Savage Worlds vs DnD 5e

[aramis erak]

In Re 3 HP and TOU vs HP & AC
My players found it mildly troubling at first, but then got in the swing of it. (Pun intended).

In all seriousness, most hits stun, rather than do a wound, and once they figured that out, they'd gang up on a single target. Or let "Granny" "Throw a fireball" (a lit stick of Dynamite...) - yes, one of the players had their character be actively delusional....

The combat rules are focused upon miniatures mode, and is unequivocal about it. It readily adapts to theater of the mind unless using attacks which use area templates; it has no equivalent to the theater of the mind table from the 5E DMG. The templates are Small/Medium/large blasts and a cone.

Given that you get to describe all kinds of hits, as a GM you can keep it tense, even when there's not even a stun. It's about how you describe things; D&D requires more mental math (essentially touch AC comparison) to maintain the hit vs damage rate.

The big thing is that toughness climbs only as a figured stat off Vigor or a few special edges. So, it does have potential to grow... but no one is ever more than 2 rolls from death — one for the hit, and one for the Vigor to avoid dying since you're off the table.

Also, players will know who the wildcards are - you roll 2d for their actions, while minor characters only get their skill die. That, too, seems intentional.

 

[dbm]

It readily adapts to theater of the mind unless using attacks which use area templates; it has no equivalent to the theater of the mind table from the 5E DMG.

‘Templates without miniatures’ is on p97 of the SWADE core book or p129 in the Savage Pathfinder rulebook.

 

[aramis erak]

This is exactly the kind of information that I'm looking for. Thanks a lot for such a thorough answer.

I am sure I will have a lot of questions for you if you don't mind answering.

The flatter power curve is definitely a big plus in my book. I like competent heroes, but I don't want to deal with powers that can just nullify entire challenges at almost no cost.

I've not seen any, but I've only run in the Deadlands setting with a brief detour to Mars á la John Carter.

Another thing that bothers me a bit in 5e is how long the combats feel sometimes. How would you say combat length in a Savage Worlds encounter is compared to 5e.

How does mosters feel to run compared to 5e?

Simpler. But not too much simpler. The absolute number of powers tends to be lower. The powers themselves are equally as clear, if not better.The powers selected tend to be more thematic, and not beholden to 30 years of D&D lore.

Normal critters present some real threats - a gator is suitably lethal. A few critters are surprisingly tough...

Deadlands critters often (and core critters sometimes) have weaknesses; players may or may not know the mythology, let alone the particular variant chosen; this can make certain ones harder than expected. That's a setting issue; that it differs from the same monsters in D&D is more important... don't judge by your D&D knowledge lest you accidentally terminate the party... or bore them with trivial foes. (And a Deadlands Harrowed is in fact a badass... took them a couple fights before they realized they needed

Spoiler

to shoot him in the head.

When balancing — if you're going to modify the critters to do so — you want to know the PC's average damage, and set the toughness accordingly. At roughly equal, it's dicey and timing cannot be readily guessed. I've found that 1:1 critters at TOU = Avg Damage -2 runs 5 to 20 min, centered at about 16 min with 6 players, and being about 3 rounds. Tou = AvgDmg -4 was pretty much one round... but not always. Also, keep in mind that you need to work both directions; a critter whose average damage is 4 over Tou is going to be pretty lethal.

Also note that the melee system has a separate to-hit TN from ranged. Melee, it's a figured value of the target. Ranged, it's TN=4.
That's another big difference, which makes for some complex decisions. A critter which may be fine as a ranged foe can be very different close in.

The lack of knowing who goes when until they go is another fun bit... and it is fun in both literal and sarcastic usages. It keeps some GM excitement, and a lot of player tension. And yet, while those are fun, it can also create situations which inherently feel unfair. The the combat where no one but NPCs got non-face cards; it beat them up badly, even tho' they wiped the badguys out easily. (Those critters had high average damage but low toughness.)

 

[Fifth Element]

"Alright, the goblins attack! Everybody roll initiative...Okay, who got higher than 20? Nobody...okay, 15 - 20? 10 - 15? 5 - 10?"

Can I ask why you wouldn't just ask around the table what each player got and write them down, and set the initiative order from that?