Combat tweaks I would like to see.
- Thread starter boredgremlin
- Start date
Cool stuff here !
Concerning DDisms and sacred cows :
* opposed rolls is no dealbreaker. It doesn't really change the math compared to "defense take 10" (which is D&D standard) or "Players always roll" (my personal favorite) - actually, it changes a bit, but not that much. Make that optionnal
* starting HP. Big difference between editions, big impact on the game. Adjust freely according to the style of game you want (war vs sport, gritty vs high fantasy, ...)
* HP per level : big differences between editions. According to me, 3E killed the sacred cow of name level, and it was THE BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER. It was the real staple of tabletop D&D, which made it distinct, and, by the way, balanced the rules. So, whatever you do here, it is going to be edition-specific.
* HP system : as much as I dislike this 1-dimensional axis, and the attrition war it entails, HP are D&D. Wounds are not. (and critical hits, not really). The very point of this system is to ABSTRACT things, so precise modelling is kind of pointless (but Big = scary could be nice).
* margin of success : it would be new in D&D, but I think it would be a great addition to the game (missing sucks, but having two seperate rolls - To hit & Damage, is one of the cornerstones of D&D, and contributes both to the fluff and the crunch of the game)
* armor as DR : why not ? (I think having it as an option could be great, but would be very hard to balance)
* tactical options, such as dodging, parrying,... : great !!! Bland martial combat is unfortunately one of the staples of the old editions of D&D too, and this sacred cow must die in a fire.
* healing : I think 4E got it right, by placing the limits on the recipient, and permitting non-divine healing.
* death & dying : very table-dependent
Edition wars contribution : 3.X must die in a fire !!! I love BECM (not I, though) ! Essentials are great !
Concerning DDisms and sacred cows :
* opposed rolls is no dealbreaker. It doesn't really change the math compared to "defense take 10" (which is D&D standard) or "Players always roll" (my personal favorite) - actually, it changes a bit, but not that much. Make that optionnal
* starting HP. Big difference between editions, big impact on the game. Adjust freely according to the style of game you want (war vs sport, gritty vs high fantasy, ...)
* HP per level : big differences between editions. According to me, 3E killed the sacred cow of name level, and it was THE BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER. It was the real staple of tabletop D&D, which made it distinct, and, by the way, balanced the rules. So, whatever you do here, it is going to be edition-specific.
* HP system : as much as I dislike this 1-dimensional axis, and the attrition war it entails, HP are D&D. Wounds are not. (and critical hits, not really). The very point of this system is to ABSTRACT things, so precise modelling is kind of pointless (but Big = scary could be nice).
* margin of success : it would be new in D&D, but I think it would be a great addition to the game (missing sucks, but having two seperate rolls - To hit & Damage, is one of the cornerstones of D&D, and contributes both to the fluff and the crunch of the game)
* armor as DR : why not ? (I think having it as an option could be great, but would be very hard to balance)
* tactical options, such as dodging, parrying,... : great !!! Bland martial combat is unfortunately one of the staples of the old editions of D&D too, and this sacred cow must die in a fire.
* healing : I think 4E got it right, by placing the limits on the recipient, and permitting non-divine healing.
* death & dying : very table-dependent
Edition wars contribution : 3.X must die in a fire !!! I love BECM (not I, though) ! Essentials are great !
LOL my gaming budget is limited. I would love to just buy everything thats ever come out but its not really an option. So i prefer to modify whatever does most of what I want into being exactly what I want. And i get bored playing with the same ruleset twice in a row anyway.
Besides, I like tweaking things so even if i did do that I would probably just read it all to mine it for ideas and make my own thing anyway. Thats part of the fun of gaming for me.
Starfox
Hero
My problem with all the OPs ideas is they slow down gameplay. If that's ok with you, then you can add to your game this way, but of course you have to consider balance and all those things too. But my main gripe is that it is slow.
For example, a target having to move 5 ft each time it is attacked or supper a penalty adds all kinds of complications, as it is no longer possible to pre-plan your moves on a battlefield that is so fluid. Also, the classical "back to wall" and "shield wall" positions actually become hindrances rather than advantages in such a system.
For example, a target having to move 5 ft each time it is attacked or supper a penalty adds all kinds of complications, as it is no longer possible to pre-plan your moves on a battlefield that is so fluid. Also, the classical "back to wall" and "shield wall" positions actually become hindrances rather than advantages in such a system.
enigma5915
Explorer
I agree with the notion of sacred cows not needing to be sacred. As a matter of fact, they can be tasty when bbqed. I have had similar thoughts with the OP considering the same subjects although I decided on different mechanics to achieve what I was looking for.
HPs
I replaced the concept of “hit points” with damage capacity. I use various forms of damage capacity and I’m still developing it. I use physical damage capacity (PDC) to represent a creature’s limit of physical trauma. To determine the PDC, I simply multiply a creatures con score by the creatures size modifier. For example a medium sized creature has a size modifier of 6, and multiplied by a con score of 10 would result in a PDC of 60. The key is that this number never changes unless the creature’s size or con score changes. One can only take so much physical trauma. I also track damage by quarters of capacity for taking wound damage penalties (i.e. the dreaded death spiral). I do this for fatigue and mental damage as well with each their own capacities. There is much more to all of this, I’m just trying to sum up for brevities sake.
AC
I replaced armor class with defense and all armor provides damage reduction, but armor does hinder maneuverability in some cases.
Opposed rolls
I also use opposed rolls for shield blocking and parrying.
Damage
I removed rolling for damage and instead each weapon has a fixed damage (modified by its size) and the damage done is the base weapon damage plus the characters/creatures skill modifier. And criticals do 1.5 damage.
In the End
Again all of this is just a brief summary of what I’ve done. I based all my changes on applying some sort of semi-realist approaches to system mechanics and that form follows function and in addition, words do matter. The words chosen to describe something should indicate what that something is to assist with intuitiveness in the rules. (I’m looking at you bloodied condition)The result has been somewhat more realistic feeling combats. Bigger is tougher, damage hurts, hurting sucks, and the like are true things. This leads to creatures trying to avoid getting hurt (I know, what a silly and wacky concept). And these changes have sped up combat, not slowed it down. The only die used is a D20. Its crazy how that alone sped the game up sooo much. Searching for the right dice is more common than I thought and more time consuming than I expected. Adding the opposed rolls is offset by fixed damage.
None of this makes it seem any less D&D…its more like better D&D
So, I totally see where you are going Boredgremlin and I think it’s a good place.
Who’s up for sacred steak?
HPs
I replaced the concept of “hit points” with damage capacity. I use various forms of damage capacity and I’m still developing it. I use physical damage capacity (PDC) to represent a creature’s limit of physical trauma. To determine the PDC, I simply multiply a creatures con score by the creatures size modifier. For example a medium sized creature has a size modifier of 6, and multiplied by a con score of 10 would result in a PDC of 60. The key is that this number never changes unless the creature’s size or con score changes. One can only take so much physical trauma. I also track damage by quarters of capacity for taking wound damage penalties (i.e. the dreaded death spiral). I do this for fatigue and mental damage as well with each their own capacities. There is much more to all of this, I’m just trying to sum up for brevities sake.
AC
I replaced armor class with defense and all armor provides damage reduction, but armor does hinder maneuverability in some cases.
Opposed rolls
I also use opposed rolls for shield blocking and parrying.
Damage
I removed rolling for damage and instead each weapon has a fixed damage (modified by its size) and the damage done is the base weapon damage plus the characters/creatures skill modifier. And criticals do 1.5 damage.
In the End
Again all of this is just a brief summary of what I’ve done. I based all my changes on applying some sort of semi-realist approaches to system mechanics and that form follows function and in addition, words do matter. The words chosen to describe something should indicate what that something is to assist with intuitiveness in the rules. (I’m looking at you bloodied condition)The result has been somewhat more realistic feeling combats. Bigger is tougher, damage hurts, hurting sucks, and the like are true things. This leads to creatures trying to avoid getting hurt (I know, what a silly and wacky concept). And these changes have sped up combat, not slowed it down. The only die used is a D20. Its crazy how that alone sped the game up sooo much. Searching for the right dice is more common than I thought and more time consuming than I expected. Adding the opposed rolls is offset by fixed damage.
None of this makes it seem any less D&D…its more like better D&D
So, I totally see where you are going Boredgremlin and I think it’s a good place.
Who’s up for sacred steak?
Rhenny
Adventurer
Boredgremlin, when I was in my RPG prime, I did buy up all the games available at the time (RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Middle Earth RPG, Traveller, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, Star Wars D6, GURPS, etc.) I have an attic full of old books. lol. I hear what you are saying.
Now, I guess I'm too old and have much less time, so I just want D&DNext to throw in a ton of options so I can pick and choose as I like.
I like a lot of your ideas, and I'd like to see some of them as options, but I agree with Starfox..D&DNext combat has to move faster than the last two editions.
For one lethal (RuneQuest without hit location, or Star Wars d6 with dodge as an action used outside a creature's official turn) option I'd like to play test fewer hit points with opposed check for dodge or parry. If one to three hits can hurt a creature/character bad enough to make him or her think about healing, defending or running, maybe the game will speed up. Unfortunately, I do think it changes the feeling of the game away from classical D&D feel. Or, like another poster mentioned, it could become more tedious because many of the attacks would simply miss and cause no damage whatsoever. I think that's one reason why D&D maintains the HP mechanic.
Now, I guess I'm too old and have much less time, so I just want D&DNext to throw in a ton of options so I can pick and choose as I like.
I like a lot of your ideas, and I'd like to see some of them as options, but I agree with Starfox..D&DNext combat has to move faster than the last two editions.
For one lethal (RuneQuest without hit location, or Star Wars d6 with dodge as an action used outside a creature's official turn) option I'd like to play test fewer hit points with opposed check for dodge or parry. If one to three hits can hurt a creature/character bad enough to make him or her think about healing, defending or running, maybe the game will speed up. Unfortunately, I do think it changes the feeling of the game away from classical D&D feel. Or, like another poster mentioned, it could become more tedious because many of the attacks would simply miss and cause no damage whatsoever. I think that's one reason why D&D maintains the HP mechanic.
underfoot007ct
First Post
Okay. Let's take a look...
So, ranked by longevity:
- Original Dungeons & Dragons 1974-1981 - Total = 8 years.
- Dungeons & Dragons (1E) 1974-1977
- Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Holmes) 1977-1981 (First Revision - essentially OD&D 1.5E - a reorgainisation and clean-up of the original 1974 rules.)
- Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Essentially OD&D 2E) 1981-2000 (A Reimagining, not a Revision, of the original OD&D rules - A new edition of OD&D including Moldvay, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia, and Starter Sets) - Total = 19 years.
- Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Moldvay) and Dungeons & Dragons Expert Set (Cook) 1981-1983
- Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Mentzer) (Including Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal rules, and the Rules Cyclopedia, and Starter Sets) - Essentially OD&D 2.5E (a revision of the Moldvay/Cook Set.) 1983-2000
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1978-2000 (A new game distinct from Basic D&D) - Total 22 years.
- AD&D 1E 1978-1987
- AD&D 2E (though more accurately AD&D 1.5E) - (Includes reprints with errata and Skills & Powers) 1987-2000
- Dungeons & Dragons 3E (A new, distinct D&D game using the D20 System Rules.) 2000-2007 - Total = 7 years.
- Dungeons & Dragons 3E 2000-2003
- Dungeons & Dragons 3.5E 2003-2007
- Dungeons & Dragons 4E (A new, distinct D&D game using a new D20 System rules.) - (Including D&D Essentials Line) 2007-2012/2013 - Total = 5-6 years.
*(Even considering AD&D 1E and 2E seperately, it's still 9 years and 13 years respectively - both significantly longer than 4E.)
- AD&D (Advanced D&D) = 22 years*
- BD&D (Basic D&D) = 19 years
- OD&D (Original D&D) = 8 years
- D&D 3E (D20 3E) = 7 years
- D&D 4E (D20 4E) = 5-6 years
When 5E comes out, D&D 4E will be the shortest published edition of D&D ever.
If you'd like to discuss this further or in more depth, I'd suggest forking to a new thread.
Many of your dates are wrong, many of these minor revision were totaly different editions, not compatible with a previous editions. You missed the 1999 Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game that lasted until 2000, when 3E released. A 2E Basic hybrid game, probably testing the waters for 3E. Most people missed that ed, but that would make it the shortest ed. OD&D was 1977-79, the blue box set only had levels 1-3, and was meant to be a lead in to AD&D. The B/X D&D had level 1-14, being a new game, 1981-1983, again only 2-3 years. BECMI was out in 1983 now went to level 36+, again not the same game.
Sounds like you just hate 4E and are just Edition Warring, which no one needs, which the mods frown upon. Honestly who really cares how long an edition last if they enjoy that edition. Gremlins will not steal you books in the dark on the night. I still own my 1979 printing of the first blue box.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Piratecat has instructed us to not discuss edition length in this thread, and stick to the thread subject of discussing the mechanics that boredgremlin presented in the OP.
If you'd like to talk about this subject more, fork to a new thread (most likely appropriate for the General Forum), and we can all discuss it there. Although I'm sure as Piratecat would say, only if we discuss it in a civil manner.
In case you missed it, Piratecat's post is just a few posts above yours.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I thought I'd try my hand at some objective critiques of your ideas. In an effort to get the thread back on track.
I like this part quite a lot. I could definitely go for this. And since penalties don't accumulate until you're below 0 HP's, then there is no death spiral aspect to turn people off from this.
The only thing I might do is change the HP values you have for size, like start at 10 for Medium, 15 for large, 20 for..., etc. And then for Con. bonuses to HP, I'd have a multiplier for starting HP and HP's earned per level from the Con. bonus. Such as x1 for Medium, x1.5 for Large, x2 for..., etc.
This is something I might steal for my own houserules.
I especially like this. One problem I've also had with D&D Healing Magic, is it doesn't use the same philosophy or definition of Hit Points. If, as Gary Gygax said, increased Hit Point with level do not represent an ability to survive more stab wounds from a sword than a 1st level character, then this is exactly what Healing Magic should do.
The only thing I'd change is so that Healing Spells can have the same type of presentatio or feel as most of the games editions, I'd make it 1d4, 1d6, 1d8...all per level of the recipient - rather than a flat number of 1,2,4, etc. per recipient level (like you proposed).
But I like this a lot also. Very Nice. Very Elegent. Very Simple.
(I might steal this also...)
Yeah, this is okay. It would work fine. I would probably never use it, but I can see it being a module that would appeal to people for specific types of games.
I agree with all of this. I've actually been using opposed rolls for quite a while now (though I also use a Defense Progression also, not just BAB progression and Armor, or Armor as DR). It has not slowed down combat one bit. And not only has it not slowed things down, but it's added an icredible amount of drama and suspense, which I've found is almost always a welcome addition to the game.
I don't have much to say either way on these. My houseruled system works differently enough that these mechanics as expressed in the game really aren't part of my game. I'm not sure I could fairly vet these for houserules or for inclusion in D&DN.
But this...
I don't like. In fact, in my games I allow the use of Strength or Dexterity for attacks, and I even allow Intelligence and Wisdom.
My reasoning: Since an attack roll is basically an abstract quantification of many things (much like HP's), then there are many Abilities that correspond with the things that make up an attack roll. Successful attacks require much more than just strength and agility, they also require a trained and disciplined mind. When that's considered, Intelligence and Wisdom are just as important an element, if not more so, than Strength and Dexterity. So...
Strength can enhance attacks by being able to power through defenses and parries. It's a philosophy of overwhelming force.
Dexterity can enhance attacks by being able to perfectly position a strike so as to slip in between defenses and exploit weak spots.
Intelligence and Wisdom can enhance attacks by being able to see and understand tells, tendencies, and weakness that others might miss. Not to mention being more likely to better know the right tactic or type of attack for a given situation. In my experience, in the real world, it's not necessarily the strongest or biggest that wins a confrontation, it's usually the smartest. (Kind of like work smarter, not harder...)
Likewise I feel that are all contributory to any damage delivered. Strength works by hitting harder. Dexterity works by hitting more precisely. Intelligence and Wisdom work by hitting based on an understanding of critical areas of the body. Etc.
This seems okay to me. Though since I prefer a more narrative driven type of combat than a heavily tactical one, this is probably one I wouldn't find much of an use for. But I can see it being a nice addition to a tactically based 3E or 4E type game.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of this one. Might be good for a module or add-on for some, but it does add some extra complication to the math, and a little bit more time figuring out the result of a roll. It's not necessarily a lot of complication or extra math, but there is some...and for a lot of players, any extra complication, no matter how little, is too much. Honestly, my players would also likely fall into the group that would want to pass on this.
Personally, I like the simplicity of just having crits on natural 20's. I like the roar of approval that comes up from the group when they see someone roll a 20. I like how everyone sits and watches the roll to see if a 20 is going to come up.
I used to love DR. Until over and over again in actual play, I found that my players really didn't like it, and it ended up being more trouble than it was worth. One of the biggest problems was that players would continuously forget to subtract DR from any damage they incurred.
The only way I could find to make it foolproof, was to make DR provide a percentage bonus to total Hit Points while armor was being worn, and have Hit Points drop by the same percentage when taken off. But that cause some extra math that some find too dificult. (I didn't have a problem with it, but some really don't do very well with percentage calculations...)
Anyways, that's all for now. I definitely liked some of them, and will probably use them myself. For use in D&DN however, I don't know if they'll win people over. Sacred Cows are a very hard thing to let go of...
I like this part quite a lot. I could definitely go for this. And since penalties don't accumulate until you're below 0 HP's, then there is no death spiral aspect to turn people off from this.
The only thing I might do is change the HP values you have for size, like start at 10 for Medium, 15 for large, 20 for..., etc. And then for Con. bonuses to HP, I'd have a multiplier for starting HP and HP's earned per level from the Con. bonus. Such as x1 for Medium, x1.5 for Large, x2 for..., etc.
This is something I might steal for my own houserules.
I especially like this. One problem I've also had with D&D Healing Magic, is it doesn't use the same philosophy or definition of Hit Points. If, as Gary Gygax said, increased Hit Point with level do not represent an ability to survive more stab wounds from a sword than a 1st level character, then this is exactly what Healing Magic should do.
The only thing I'd change is so that Healing Spells can have the same type of presentatio or feel as most of the games editions, I'd make it 1d4, 1d6, 1d8...all per level of the recipient - rather than a flat number of 1,2,4, etc. per recipient level (like you proposed).
But I like this a lot also. Very Nice. Very Elegent. Very Simple.
(I might steal this also...)
Yeah, this is okay. It would work fine. I would probably never use it, but I can see it being a module that would appeal to people for specific types of games.
I agree with all of this. I've actually been using opposed rolls for quite a while now (though I also use a Defense Progression also, not just BAB progression and Armor, or Armor as DR). It has not slowed down combat one bit. And not only has it not slowed things down, but it's added an icredible amount of drama and suspense, which I've found is almost always a welcome addition to the game.
I don't have much to say either way on these. My houseruled system works differently enough that these mechanics as expressed in the game really aren't part of my game. I'm not sure I could fairly vet these for houserules or for inclusion in D&DN.
But this...
I don't like. In fact, in my games I allow the use of Strength or Dexterity for attacks, and I even allow Intelligence and Wisdom.
My reasoning: Since an attack roll is basically an abstract quantification of many things (much like HP's), then there are many Abilities that correspond with the things that make up an attack roll. Successful attacks require much more than just strength and agility, they also require a trained and disciplined mind. When that's considered, Intelligence and Wisdom are just as important an element, if not more so, than Strength and Dexterity. So...
Strength can enhance attacks by being able to power through defenses and parries. It's a philosophy of overwhelming force.
Dexterity can enhance attacks by being able to perfectly position a strike so as to slip in between defenses and exploit weak spots.
Intelligence and Wisdom can enhance attacks by being able to see and understand tells, tendencies, and weakness that others might miss. Not to mention being more likely to better know the right tactic or type of attack for a given situation. In my experience, in the real world, it's not necessarily the strongest or biggest that wins a confrontation, it's usually the smartest. (Kind of like work smarter, not harder...)
Likewise I feel that are all contributory to any damage delivered. Strength works by hitting harder. Dexterity works by hitting more precisely. Intelligence and Wisdom work by hitting based on an understanding of critical areas of the body. Etc.
This seems okay to me. Though since I prefer a more narrative driven type of combat than a heavily tactical one, this is probably one I wouldn't find much of an use for. But I can see it being a nice addition to a tactically based 3E or 4E type game.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of this one. Might be good for a module or add-on for some, but it does add some extra complication to the math, and a little bit more time figuring out the result of a roll. It's not necessarily a lot of complication or extra math, but there is some...and for a lot of players, any extra complication, no matter how little, is too much. Honestly, my players would also likely fall into the group that would want to pass on this.
Personally, I like the simplicity of just having crits on natural 20's. I like the roar of approval that comes up from the group when they see someone roll a 20. I like how everyone sits and watches the roll to see if a 20 is going to come up.
I used to love DR. Until over and over again in actual play, I found that my players really didn't like it, and it ended up being more trouble than it was worth. One of the biggest problems was that players would continuously forget to subtract DR from any damage they incurred.
The only way I could find to make it foolproof, was to make DR provide a percentage bonus to total Hit Points while armor was being worn, and have Hit Points drop by the same percentage when taken off. But that cause some extra math that some find too dificult. (I didn't have a problem with it, but some really don't do very well with percentage calculations...)
Anyways, that's all for now. I definitely liked some of them, and will probably use them myself. For use in D&DN however, I don't know if they'll win people over. Sacred Cows are a very hard thing to let go of...
Last edited:
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
What would you do to simplify A5E and/or speed up combat?
