I don’t know if you *started* from a d20 foundation, but the system as described in the post sounded very D&D-ish (roll d20 versus AC etc).

If I ever get some Zelda game stuff figured out I will link you to it. I am hoping I can successfully create puzzles in tabletop form. If so it may make sense to base combat off that, as per the combat-as-puzzle observation.

The only time I ever found “did I hit the monster” to even be a question in Zelda is when trying to shoot down those friggin’ Keese! :-)

While I might disagree that the LOZAS combat system was using the d20 combat system as a foundation, I do quite like your idea of eliminating (or at least marginalizing) the to-hit roll. Perhaps make it entirely a question of of how the characters positioning, target, and weaponry relate to one another.

Your overall point about this combat system not “sounding” like Zelda is well taken however. I, myself, reached similar conclusions. I really liked the mechanics I had put together, but the more I worked on the system the less those mechanics seemed to match the style and feel of LttP. When I considered the changes which would need to be made to bring the game more in line with a Zelda feel, I found that direction unappealing.

LOZAS in this form has largely been scrapped at this point. I still love many of these mechanics and will probably use them at some point in the future. I also still love the idea of an LttP tabletop game.

For the time being I’ve set all of this aside so I can continue to learn and grow as a game designer through other projects. I hope to come back to this when I’ve got a little more experience, and see if I can’t do it properly.

The d20 combat system is based around the two basic rolls of “hit or miss” and “how many hp of damage”, but neither of these matter if the target only takes damage from being struck in the eye with a fire attack, and you’re just generically stabbing at it with your sword. I feel like considerations such as the latter should be more fundamental than to-hit (heck, personally I might not even bother having much of a to-hit mechanic at all unless it matters for the monster type’s “gimmick”.

It’s clunky and inelegant. I’m not a huge fan of creating an entirely new way us utilizing the ability scores *solely* for one mechanic.

I may change it in the future, but for now it functions adequately.

A simple explanation would include:

-Ability checks, very important in this game.
-Starting bonuses or penalties to health, dodge, and magical abilities
-Additional bonuses or penalties, selected by the player or rolled randomly.

For each score, 11 counts as 0, while any number higher than 11 adds +1, and any number lower than 11 adds -1. So a body score of 14 would grant a +3, while a body score of 9 would confer a -2.

I suppose you could count that as a derivation, but it is a point to point mapping.

(Also – where did you get all that artwork from? Is there a Zelda specific artbook on the market?)

The combat system is heavily inspired by D&D, which is where I have a lot of my experience.

My hope is to make combat fast-paced by keeping enemy health low, and keep it “puzzle-ish” by making it so most monsters need to be defeated in certain ways.

Still, I’m very much open to input and this is some really valuable input.

In Zelda, items and positioning are extremely important. Using the environment itself is also important. Though I am not much of a 4e type, but I think that 4e’s style is much more Zelda than most RPG rules. (perhaps because WoW devs took inspiration from Zelda, and then 4e took inspiration from WoW).

Slower, tactical, predictable, attrition based combat would capture the feel better than a realistic/simulationist approach. In Zelda, combat is a puzzle, with the bosses being the true tests. The fodder exists to teach/reinforce certain tactics (typically which will be useful in the up coming boss fight), as well as challenge the players thinking.

Resources can be important, but can be restored realatively quickly within the dungeon itself for the most part, but some groups of fights can wear down a players resources to the point where the player is trying to find the next pot to smash hoping it contains a heart. Though please do not add in that annoying alarm for being low on health. I hate to say it again, but this is also something 4e does well.

Now tactical does not mean you necessarily have to use a battlemat, there could be some sort of manuever roll available to gain a more favorable position or advantage. I remember many a zelda game trying to stay safe in a room full of nasty enemies, waiting for the right time to dash in for an attack. To just go in sword swinging was almost always a recipie for death. That aspect, as well as having a lot of useful items to use is a key part of the Zelda experience.

I’m not actually using ability scores directly, but there are no derived modifiers either. (save when calculating the Battle Maneuver score)

The idea of movement dice is interesting, but it seems like it would mostly annoy players. “Fuck, I rolled a 1. Guess I can only take one step this round, for some reason.”

My current theory with calculating max AC is to fiddle with all the numbers until I have them in a place where I like them, then figure out what the max possible attack and max possible ACs are. If I don’t like either of them, or don’t like how they relate to each other, I’ll go back and fiddle more until they’re in a place where I want them.

All attack and defense modifiers will be “hard-coded” into the game, though. No magic items or whatnot screwing with things.