Ultrasimplified D&D

[CRGreathouse]

Personally, I've never liked the simplification crusades -- too many drop aspects of the game that add interest to the game, without getting rid of the real time sinks.

However, I have used a tongue-in-cheek method which works well, especially if you want to force players to roleplay or want to play characters/creatures so far outside of the normal range that stats are diffucult.

Solo combat: Roll a level check vs. DC 10 + CR. One success is a victory; three successes means you kill your opponent (if desired).

Group combat: Roll a level check vs. DC 6 + CR. One success is a victory; three successes means you kill your opponent (if desired).

I used this once while waiting for the rest of my players to arrive*, using my pantheon's gods and substituting Divine Rank for CR and level. Everyone enjoyed it.

* Playing in an alternate timeline, so their 'scorched earth' policies didn't ruin the campaign world, of course!

 

[Anabstercorian]

That sounds like a good method for when you honestly aren't interested in the wargamey aspects, or for larping, or for a wide variety of things. Kind of cool I like.

 

[Li Shenron]

...do you actually plan to use this HR for every combat? That seems to quite render obsolete all the combat-oriented classes :\

 

[CRGreathouse]

...do you actually plan to use this HR for every combat? That seems to quite render obsolete all the combat-oriented classes :\

I don't typically use this rule, if that's what you mean. I've been thinking about using it for a game, though, and I've already used it for some one-shots.

It makes class pretty irrelevant, given that the entire party makes 1-6 checks to resolve the whole combat. It forces players to stay in-character, since there's nothing to do out of character. (That is, no one cares if you choose Cleave or Combat Expertise, since they're not included in combat -- no one even much cares if your level is in barbarian or fighter.)

 

[Li Shenron]

It makes class pretty irrelevant, given that the entire party makes 1-6 checks to resolve the whole combat. It forces players to stay in-character, since there's nothing to do out of character. (That is, no one cares if you choose Cleave or Combat Expertise, since they're not included in combat -- no one even much cares if your level is in barbarian or fighter.)

That was just my thought. It would seem ok for a group who doesn't like combat at all, but spellcasters have so much more to do out-of-combat than other characters. They won't need offensive spells, but they still have enchantments and charms, illusions, nondamaging transmutations... Non-spellcasters would be limited to skills and a few feats.

 

[S'mon]

I've looked at similar, especially for mass combats and NPC vs NPC. Your approach isn't accurate though since CR is a geometric power gradient, not linear - eg CR 1 has 50% chance to beat CR 1, but only 25% to beat CR 2 and 12.5% to beat CR 4.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I've looked at similar, especially for mass combats and NPC vs NPC. Your approach isn't accurate though since CR is a geometric power gradient, not linear - eg CR 1 has 50% chance to beat CR 1, but only 25% to beat CR 2 and 12.5% to beat CR 4.

No, it's not accurate, but that's what you get for simplifying it. The fact that you need to win 3 times does bring it closer to the normal chances, though.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Way too simple imo. As has been said outside of combat spellcasters and sneaky bards and rogues would own fighters and barbarians. Unless you just decide to do level checks for things like 'I want to know if dude x is in league with guy y' and 'I'm going to into Blacksmith bobs and steal a new sword at midnight'. Hell might as well us level checks for roleplaying encounters to resolve the out come.

Might as well just freeform and forget levels character class etc.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Hell might as well us level checks for roleplaying encounters to resolve the out come.

That would rather defeat the purpose: reducing the time spent on combat so roleplaying gets more time.