D&D 5E Player Facing Combat

[embee]

Ok, so it is really the same, just 10 points higher for each (you use attack bonus +22 instead of +12, and AC instead of AC - 10).

FWIW, just checking, but if you want to speed things up a bit more have players roll damage and attack together so they won't wait to roll damage. Some tables or players use it to also make combat faster. I've never been a big fan of it, but you can try it if you aren't already doing it.

Anyway, weather permitting we'll be playing Saturday and maybe give this a shot. I have thought about players always rolling (as I heard it termed, PAR) a while ago, and might go all the way with allowing them to roll damage.

Are you having them roll saving throws as well?

If they're saving against damage from the monster, absolutely. If the monster is trying to save against a player, that I roll.

So if a Green Dragon uses its breath attack, players roll their saving throw. But if a player casts Lightning Bolt, I roll the DEX save for the monsters.

The +22 is, I think, easier because the player should always know their own AC. That's 4-6 different numbers that I, as DM, don't have to keep in my brain. And a player can do the simple addition of adding their AC to the d20 result in less than a second.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If they're saving against damage from the monster, absolutely. If the monster is trying to save against a player, that I roll.

So if a Green Dragon uses its breath attack, players roll their saving throw. But if a player casts Lightning Bolt, I roll the DEX save for the monsters.

The +22 is, I think, easier because the player should always know their own AC. That's 4-6 different numbers that I, as DM, don't have to keep in my brain. And a player can do the simple addition of adding their AC to the d20 result in less than a second.

Yeah, see in "full" PAR, they would roll for the monsters' saves as well as their own. Heck, they would even roll the dragon breath damage!

Now, to speed things up, I've been using average damage for everything as DM and allow players the choice of rolling for damage or just using their average if they want.

 

[embee]

Yeah, see in "full" PAR, they would roll for the monsters' saves as well as their own. Heck, they would even roll the dragon breath damage!

Now, to speed things up, I've been using average damage for everything as DM and allow players the choice of rolling for damage or just using their average if they want.

For me, mooks and standard attacks do average damage. A greataxe hit is a greataxe hit is a greataxe hit. The Orc is going to do 11dmg every time.

But a breath weapon or a higher-level enemy spell - I roll that. Because the extra couple of seconds at that point has suspense value. "Oh no! That dragon just let loose a cloud of acid. Please be low roll."

Speed is good. Fun is better.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For me, mooks and standard attacks do average damage. A greataxe hit is a greataxe hit is a greataxe hit. The Orc is going to do 11dmg every time.

But a breath weapon or a higher-level enemy spell - I roll that. Because the extra couple of seconds at that point has suspense value. "Oh no! That dragon just let loose a cloud of acid. Please be low roll."

Speed is good. Fun is better.

Sure, but we haven't really found it is any less fun, even using average damage for the big stuff.

The only time I will roll is if I know average damage would kill, then I roll to give the PC a chance to survive -- not likely, but at least a chance.

 

[turnip_farmer]

For the DC, it's literally just adding 22 to the monster's To Hit bonus. The player rolls d20 and adds the result to their AC.

The Orc vs AC17 Player is a really good breakdown.

The Orc has a +5 to hit. Plus 22 is DC27. Player has an AC17. If they roll a 10 or higher, they dodge the attack.

That's a 55% chance to dodge. If I were to roll for the Orc, I'd have to roll a 12 or higher (12 + the +5 To Hit). That's a 45% chance to hit. It's a perfect mirror image.

It makes for very smooth play. Consider a player who wants to split their movement.





I think the second one moves quicker. Actions and reactions can be resolved at the same time, allowing for a smoother flow.

The player is the one doing the rolls, trying to actively make a DC. It doesn't take up more time because the player can roll his dodge and his attack at the same time. The only meta information that the player "learns" about a monster is its To Hit bonus. That can be explained in-game as these characters are blooded in battle. They have enough experience in real-life combat to be able to gauge the threat an enemy poses.

That exchange has 3 attacks in it - 2 by the Orc and 1 by the player. But now the player is doing all of the active rolling and the DM is narrating. Which, when you think about, is actually closer to the DM's original role - to referee.

I'm not the biggest fan of Professor DM (I disagree on quite a few of his streamlining ideas and he veers a bit far into grognardism time and again) but on this, he seems to be spot on. Player Facing Combat (or PAR) seems to work a bit smoother, especially for larger encounters. I've got another session on Saturday and I'll have plenty of random encounters to run another battery of tests.

I can see the appeal of this, but it's not going to fly at my table. I like rolling dice.

Maybe you're right about it being faster, though the specific example of speeding things up that you provide only seems relevant because of the opportunity attack rules that you're using, so it wouldn't apply to 5e.

But I don't care if it is faster. Hands off my dice!

 

[embee]

So the second session of PAR, the hardest part is remembering to do it. Mainly because a player didn't show (2nd week in a row, but he's family and he had to miss to do more rehearsals). So 1 player was running 2 characters in addition to me running the sidekick cleric just to make sure the party doesn't die (no healer in the party).

And it was needed because I really pushed the party on the encounters. 3 and 4 enemies per PC in 2 encounters. All in all, the players have gotten used to it, plus my patter reminds them each time how it works.

"The giant boar to your left charges, its tusks bearing down on you. DC27 to dodge. Roll and add your AC."
"11. Plus my 18..."
"Your armor successfully turns the boar's tusks. The giant boar to your right now comes at you, its eyes burning with bloody fury. 27. Roll plus AC"
"19 plus..."
"You deftly step out of the way of the charging beast. You spot an opening. What do you do?"
"I'm gonna hit it!"

In a 2 hour session, they ran through an encounter with an anchorite leading a war band of 9 orcs. Which took a toll on their resources, which was good because they then rolled into a boss battle with 2 anchorites, 4 giant boars, and about 8 twig blights, and finishing with the thunder boar who lasted 2 rounds.

Had good feedback so far, though my brother is miffed that he missed the first use of his character's Flame Blade.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So the second session of PAR, the hardest part is remembering to do it. Mainly because a player didn't show (2nd week in a row, but he's family and he had to miss to do more rehearsals). So 1 player was running 2 characters in addition to me running the sidekick cleric just to make sure the party doesn't die (no healer in the party).

And it was needed because I really pushed the party on the encounters. 3 and 4 enemies per PC in 2 encounters. All in all, the players have gotten used to it, plus my patter reminds them each time how it works.


In a 2 hour session, they ran through an encounter with an anchorite leading a war band of 9 orcs. Which took a toll on their resources, which was good because they then rolled into a boss battle with 2 anchorites, 4 giant boars, and about 8 twig blights, and finishing with the thunder boar who lasted 2 rounds.

Had good feedback so far, though my brother is miffed that he missed the first use of his character's Flame Blade.

Thanks for giving the updates!

(Also - I sometimes want to add a 'beginner's luck' rule to the first time a pc breaks out a brand-new limited use power. Showing off your cool new thing and having it fizzles is such a bummer.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

@embee

LOL I forgot to post how it went with my live game--horrible. We tried it for a single combat and they were all against it, it just felt too weird and unusual.

But, I am glad you are having more success with it.

 

[overgeeked]

Little bit of a necro, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the same idea, so forgive me. First off, the +22 thing makes zero sense to me so I'm not using that. This is me walking through the process and trying to get the math right in a way that makes sense to me. If my conclusions are wrong, please let me know.

Showing my work:
AC is 10+ whatever. Switching that to an active roll is simple enough. Instead of taking 10 (the 10+) you roll your d20 and add the same modifiers (armor, DEX mod, etc). So an attacker with a +5 to hit vs your AC17. They need a 12+/d20 to hit (45% hit; 55% miss). Switching that to a defense roll makes it +7 to dodge vs the attacker's DC15 attack. You need 8+/d20 to dodge (65% avoid; 35% hit). That math doesn't match up. To keep the math the same you should have a 55% chance to dodge, or 10+/d20. So just add +2 to attack DCs, i.e. make them 12+ whatever bonuses the attacker normally has.

Spell save DCs are 8+ whatever. Switching that to an active roll is a bit harder, but not much. So a caster with a save DC17 vs a defender with a +5 relevant save bonus. The defender needs to roll 12+/d20 to save (45% avoid; 55% hit). Switching that to an active roll by the caster would seem to be add the same bonus for casting (+9 for a save DC17). Which would give us +9 vs the defender's DC15 save. The caster would need 6+/d20 to effect the target (75% hit; 25% miss). That math doesn't match up. To keep the math the same you should have a 55% chance to effect the target, or 10+/d20. So just add +4 to the target's save DCs, i.e. make them 14+ whatever bonuses the defender normally has.

Conclusions:
Attacks. Active defense DCs should be 12+ the attacker's modifiers to keep the math the same.

Spell saves. Active non-AC save attack DCs should be 14+ the defender's modifiers to keep the math the same.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Little bit of a necro, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the same idea, so forgive me. First off, the +22 thing makes zero sense to me so I'm not using that. This is me walking through the process and trying to get the math right in a way that makes sense to me. If my conclusions are wrong, please let me know.

Showing my work:
AC is 10+ whatever. Switching that to an active roll is simple enough. Instead of taking 10 (the 10+) you roll your d20 and add the same modifiers (armor, DEX mod, etc). So an attacker with a +5 to hit vs your AC17. They need a 12+/d20 to hit (45% hit; 55% miss). Switching that to a defense roll makes it +7 to dodge vs the attacker's DC15 attack. You need 8+/d20 to dodge (65% avoid; 35% hit). That math doesn't match up. To keep the math the same you should have a 55% chance to dodge, or 10+/d20. So just add +2 to attack DCs, i.e. make them 12+ whatever bonuses the attacker normally has.

Spell save DCs are 8+ whatever. Switching that to an active roll is a bit harder, but not much. So a caster with a save DC17 vs a defender with a +5 relevant save bonus. The defender needs to roll 12+/d20 to save (45% avoid; 55% hit). Switching that to an active roll by the caster would seem to be add the same bonus for casting (+9 for a save DC17). Which would give us +9 vs the defender's DC15 save. The caster would need 6+/d20 to effect the target (75% hit; 25% miss). That math doesn't match up. To keep the math the same you should have a 55% chance to effect the target, or 10+/d20. So just add +4 to the target's save DCs, i.e. make them 14+ whatever bonuses the defender normally has.

Conclusions:
Attacks. Active defense DCs should be 12+ the attacker's modifiers to keep the math the same.

Spell saves. Active non-AC save attack DCs should be 14+ the defender's modifiers to keep the math the same.

The 22+current mod is basically the same as [current mod-10]+12.

On the other hand, adding 22 is somehow a lot harder for some people than adding 12.