avoid spiraling out of control and keep pace moving along. Would be interested in rationale for the high level cap as well as mechanics. I've often wondered why elves and humans both cap at lvl 20 when elves can live so much longer. In a mixed group epic campaign, a group can gain several levels. All at the same pace. Are you going low/mid/or high fantasy? The high level cap (250) is to allow enough skill points to reach 25(max) in all skills. Every level, players get 6 points to spend on skills. They can have up to three attributes be "dominant" because of what 1-3 classes they took. For example, bard is charisma, rogue is agility, fighter is strength. Any points spent outside of those attributes cost 2 points. There are 36 skills, arranged in a split tree diagram for easy reading and use. As for the fantasy... I don't know. Probably mid-high. Maybe just high. One of my players is a mage, a NPC friend of theirs is a cleric, and a friend of theirs just got Vamp'd, so probably High Fantasy, really. I don't know. The distinctions between types of fantasy always confuse me.