New DM at the end of my 1st campaign with a group of friends.
I have wondering for a while about the whole D&D combat mechanics, and generally about the idea behind turn based combat. What always bothered me about turn based is that feeling that there is a character/monster/whatever else, that is standing even if for a split second in a battle, just waiting to be hit, and another that will either miss or hit them.
Now, I know and realize that AC, from an RP perspective. can be treated as the defender's armor blocking the hit, him dodging it, or him actively blocking it. Thing is I feel, and have always felt regarding turn based video games as well, that combat should have been based on contests only, and not on an active vs passive mechanic. I thought that it can create a much more dynamic system for combat, creating a situation where players have to constantly choose their attack and defense and never sit idly waiting for result to happen.
For example, a cultist is attacking a PC rogue that has "excellent dodge skills", but "weak armor". The rogue rolls a dodge against the cultist's attack and the result is resolved this way. Next turn the rogue attacks, and the cultist decides to parry and block the attack, causing for a different skill roll against the rogue's attack.
This is just a small example but I had the feeling this could be developed into an interesting system, that has much more impact on how characters are built and behave during combat, and the interest and dynamics this can create. Of course multiple enemies in that case can make for a very tense combat atmosphere as you have to constantly roll against attacks from all sides, choosing your approach each time depending on the fighting conditions, you block one, dodge the other putting you in a flank for the third, with maybe some advantage or disadvantage on certain conditions.
anyway, just a thought, wondering if anyone ever experimented with something like that, and what could be the immediate downsides to a contest-only based system.
it's an interesting idea and one that I've seen elsewhere - there are a number of tabletop RPG systems that use "opposed" rolls for combat.
They do create a different emphasis on fights, due to the combat mechanics. I also note that such systems often seem to focus on more brutal/deadly combat as well.
The thing is - such mechanics are just not D&D.
I've had this discussion a number of times with friends, especially when we were playing 3rd edition - they would talk about making some fairly sweeping changes to the rules, to introduce such systems, but the answer is - if you want massively different game mechanics, just use a different rules set.
Want to play with the Rolemaster rules, but have your game set in Krynn (the Dragonlance setting)? Sure - go ahead! :)
Technically speaking, I think that every round is a total of six seconds in D&D, with each character’s turn being what they do during those six seconds. So looking at it round by round, there is no “down time” for anyone in combat. The first initiative and the last initiative are doing their actions in the same time frame.
That being said, thinking about the game this way can definitely get a little wonky. My only complaint about a system that you’re suggesting is that it will take up a lot of time in an already time-consuming scenario. Having to make at least 2x as many rolls per turn will clog up combat, and might take players out of the game, even if it gives them more to do.
5e as I’ve played it has been all about streamlining, and this is quite the opposite. I’m not opposed to the idea if there is a solid mechanic, at least to try out, but I’d be hesitant about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
5e as I’ve played it has been all about streamlining, and this is quite the opposite. I’m not opposed to the idea if there is a solid mechanic, at least to try out, but I’d be hesitant about it.
This.
The 5e designers have gone to great lengths to reduce the number of rolls a DM has to make, because speed of play matters and the DM has to control a ton of monsters. That's why you roll initiative once for groups of identical monsters, roll damage once for area effects, why the monster grappling rules don't use opposed checks, and why monster attacks list the average damage. Heck, Jeremy Crawford goes so far as to use "passive Initiative" instead of rolling initiative for monsters.
The value called "Armor Class" is derived by a streamlining process to begin with.
It's straightforward to turn it into a roll, as it is an averaged out "10" roll to begin with. Simply reduce the standing AC by 10 and roll a d20 for it. So, a dexterous rogue in leather will have 1d20 + 2 (leather) + 4 (dex). A heavy knight will have 1d20 + 8 (plate) + 2 (shield).
As mentioned above, however, this was streamlined for a reason - it slows down play by an additional roll per turn, averagely. It also introduces a degree of variability that may be undesired (the lv 2 kobold rolling three 17+ in a row, while the party's heavily armored paladin rolling 2, 1, 5, can be pretty demoralizing). Remember that your party is always at the sharp end of probability spikes.
Personally, I have used this rule to good effect on climactic duels; I can attest to its dramatic effectiveness there.
The value called "Armor Class" is derived by a streamlining process to begin with.
It's straightforward to turn it into a roll, as it is an averaged out "10" roll to begin with. Simply reduce the standing AC by 10 and roll a d20 for it. So, a dexterous rogue in leather will have 1d20 + 2 (leather) + 4 (dex). A heavy knight will have 1d20 + 8 (plate) + 2 (shield).
As mentioned above, however, this was streamlined for a reason - it slows down play by an additional roll per turn, averagely. It also introduces a degree of variability that may be undesired (the lv 2 kobold rolling three 17+ in a row, while the party's heavily armored paladin rolling 2, 1, 5, can be pretty demoralizing). Remember that your party is always at the sharp end of probability spikes.
Personally, I have used this rule to good effect on climactic duels; I can attest to its dramatic effectiveness there.
It's not more variable. There's only 2 possible outcomes (hit or miss) so it doesn't make sense to speak of variability: regardless of which method you use, you'll hit X% of the time and miss 100 - X% of the time. There's no difference between betting on heads on 1 coin flip, and betting on getting more heads than tails when flipping N > 1 times. You're still talking about a 50% chance in both cases.
For every situation where a player's high roll is negated by an enemy's higher roll, there's a symmetrical situation where they player rolls low but the enemy rolls even lower.
I beat this topic to death over at RPG Stack Exchange. However, note that while both methods are very close, they're not identical.
There's only 20 possibilities for a single d20 roll, and changing the roll modifier by 1 point just increases or decreases the die rolls that succeed by 1.
With opposed rolls there's 20 x 20 outcomes and the way they're divided among success or failure doesn't change evenly as the roll modifiers change (see the bottom of the answer I linked.)
You may find the Greyhawk Initiative Unearthed Arcana experimental rules option. I haven't tried it, but it seems to have a lot more of a feel of everything all happening at once.
For every situation where a player's high roll is negated by an enemy's higher roll, there's a symmetrical situation where they player rolls low but the enemy rolls even lower.
Sure, and your analysis is spot on, but we all know who a player blames when the monster rolls an 18 to their 17, don't we? :p
All in all, I agree. The extra rolled die doesn't affect the result meaningfully, but it does slow down gameplay and causes pointed fingers (hopefully in good humor) when extreme numbers occur, which is why I suggested it for dramatically appropriate moments.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all,
New DM at the end of my 1st campaign with a group of friends.
I have wondering for a while about the whole D&D combat mechanics, and generally about the idea behind turn based combat. What always bothered me about turn based is that feeling that there is a character/monster/whatever else, that is standing even if for a split second in a battle, just waiting to be hit, and another that will either miss or hit them.
Now, I know and realize that AC, from an RP perspective. can be treated as the defender's armor blocking the hit, him dodging it, or him actively blocking it. Thing is I feel, and have always felt regarding turn based video games as well, that combat should have been based on contests only, and not on an active vs passive mechanic. I thought that it can create a much more dynamic system for combat, creating a situation where players have to constantly choose their attack and defense and never sit idly waiting for result to happen.
For example, a cultist is attacking a PC rogue that has "excellent dodge skills", but "weak armor". The rogue rolls a dodge against the cultist's attack and the result is resolved this way. Next turn the rogue attacks, and the cultist decides to parry and block the attack, causing for a different skill roll against the rogue's attack.
This is just a small example but I had the feeling this could be developed into an interesting system, that has much more impact on how characters are built and behave during combat, and the interest and dynamics this can create. Of course multiple enemies in that case can make for a very tense combat atmosphere as you have to constantly roll against attacks from all sides, choosing your approach each time depending on the fighting conditions, you block one, dodge the other putting you in a flank for the third, with maybe some advantage or disadvantage on certain conditions.
anyway, just a thought, wondering if anyone ever experimented with something like that, and what could be the immediate downsides to a contest-only based system.
have a great one
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersHi Guynao,
it's an interesting idea and one that I've seen elsewhere - there are a number of tabletop RPG systems that use "opposed" rolls for combat.
They do create a different emphasis on fights, due to the combat mechanics. I also note that such systems often seem to focus on more brutal/deadly combat as well.
The thing is - such mechanics are just not D&D.
I've had this discussion a number of times with friends, especially when we were playing 3rd edition - they would talk about making some fairly sweeping changes to the rules, to introduce such systems, but the answer is - if you want massively different game mechanics, just use a different rules set.
Want to play with the Rolemaster rules, but have your game set in Krynn (the Dragonlance setting)? Sure - go ahead! :)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Technically speaking, I think that every round is a total of six seconds in D&D, with each character’s turn being what they do during those six seconds. So looking at it round by round, there is no “down time” for anyone in combat. The first initiative and the last initiative are doing their actions in the same time frame.
That being said, thinking about the game this way can definitely get a little wonky. My only complaint about a system that you’re suggesting is that it will take up a lot of time in an already time-consuming scenario. Having to make at least 2x as many rolls per turn will clog up combat, and might take players out of the game, even if it gives them more to do.
5e as I’ve played it has been all about streamlining, and this is quite the opposite. I’m not opposed to the idea if there is a solid mechanic, at least to try out, but I’d be hesitant about it.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The value called "Armor Class" is derived by a streamlining process to begin with.
It's straightforward to turn it into a roll, as it is an averaged out "10" roll to begin with. Simply reduce the standing AC by 10 and roll a d20 for it. So, a dexterous rogue in leather will have 1d20 + 2 (leather) + 4 (dex). A heavy knight will have 1d20 + 8 (plate) + 2 (shield).
As mentioned above, however, this was streamlined for a reason - it slows down play by an additional roll per turn, averagely. It also introduces a degree of variability that may be undesired (the lv 2 kobold rolling three 17+ in a row, while the party's heavily armored paladin rolling 2, 1, 5, can be pretty demoralizing). Remember that your party is always at the sharp end of probability spikes.
Personally, I have used this rule to good effect on climactic duels; I can attest to its dramatic effectiveness there.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You may find the Greyhawk Initiative Unearthed Arcana experimental rules option. I haven't tried it, but it seems to have a lot more of a feel of everything all happening at once.