It does raise the interesting possibility of the digital DM.
I use Improved Intiative for combat tracking. It pulls in the monster stat blocks, I put in the PC stat blocks and for me, I just glance at everyone's HP/ AC and I push the attack buttons to generate attack rolls (with modifiers). Then I record damage to players or NPC's as they happen. I have very little math to do while running combat because it's all built in. It even has timers for status effects such as "Until the end of the PC's next turn" that it automatically tracks for me.
Using something like that where I was able to do the story telling, NPC control, etc, and The Computer did all the work of tracking +'s and -'s and kick out the net modifiers and roll results, I could see this working. I'd still want to tell a player what their net modifier was before they rolled just to avoid people being surprised.
But having played games with lots of modifiers to combat (SR comes to mind from playing 1st ed back in HS), there are so many things to forget/ calculate/ factor that I really don't want to go back to that on my own. I'm here for cool stories and interesting moments, not to do lots of math while people wait (mostly) patiently.
Yes, a system that assumes digital DM tools like automatic on-the-fly attribute/stat modification could achieve much greater fidelity. But D&D is not that system, because it doesn't have that assumption - it's always meant to be playable via PnP..
Opportunity attacks are part of the reason for stagnant combat. The action economy doesn't always help either, Mearl's is right on bonus actions. How multi-class was set up is a problem. The current issue as I see in 5E is the combat is long, way too long. 5E decided to go with "everyone wins a trophy", here's your 60% hit chance, so lets increase the hit points cut down on the damage and make sure everyone gets a hug at the end of combat. Meanwhile, shorter and more lethal combat would have made people much more happier.
Given that we have people saying "give all the monsters max hit points for their hit dice" and the like, the evidence for a consensus in favor of shorter and more lethal combat is poor. In any case, the idea that D&D combat is slow is... misguided. Combat scenes, in any RPG, take a while to resolve, for the simple reason that, while players may be fine with winning a fight in two or three rolls with minimal opportunities to do anything about it, they're by no means okay with losing a fight that way.
In the 2024 rules, a high difficulty encounter for level 5 PCs is one CR 4 per PC. Try sending your level 5 party against an equal number of flameskull and tell me how long it actually takes.
If you want combat to be faster, increase damage and/or decrease hit points. That's all you have to do. You get faster combat with no death spiral - although in general now lethal combat means characters are dropped more which is its own kind of death spiral. But again, accounting for surrenders/imprisonment/escape can prevent every lost battle from becoming a TPK.
As a DM, running 5 monsters with different stats due to damage levels is not going to speed up a battle. You'd need a whole new system of tools to deal with it.
And I also want to stress that long battles are not a problem on their own. Some of my favorite times at the table were extended BBEG battles. The problem is BORING battles - battles where the tension is gone, the winners are decided and you're just going through the motions to wrap things up. Stat damage just makes this even worse. Battles would focus on an alpha strike in the first turn and the side that loses that round will lose the battle 95% of the time. The rest of combat will be just going through the motions.
The truth is that I miss some reaslim in the system, we have artificial limbs and eyes, but in game there is no way you can lose any, so what’s the meaning?
Also the lack of epic battles, as mentioned fights are resolved in 3-4 rounds, is not very inspiring to defeat the large Dragon that threatens the realm in a few seconds. I’d like some more long fights against those boss tough enemies. So at the end you could feel it.
In a system of pure “HP is everthing” seems not easy to handle the wear of the battle in time, and the same for injuries that can ballast until healed. In addition there is no way to take down someone in infiltration action i.e. bludging from behind while stealth (seriously, how can you handle if players want to use stealth against guards?), as while HP is not 0 there is not way.
I’d like the 6E to be more realistic, and for those who want a simpler one, just keep both versions 5.5E and 6E at the same time. Or in 6E could include rules to be played by beginners, intermediate and advanced players, then apply the level you want to play.
The issue for me is to be so focused on maths, instead of decisions or how do you face the situations. The correct plan of battle can change everything, how do you place characters and support between them with each one doing what is good for. I learnt this playing Rolemaster, with an attack and critical tables system on which the maths was not so very crucial, and the level by itself not so determinant for the final result. But positioning the fighter in front of the wizard to protect, distributing correctly your bonus for attack/parry, and casting the proper spell did the job, instead just having better numbers so if A > B then most is already decided.
So quick ideas could be:
- The use of scaled results, redesigning the system for HP to higher and AC to lower ones but with increased damages for each X you overpass it (rolling 1 damage die for each X over the AC).
- Bonus to surprise attacks and from behind (so more chance of rolling more damage dice).
- Better handling of being taken down, with death at some negative HP and removing that stabilize mechanic instead.
- Injuries like bleeding (loss HP per round) or crushing (imposes penalty) to make damage types more relevant.
- Open dice rolls, this is if you roll 20, roll again until not 20 then add the results, as with the previous mentioned there is no need to have a natural 20 roll for attacks. The same for critical miss, if roll 1, roll again until not 20 and substract, then add your attack bonus, if positive there is no critical miss, but if critical miss apply some penalty (maybe a negative for the current and next rounds).
- Modifiers for some conditions, like quick drawing your weapon (draw weapon and attack on the same action).
We can have a more interesting combat just finally moving away from that simple hit-or-miss mechanic, which imposes that what I don’t like obsession for maths, as missing means 0 and hitting means all, by just a difference of 1 in result.
I'm not opposed to the concept. Shadowrun did something like it and I think it worked well. Light wounds penalty 1, moderate 2, serious 3. In earlier editions where that was a target number penalty on a d6 system it got brutal. When it was a dice pool penalty and you had a massive pool it was noticeable but not devastating. But something like you have a bane effect when you reach bloodied. maybe undead and constructs are immune to this I think could work. As it is a odd RPGism where from damage you are either working at full capacity or unconscious with no in between.
It's also harder to avoid, since combat in D&D is mostly about standing face to face and brawling while Shadowrun emphasizes sneak attacks that take out a target before they can react.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
More tactics would be a great addition to the system to make something different. More about how do you use your resources (skills etc) instead based so much in pure numbers.
Shadowrun's combat is significantly more lethal than D&D's and puts a greater emphasis on not getting hit in the first place.
Eh, not really. Shadowrun combat is significantly less balanced than D&D, there is far more difference in combat power between a street sam and, say, a decker, than there is between any two classes in D&D, but Shadowrun combat can range from rocket tag to grindfests depending on build and adventure choices.
More tactics would be a great addition to the system to make something different. More about how do you use your resources (skills etc) instead based so much in pure numbers.
Eh; if they aren't necessary to offset defenses then it's just making baseline combat easier, which a lot of people will agree isn't needed. If they are necessary to offset some defensive factor, then at best you're likely to just narrow player options by creating more and stronger "correct" responses to various monsters, and if you attempt to bring more tactical play in by broadening monsters' active suites in some way, then it's likely to have inconsistent performance based on how well any given DM implements the options.
Shadowrun's combat is significantly more lethal than D&D's and puts a greater emphasis on not getting hit in the first place.
Eh, not really. Shadowrun combat is significantly less balanced than D&D, there is far more difference in combat power between a street sam and, say, a decker, than there is between any two classes in D&D, but Shadowrun combat can range from rocket tag to grindfests depending on build and adventure choices.
Shadowrun combat is not balanced at all, and intentionally so because the game doesn't use a character class system, it uses a point-buy system that gives players considerably more leeway when designing their character and also does not allow for a significant, linear progression in power the way character levels do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
More tactics would be a great addition to the system to make something different. More about how do you use your resources (skills etc) instead based so much in pure numbers.
D&D combat can have tactics. It's just that the default difficulty doesn't really require it, so people don't bother.
More tactics would be a great addition to the system to make something different. More about how do you use your resources (skills etc) instead based so much in pure numbers.
D&D combat can have tactics. It's just that the default difficulty doesn't really require it, so people don't bother.
That and 5E rules don't allow you to do much by default aside from attacking with a weapon, grappling, dodging, or aiding another. Nearly everything else comes down to class abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
- Bonus to surprise attacks and from behind (so more chance of rolling more damage dice).
There already is a bonus to surprise attacks: advantage on initiative rolls, enemies get disadvantage on theirs, and you have advantage on your attack rolls if you win initiative. (if you lose, they probably just take the dodge action, assuming they don't see you yet) That's pretty significant. This is all even better if you are a rogue, and better yet if you are an assassin. Additionally, for bonus to attacks from behind, there is the optional rule of flanking to grant advantage that you can use as DM or ask your DM to use.
That and 5E rules don't allow you to do much by default aside from attacking with a weapon, grappling, dodging, or aiding another. Nearly everything else comes down to class abilities.
Tactics isn't about what you can do, it's about how you take advantage of what you can do. Many tactical wargames give fewer options than D&D.
That and 5E rules don't allow you to do much by default aside from attacking with a weapon, grappling, dodging, or aiding another. Nearly everything else comes down to class abilities.
Tactics isn't about what you can do, it's about how you take advantage of what you can do. Many tactical wargames give fewer options than D&D.
While I admittedly haven't played too many different tactical wargames, all the ones I'm familiar with place a much greater emphasis on maneuvering than D&D does: in BattleTech or Flames of War, the direction you're facing relative to your opponent has a huge effect whereas in D&D, flanking is an optional rule (if it even made it to the 2024 books) and things like unit facing don't even exist. Also, in tactical wargames, each player typically is controlling multiple units that each have different strengths and weaknesses and different things they can do in combat, whereas in D&D you're typically limited to running a single character who maybe has a pet depending on their class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Shadowrun's combat is significantly more lethal than D&D's and puts a greater emphasis on not getting hit in the first place.
Eh, not really. Shadowrun combat is significantly less balanced than D&D, there is far more difference in combat power between a street sam and, say, a decker, than there is between any two classes in D&D, but Shadowrun combat can range from rocket tag to grindfests depending on build and adventure choices.
Shadowrun combat is not balanced at all, and intentionally so because the game doesn't use a character class system, it uses a point-buy system that gives players considerably more leeway when designing their character and also does not allow for a significant, linear progression in power the way character levels do.
Another thing I prefer over unlocking great features overnight, as it allows intermmediate values, not just you have it or you don't. Combined with the system mentioned previously of intermmediate results grants flexibility and avoid imbalanaces as you have the same points than any other one and if you invest more in something and less in anothers then you are just as good in those maters in a more linear way.
For simplification D&D style could have skill categories like weapons, armors, magical, physical, mental and etc. (to determine) then each class granting a bonus to certain categories, so with multiclassing you mold your character to your liking and always in a balanced way as the total points are the same with no special feature breaking the system. No need for bookeeping as you can just add your classes anytime to get your categories bonuses.
Shadowrun combat is not balanced at all, and intentionally so because the game doesn't use a character class system, it uses a point-buy system that gives players considerably more leeway when designing their character and also does not allow for a significant, linear progression in power the way character levels do.
Not going to disagree with that, but my point was about lethality, not balance, and my experience with Shadowrun wasn't exceptionally lethal (in most editions, it's pretty easy to hit someone hard enough that they'll decide to run away, but an actual kill shot is quite hard). If you want high lethality, go for AD&D or GURPS.
I have seen far more player character deaths in Shadowrun than GURPS. Shadowrun is, after all, the game that brought us the Chunky Salsa Rule: if an attack would reduce your character to the consistency of chunky salsa, it's lethal regardless of what your hit point total is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, a system that assumes digital DM tools like automatic on-the-fly attribute/stat modification could achieve much greater fidelity. But D&D is not that system, because it doesn't have that assumption - it's always meant to be playable via PnP..
Given that we have people saying "give all the monsters max hit points for their hit dice" and the like, the evidence for a consensus in favor of shorter and more lethal combat is poor. In any case, the idea that D&D combat is slow is... misguided. Combat scenes, in any RPG, take a while to resolve, for the simple reason that, while players may be fine with winning a fight in two or three rolls with minimal opportunities to do anything about it, they're by no means okay with losing a fight that way.
In the 2024 rules, a high difficulty encounter for level 5 PCs is one CR 4 per PC. Try sending your level 5 party against an equal number of flameskull and tell me how long it actually takes.
If you want combat to be faster, increase damage and/or decrease hit points. That's all you have to do. You get faster combat with no death spiral - although in general now lethal combat means characters are dropped more which is its own kind of death spiral. But again, accounting for surrenders/imprisonment/escape can prevent every lost battle from becoming a TPK.
As a DM, running 5 monsters with different stats due to damage levels is not going to speed up a battle. You'd need a whole new system of tools to deal with it.
And I also want to stress that long battles are not a problem on their own. Some of my favorite times at the table were extended BBEG battles. The problem is BORING battles - battles where the tension is gone, the winners are decided and you're just going through the motions to wrap things up. Stat damage just makes this even worse. Battles would focus on an alpha strike in the first turn and the side that loses that round will lose the battle 95% of the time. The rest of combat will be just going through the motions.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The truth is that I miss some reaslim in the system, we have artificial limbs and eyes, but in game there is no way you can lose any, so what’s the meaning?
Also the lack of epic battles, as mentioned fights are resolved in 3-4 rounds, is not very inspiring to defeat the large Dragon that threatens the realm in a few seconds. I’d like some more long fights against those boss tough enemies. So at the end you could feel it.
In a system of pure “HP is everthing” seems not easy to handle the wear of the battle in time, and the same for injuries that can ballast until healed. In addition there is no way to take down someone in infiltration action i.e. bludging from behind while stealth (seriously, how can you handle if players want to use stealth against guards?), as while HP is not 0 there is not way.
I’d like the 6E to be more realistic, and for those who want a simpler one, just keep both versions 5.5E and 6E at the same time. Or in 6E could include rules to be played by beginners, intermediate and advanced players, then apply the level you want to play.
The issue for me is to be so focused on maths, instead of decisions or how do you face the situations. The correct plan of battle can change everything, how do you place characters and support between them with each one doing what is good for. I learnt this playing Rolemaster, with an attack and critical tables system on which the maths was not so very crucial, and the level by itself not so determinant for the final result. But positioning the fighter in front of the wizard to protect, distributing correctly your bonus for attack/parry, and casting the proper spell did the job, instead just having better numbers so if A > B then most is already decided.
So quick ideas could be:
- The use of scaled results, redesigning the system for HP to higher and AC to lower ones but with increased damages for each X you overpass it (rolling 1 damage die for each X over the AC).
- Bonus to surprise attacks and from behind (so more chance of rolling more damage dice).
- Better handling of being taken down, with death at some negative HP and removing that stabilize mechanic instead.
- Injuries like bleeding (loss HP per round) or crushing (imposes penalty) to make damage types more relevant.
- Open dice rolls, this is if you roll 20, roll again until not 20 then add the results, as with the previous mentioned there is no need to have a natural 20 roll for attacks. The same for critical miss, if roll 1, roll again until not 20 and substract, then add your attack bonus, if positive there is no critical miss, but if critical miss apply some penalty (maybe a negative for the current and next rounds).
- Modifiers for some conditions, like quick drawing your weapon (draw weapon and attack on the same action).
We can have a more interesting combat just finally moving away from that simple hit-or-miss mechanic, which imposes that what I don’t like obsession for maths, as missing means 0 and hitting means all, by just a difference of 1 in result.
I'm not opposed to the concept. Shadowrun did something like it and I think it worked well. Light wounds penalty 1, moderate 2, serious 3. In earlier editions where that was a target number penalty on a d6 system it got brutal. When it was a dice pool penalty and you had a massive pool it was noticeable but not devastating. But something like you have a bane effect when you reach bloodied. maybe undead and constructs are immune to this I think could work. As it is a odd RPGism where from damage you are either working at full capacity or unconscious with no in between.
Shadowrun's combat is significantly more lethal than D&D's and puts a greater emphasis on not getting hit in the first place.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
True but a bane effect when bloodied is not as disruptive as the penalties in Shadowrun.
It's also harder to avoid, since combat in D&D is mostly about standing face to face and brawling while Shadowrun emphasizes sneak attacks that take out a target before they can react.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
More tactics would be a great addition to the system to make something different. More about how do you use your resources (skills etc) instead based so much in pure numbers.
Eh, not really. Shadowrun combat is significantly less balanced than D&D, there is far more difference in combat power between a street sam and, say, a decker, than there is between any two classes in D&D, but Shadowrun combat can range from rocket tag to grindfests depending on build and adventure choices.
Eh; if they aren't necessary to offset defenses then it's just making baseline combat easier, which a lot of people will agree isn't needed. If they are necessary to offset some defensive factor, then at best you're likely to just narrow player options by creating more and stronger "correct" responses to various monsters, and if you attempt to bring more tactical play in by broadening monsters' active suites in some way, then it's likely to have inconsistent performance based on how well any given DM implements the options.
Shadowrun combat is not balanced at all, and intentionally so because the game doesn't use a character class system, it uses a point-buy system that gives players considerably more leeway when designing their character and also does not allow for a significant, linear progression in power the way character levels do.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
D&D combat can have tactics. It's just that the default difficulty doesn't really require it, so people don't bother.
That and 5E rules don't allow you to do much by default aside from attacking with a weapon, grappling, dodging, or aiding another. Nearly everything else comes down to class abilities.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There already is a bonus to surprise attacks: advantage on initiative rolls, enemies get disadvantage on theirs, and you have advantage on your attack rolls if you win initiative. (if you lose, they probably just take the dodge action, assuming they don't see you yet) That's pretty significant. This is all even better if you are a rogue, and better yet if you are an assassin. Additionally, for bonus to attacks from behind, there is the optional rule of flanking to grant advantage that you can use as DM or ask your DM to use.
Tactics isn't about what you can do, it's about how you take advantage of what you can do. Many tactical wargames give fewer options than D&D.
While I admittedly haven't played too many different tactical wargames, all the ones I'm familiar with place a much greater emphasis on maneuvering than D&D does: in BattleTech or Flames of War, the direction you're facing relative to your opponent has a huge effect whereas in D&D, flanking is an optional rule (if it even made it to the 2024 books) and things like unit facing don't even exist. Also, in tactical wargames, each player typically is controlling multiple units that each have different strengths and weaknesses and different things they can do in combat, whereas in D&D you're typically limited to running a single character who maybe has a pet depending on their class.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Another thing I prefer over unlocking great features overnight, as it allows intermmediate values, not just you have it or you don't. Combined with the system mentioned previously of intermmediate results grants flexibility and avoid imbalanaces as you have the same points than any other one and if you invest more in something and less in anothers then you are just as good in those maters in a more linear way.
For simplification D&D style could have skill categories like weapons, armors, magical, physical, mental and etc. (to determine) then each class granting a bonus to certain categories, so with multiclassing you mold your character to your liking and always in a balanced way as the total points are the same with no special feature breaking the system. No need for bookeeping as you can just add your classes anytime to get your categories bonuses.
Not going to disagree with that, but my point was about lethality, not balance, and my experience with Shadowrun wasn't exceptionally lethal (in most editions, it's pretty easy to hit someone hard enough that they'll decide to run away, but an actual kill shot is quite hard). If you want high lethality, go for AD&D or GURPS.
I have seen far more player character deaths in Shadowrun than GURPS. Shadowrun is, after all, the game that brought us the Chunky Salsa Rule: if an attack would reduce your character to the consistency of chunky salsa, it's lethal regardless of what your hit point total is.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.