Sell me on Savage Worlds

[Flamestrike]

A DnD combat round featuring mid level PCs., and extensive use of class features and bonus actions:

(no need to recalculate initiative)

Fighter: I'll attack the Fire Giant with my +1 Maul Skullcrusher, using GWM's +10 to damage, and Action surge (rolls 4 x d20 attack rolls at +4 vs AC 15, 2 hit, rolls damage of 2d6+15 twice, DM subtracts from HP). Spends a Superiority die to add 1d8 to the damage and force a Save vs fear at DC 15, which the giant fails. As a bonus action, I'll use my Second Wind (rolls 1d10+7 and heals that).
Rogue: I'll use my bonus action to Aim, and attack the same Fire Giant with my action (rolls 1 attack at advantage, hits, rolls 5d6+5 for damage)
Sorcerer: I'll fireball the 5 Orcs. Player rolls 30 8d6 damage, the DM forfeits saves, because they only have 15HP and die even if they make it, and as a Bonus action I'll convert 5 SP into a 3rd level slot.
Cleric: I'll cast Cure Wounds on the Fighter using a 2nd level slot (rolls 2d8+5) and attack with my Spiritual weapon as a bonus action against the Fire Giant (makes an attack roll, misses).

Note how the complexity comes from class features that are unique to each class (as do the abilities being used with Bonus actions), and not from general combat options available to all.

This is no different to SWADE where Seasoned/ Veteran PCs (roughly 7th level in DnD terms) have access to Powers, Edges and so forth that also add in extra options or affect gameplay.

In SWADE:

Initiative - Cards are drawn from the Deck. The Level headed wizard discards a 4 and gets a 7 of hearts, the Fighter gets a Queen of spades, the Quick Rogue gets a Jack and a nine (keeping the Jack of spades) and the Cleric gets a 6 of clubs.

Fighter: (Thinks for a bit, crunching the math) OK... I'll attack the Fire Giant, using my Frenzy Edge and the Wild attack combat option, and attack... three times at -4 MAP... plus an extra attack from Frenzy, with my Signature 2H Warhammer 'Skullcrusher', and my Fighting skill of d10. I have a +1 gang up bonus thanks to the Rogue, +1 from my signature weapon, +2 from the size difference, +2 from Wild attack... but also 1 point of wound penalties, and am also at -6 thanks to my MAP and Frenzy edge. The Giant has a parry of 5... so I need (calculates)... 7's to hit.

Rolls 1d10 (and 1d6) exploding taking the highest result, four separate times, with 7's hitting, and 11's causing a raise. He hits twice, one with a raise, spending a Bennie to re-roll one of the misses (and still missing) for 5 separate rolls on two separate vectors (including the wild die) vs the TN calculated above.

Rolls damage - Has the Giant slayer edge so that's an extra d6: Rolls 2d8+2+1d6 (exploding). Compares the result to the Giants Toughness of 10 plus Armor of 4 (minus the AP of the warhammer of 2) = 12. For every 4 above this TN, the Giant takes a wound.

Repeats this process for the raise, rolling 2d8+2d6+2 (exploding) this time.

He inflicts 2 Wounds, which the GM spends a Bennie to Soak, rolling the Giants Toughness of d12 (and wild die of d6) taking the better result, vs a TN of 4. He soaks 1 wound.

I'm not even going to get into the rest, but that Fighters turn, took considerably longer than our DnD Fighters turn did, involved a lot more math, and a lot more decision points.

For a game supposed to be 'fast, furious and fun' more math(including long division), more decision points, more crunch and taking considerably longer, is not any of those three things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I disagree at least on one of those; lack of decision points is an active counter to fun to me. Decision points in combat is where a lot of the fun appears to me.

(And as far as that goes, "furious" is so vague in this context it can mean anything; its market-speak more than a real descriptor).

 

[Retreater]

(And as far as that goes, "furious" is so vague in this context it can mean anything; its market-speak more than a real descriptor).

My personal interpretation is that it's a positive spin on "swingy."

 

[Flamestrike]

My personal interpretation is that it's a positive spin on "swingy."

Mine is 'action packed and 'go-go-go'. As in a 'furious fight'.

Stopping to crunch numbers and doing long division, and pausing to math out the probabilities of various actions succeeding from a list of dozens of options isnt either of those things.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I disagree at least on one of those; lack of decision points is an active counter to fun to me. Decision points in combat is where a lot of the fun appears to me.

(And as far as that goes, "furious" is so vague in this context it can mean anything; its market-speak more than a real descriptor).

I'll agree with your disagreement, but also many of those decision points are really already knows. Most of the time players will already know what they're going to do, and have already worked out the math from repeated use of particular options (like Signature Weapon). It's not like the player is starting with a blank list of options and rules each time their turn comes up, and they're only figuring out those options at the beginning of their turn. Yeah, there are some players that will want to analyze the final bonus for different attack options, but thankfully I don't have any such number-obsessive players.

Even with @Flamestrike 's example, I've seen plenty of d20 games where flow of combat has stalled from a spellcaster deciding what spell to cast, or even player's double-checking the math on their weapon when attacking. I still maintain there's some inflation/over-stating of the complexity of SW in the examples provided, and some downplaying of the same in the D&D examples.

My group is currently playing two concurrent, alternating-session campaigns, one 5E and one SW. I'm having fun in both.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I kind of think that Flamestrike's expectations here aren't liable to be supported by anything that isn't ultra-light, and I kind of think if that's his gig its his gig, but it isn't what I expect from that phrasing. To me SW is fast, and generally fun. But those things are always subjective, and arguing about whether something fits someone else's definition of them is a fools game.

 

[Flamestrike]

Even with @Flamestrike 's example, I've seen plenty of d20 games where flow of combat has stalled from a spellcaster deciding what spell to cast, or even player's double-checking the math on their weapon when attacking.

In 5E there is no need to double check. They removed fiddly bonuses (that SW retains) for the Advantage mechanic (a welcome addition). Pathfinder and 3.5 for sure (where fiddly bonuses were flying around all over the place, and God help you if you were a raging and magically buffed Barbarian TWF with Power attack).

I do feel like I'm being overly harsh on SWADE here. There are plenty I really liked about the system (Attributes, Skills, Edges, basic resolution, minion rules etc) which are all very abstract and crunch light.

It's just they then spiral into needless complexity and simulationism in the equipment and combat section.

What I would like to see:

• A limited number of 'starting' edges you can select (from a list of say.. 10 edges) to begin with to speed up character creation (with the option to swap it out later on once you've picked up the system).
• A greatly stripped down list of weapons and armor (no more than 10 weapons in total, described in very broad terms like 'melee weapon' 'primitive ranged weapon' 'firearm' 'futuristic energy weapon', with very basic stats, and the option to choose a trait or two from a list of no more than 5 traits (long range, autofire, 2 handed, armor piercing etc), and then you can fluff the weapon as whatever you like)
• Basic weapon stats are stripped back to just a 2 stats - a damage value, and a range.
• Partly fixed value damage where all weapons do 1d6(e)+N, with an extra d6 on a raise.
• Armor being simplified to a binary state with math removed. Light armor stops you being shaken, unless you take a wound. Heavy armor stops the first wound (and becoming shaken). Armor piercing reduces the level of protection by one level.
• Combat options trimmed down considerably, and multi-actions removed (or only available with an Edge). One roll resolution (in line with the basic mechanics of roll vs TN 4, 8 for a raise) for all combat actions.
• Fiddly bonuses replaced with a universal mechanic similar to 5Es advantage (Favorable circumstances increases Die step by 1, negative reduces it by 1, the dont stack. Favorable circumstances are required to activate certain Edges or combat options like a called shot etc)
• Powers redone and greatly simplified (no sustainment cost on activation, they simply last 'till the end of the encounter', removing the tracking of PP, basically make them similar to SWSE's Force powers) And a small list of allowed starting Powers for newly created characters to choose from to speed up character creation

They're the main changes I'd make. Play (including character creation) would be so much smoother, faster and just as tactical.

 

[Aldarc]

In 5E there is no need to double check. They removed fiddly bonuses (that SW retains) for the Advantage mechanic (a welcome addition). Pathfinder and 3.5 for sure (where fiddly bonuses were flying around all over the place, and God help you if you were a raging and magically buffed Barbarian TWF with Power attack).

I do feel like I'm being overly harsh on SWADE here. There are plenty I really liked about the system (Attributes, Skills, Edges, basic resolution, minion rules etc) which are all very abstract and crunch light.

It's just they then spiral into needless complexity and simulationism in the equipment and combat section.

What I would like to see:

• A limited number of 'starting' edges you can select (from a list of say.. 10 edges) to begin with to speed up character creation (with the option to swap it out later on once you've picked up the system).
• A greatly stripped down list of weapons and armor (no more than 10 weapons in total, described in very broad terms like 'melee weapon' 'primitive ranged weapon' 'firearm' 'futuristic energy weapon', with very basic stats, and the option to choose a trait or two from a list of no more than 5 traits (long range, autofire, 2 handed, armor piercing etc), and then you can fluff the weapon as whatever you like)
• Basic weapon stats are stripped back to just a 2 stats - a damage value, and a range.
• Partly fixed value damage where all weapons do 1d6(e)+N, with an extra d6 on a raise.
• Armor being simplified to a binary state with math removed. Light armor stops you being shaken, unless you take a wound. Heavy armor stops the first wound (and becoming shaken). Armor piercing reduces the level of protection by one level.
• Combat options trimmed down considerably, and multi-actions removed (or only available with an Edge). One roll resolution (in line with the basic mechanics of roll vs TN 4, 8 for a raise) for all combat actions.
• Fiddly bonuses replaced with a universal mechanic similar to 5Es advantage (Favorable circumstances increases Die step by 1, negative reduces it by 1, the dont stack. Favorable circumstances are required to activate certain Edges or combat options like a called shot etc)
• Powers redone and greatly simplified (no sustainment cost on activation, they simply last 'till the end of the encounter', removing the tracking of PP, basically make them similar to SWSE's Force powers) And a small list of allowed starting Powers for newly created characters to choose from to speed up character creation

They're the main changes I'd make. Play (including character creation) would be so much smoother, faster and just as tactical.

I suspect that a lot of the various mechanical crunch in SWADE's gun porn equipment list could be distilled more easily down to fictional tags (e.g., reach, messy, finesse, concealable, huge, elegant, etc.). This works well in Index Card RPG, a d20 based system, that IME runs more quickly than even SWADE despite also loving equipment, magic items, etc.

 

[MGibster]

In 5E there is no need to double check. They removed fiddly bonuses (that SW retains) for the Advantage mechanic (a welcome addition). Pathfinder and 3.5 for sure (where fiddly bonuses were flying around all over the place, and God help you if you were a raging and magically buffed Barbarian TWF with Power attack).

I know this is a Savage Worlds thread but I'm going to join in your praise for the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. It's quick, it's simple, and it's super easy to use in almost any situation. I will also praise the 5E mechanics for working together. No longer are we forced to suffer because of one guy who can't sneak. If half the group makes it then it was a success so long as it was reasonable the PCs could work together. I'm in a SWADE campaign right now and the DM borrowed that rule from D&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

On the other hand, at least as expressed in 5e, I think Advantage/Disadvantage is waaaay too much a big blunt object; its even more of one than the modifiers in Mythras, and I tend to find it a bit blunt sometimes. Basically, when you hit "once you have a penalty its this big and there's no bigger or smaller" you've gone too far, IMO.

(That first qualification is because you can have something vaguely like it--SotDL boons and banes, say--and me find it not too much. But this is a case where 5e decided simplicity got to trump any other concern and I can't follow it there).