Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Darrell" data-source="post: 3297862" data-attributes="member: 680">Heh.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; I guess I've been messin' up a bit.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Because that's how far the example description went in the original .rtf document (which is the source for my 'personal' m20 rules document), I've been giving 'em a maximum of three attacks per round.As far as combat being 'too short,'&nbsp; I personally feel there's no such thing.&nbsp; We toyed for a while with a simple 'opposed roll' combat.&nbsp; This pitted the attacker's (the party initiating the attack) STR against the opponent's AC.&nbsp; The better roll won, period.&nbsp; It worked in the abstract, but fell apart when we started trying to figure how to handle hit point losses to the winning side.My group and I would love a system that would let us handle combat with a single roll, so we could get any type of combat out of the way ultra-quick and get back to role-playing.Combat doesn't get as much play in our games as it does in most, I guess.&nbsp; The most common rolls made for us in m20 are CHA vs. MIND (or Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate vs. Sense Motive in D&amp;D).&nbsp; Of course, sometimes you just have to break down and start swingin' swords.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Regards,Darrell</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Darrell, post: 3297862, member: 680"] Heh. :) I guess I've been messin' up a bit. :) Because that's how far the example description went in the original .rtf document (which is the source for my 'personal' m20 rules document), I've been giving 'em a maximum of [I]three[/I] attacks per round. As far as combat being 'too short,' I personally feel there's no such thing. We toyed for a while with a simple 'opposed roll' combat. This pitted the attacker's (the party initiating the attack) STR against the opponent's AC. The better roll won, period. It worked in the abstract, but fell apart when we started trying to figure how to handle hit point losses to the winning side. My group and I would love a system that would let us handle combat with a single roll, so we could get any type of combat out of the way ultra-quick and get back to role-playing. Combat doesn't get as much play in our games as it does in most, I guess. The most common rolls made for us in m20 are CHA vs. MIND (or Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate vs. Sense Motive in D&D). Of course, sometimes you just have to break down and start swingin' swords. :) Regards, Darrell [/QUOTE]

Verification