D&D General Does D&D Really Need 20 Levels?

[Thomas Shey]

Now, me, I'd much rather not have the game strip away options, which makes it massively less fun for me, just to speed up play for people who aren't willing to engage in the rather mild level of organization needed. If someone isn't willing to jot a few numbers on a piece of paper during combat, I'd really rather not design the game around them. There are mechanically light games that only use a few dice rolls for resolution people could play instead of pushing to remove a big part of what makes high level play interesting.

You're always going to run into a tug-of-war within fandom of a game that wants more detail or more speed (since as you say, they tend to be in opposition) and when that game is D&D--well, that tug-of-war is going to be big.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

You roll an extra D20 for each attack and ignore one of them if you don't crit. You also preroll; if you don't have enough dice you may have to jot down some numbers.

I don't see how you streamline the process at higher levels without rewriting lower ones.

Also, again, note in VTT play, it's not like I can roll without it being visible to the entire table, cluttering up other people's turns and making it much more confusing. I suppose I could roll physical dice, but, at that point, there's not much reason to use a VTT which automatically calculates damage and effects and applies them. Again, it's not the die rolling that's the problem. It really, really isn't. Individual die rolls are not the issue. It's SEQUENTIAL die rolls that are the time sink. The fact that all these rolls have to be made sequentially and applied sequentially. It's why low level play has a very high pacing - less sequential die rolling.

If I can reduce the number of sequential die rolls in high level play, then I can maintain the high pace of low level play. This is why I have Mob rules so that I don't have to sequentially go through seventeen different turns for NPC's. Note, the DM can't preroll those at all. Roll them into a single Mob, no attack roll, only damage, and I cut out a very large time sink.

So, an optional ruleset for high level play would be centered on combining sequential die rolls into single actions (or smaller numbers of actions - 2, maybe 3). 4e did this very well actually. Characters only ever got one action on their turn (well, you could have multiple attacks, but, that took a fair bit of jiggery pokery with the rules). Making individual turns really really fast. What 4e got wrong was the number of turns in a combat. 5e gets that right. (much) Shorter combats in 5e.

To summarize. I DO NOT WANT to change the base rules. The base rules are fine for those that use them. I DO WANT an OPTIONAL ruleset that streamlines actions in high level play.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

You're always going to run into a tug-of-war within fandom of a game that wants more detail or more speed (since as you say, they tend to be in opposition) and when that game is D&D--well, that tug-of-war is going to be big.

The problem with the tug of war is that anyone who suggests any change is automatically "the enemy that must always be opposed no matter what" and a complete lack of listening to the actual problems being brought up.

I'm sorry, but an optional ruleset that streamlines high level play by reducing the number of actions characters take on a turn is a bridge too far? Really?

 

[AlViking]

And repeating myself yet again.

I want OPTIONAL RULES. I want a RULES MODULE. You can keep your original complexity. No problems. I just want an OPTIONAL ruleset that I can use to translate higher level play and speed things up.

And since high level play is such a tiny slice of the gaming pie, I would say that lowering the bar for high level play is probably something that more than just me would like to see. That way we can all win. You keep your high complexity high level play and I get a low complexity OPTIONAL ruleset that lets me and others who bounce off the high complexity high level play, also enjoy high level play.

What would they look like? Because there are things you can do. Roll ahead using 2 D20s if you might get advantage. Average your damage (round up so it's an better than rolling) instead of rolling. Let people know who's next and be transparent about ACs and DCs.

If your die rolls are automated why does it matter how many rolls are made - assuming you can label the rolls somehow.

Another option would be something like reducing attacks but increasing damage per attack (after the first), with perhaps the option to roll attacks normally when the target has minimal HP. It would be swingier but on average you would do the same amount of damage.

 

[AlViking]

The problem with the tug of war is that anyone who suggests any change is automatically "the enemy that must always be opposed no matter what" and a complete lack of listening to the actual problems being brought up.

I'm sorry, but an optional ruleset that streamlines high level play by reducing the number of actions characters take on a turn is a bridge too far? Really?

When all you do is say "That's not a solution" with no suggestions of your own what do you expect?

I don't know how your automated system works. Seems to me that you could roll your first attack and have two options for following attacks - one with advantage, one not. With two clicks you're done.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

When all you do is say "That's not a solution" with no suggestions of your own what do you expect?

I don't know how your automated system works. Seems to me that you could roll your first attack and have two options for following attacks - one with advantage, one not. With two clicks you're done.

Ok, I don't seem to be communicating very well, so, let's give an example (that will likely get picked apart to death, but, hope springs eternal.)

Here is a standard turn for a high level monk/fighter (the character I'm playing). I'll skip the actual die rolls because they don't really matter, just the results.

Monk: I start my turn with a flurry and attack Monster 1. I hit? Ok, make that a Stunning strike. He saves? Ok, make that a push attack? He fails? Ok, he moves back 15 feet. Great. I move over to Monster 2, second flurry attack hits, let's knock him prone? Success? Ok, next attack, hits? Ok, let's take away his opportunity attacks for this round. I now Step of the Wind (automatic because I spent a Ki point) and pick up the fighter, moving him back to the first monster. I take a nick attack on Monster 1. Crit! Yay. Hrm. I move half my movement from the crit (25 feet) over to the base of the wall. I then move up the wall (high level monk) to the balcony to post up where Monster 3 has been sniping at us. Two regular attacks. Hrm... it's almost dead. I'll Action Surge and take two more attacks. First attack hits, damage. Second attack ... Crit! Yay advantage and halfling reroll turning that 1 into a 19 (fighter levels FTW). That finishes off Monster 3. Ok, I step off the balcony, slow fall to the floor, and use my remaining Crit movement to move back to Monster 2.

That's a pretty bog standard turn for my monk. The die rolls are NOT the problem. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. The die rolls are NOT the problem. The problem is, even with pre-rolling all the dice, that turn would still be that long. Two of those movements I could not have planned for. The Action Surge could not have been planned for since I wouldn't know that I would be able to attack Monster 3.

Since you don't actually have any experience with VTT's, perhaps it might be more useful to take me at my work when I say pre-rolling IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

How is, "I want to streamline the system so that characters and monsters have fewer actions per turn that require sequential resolution" not a suggestion? It's a suggestion I've REPEATEDLY made over and over again. And the response I get is, "Well, you should pre-roll your dice."

This is why I say you aren't actually listening.

 

[AlViking]

Ok, I don't seem to be communicating very well, so, let's give an example (that will likely get picked apart to death, but, hope springs eternal.)

Here is a standard turn for a high level monk/fighter (the character I'm playing). I'll skip the actual die rolls because they don't really matter, just the results.

Monk: I start my turn with a flurry and attack Monster 1. I hit? Ok, make that a Stunning strike. He saves? Ok, make that a push attack? He fails? Ok, he moves back 15 feet. Great. I move over to Monster 2, second flurry attack hits, let's knock him prone? Success? Ok, next attack, hits? Ok, let's take away his opportunity attacks for this round. I now Step of the Wind (automatic because I spent a Ki point) and pick up the fighter, moving him back to the first monster. I take a nick attack on Monster 1. Crit! Yay. Hrm. I move half my movement from the crit (25 feet) over to the base of the wall. I then move up the wall (high level monk) to the balcony to post up where Monster 3 has been sniping at us. Two regular attacks. Hrm... it's almost dead. I'll Action Surge and take two more attacks. First attack hits, damage. Second attack ... Crit! Yay advantage and halfling reroll turning that 1 into a 19 (fighter levels FTW). That finishes off Monster 3. Ok, I step off the balcony, slow fall to the floor, and use my remaining Crit movement to move back to Monster 2.

That's a pretty bog standard turn for my monk. The die rolls are NOT the problem. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. The die rolls are NOT the problem. The problem is, even with pre-rolling all the dice, that turn would still be that long. Two of those movements I could not have planned for. The Action Surge could not have been planned for since I wouldn't know that I would be able to attack Monster 3.

Since you don't actually have any experience with VTT's, perhaps it might be more useful to take me at my work when I say pre-rolling IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

How is, "I want to streamline the system so that characters and monsters have fewer actions per turn that require sequential resolution" not a suggestion? It's a suggestion I've REPEATEDLY made over and over again. And the response I get is, "Well, you should pre-roll your dice."

This is why I say you aren't actually listening.

The number of different things you do, the number of creatures you attack are maxing out complexity in ways I've never seen. It's far more complexity than you had indicated.

If you roll ahead you have to have a way to indicate sequence of attacks. Since we play in person and use dice, it's not an issue. If I'm running a complex character I can write down my attacks - something like
1) 16/24:15 meaning without advantage hits AC 16 or 20 with advantage and does 15 damage.
2) 12: 14 advantage die was lower so AC12 for 14
And on down the line. Sometimes I'll write an if such as if still standing smite for X.

It doesn't matter if I have multiple targets. Even with all your movements and extras it will still go fairly fast certainly faster than rolling at every step.

I don't know if you can do any of that with the tool you're using. But I do know that there's probably no way to streamline any of that without taking away most of your options. It would be a different game.

Edit - if you know the target AC ahead of time, you can usually save even more time.
Edit 2 - you can't do both flurry of blows and step of the wind on the same turn since they're bonus actions. Unless I'm missing something (rules have changed since I played a monk, but I don't see that changing). You also aren't action surging more than once per short rest. If a target dies before I use all my rolls, those rolls are ignored.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The problem with the tug of war is that anyone who suggests any change is automatically "the enemy that must always be opposed no matter what" and a complete lack of listening to the actual problems being brought up.

Well, honestly, because to some of them it often is the enemy to what some people want.

I'm sorry, but an optional ruleset that streamlines high level play by reducing the number of actions characters take on a turn is a bridge too far? Really?

Well, I"m the wrong one to ask since the games I play in the D&D sphere only have four or less tops. But I'd suggest that for at least some people the problem is that they think if the idea gets traction, it may become far less than "optional". Never forget a lot of people arguing may be players who have limited control over what happens in that regard.

 

[Lanefan]

I have to admit (this is in PF2e but it doesn't sound like the principal changes much in the discussion at hand) when I'm playing one of the first things I'll ask when I'm attacking is "Does the damage type I'm doing with any of this matter?" to the GM, and if they say "No" then I don't bother to mention it from that point on.

If it's a creature your character hasn't seen before, the GM's answer to this should always be "You'll find out" - preferably with an evil grin.

 

[AlViking]

If it's a creature your character hasn't seen before, the GM's answer to this should always be "You'll find out" - preferably with an evil grin.

I let them know only after they've hit.