Wanted: Fast d20 combat rules

[scourger]

I would suggest figuring out the damage saves before the session. Use the average damage of the weapon/effect rather than having the players roll on the spot...if you have them roll on the spot it'll be no faster than HP. Sorry if this post doesn't make sense...I'm tired.

It makes sense, now that I've read that part of the UA book. I'm still thinking of a way to try to "save" my D&D games. It may not be possible, but we'll see. I just got tired of tracking everything: initiative, hit points, magic, et cetera, et cetera. But, those are the things that make the game into the game.

Among the many things I've considered is "exploding" or "open-ended" damage dice. When I mentioned it to my players, they were concerned about magic effects, like fireballs, with multiple d6s that could roll many 6s. It looks great to me, but it would not be fun to be on the receiving end of it.

 

[Greg K]

I like the M&M damage save and, upon first glance at UA, was glad to see its inclusion for use in DND. However, once I read the version in UA, I thought a great disservice was done to the Damage Save mechanic and purchasers of UA that might want to try it. Andy Collins or whomever was responsible for the inclusion for the damage save in UA should have spent a few more pages fleshing out changes to spells and other damage infliction when using the damage save with DND. Plus, I think the rule works best with Armor as DR since the damage save was designed to work with M&M's protection and armor powers.

 

[Dragonblade]

I think Spycraft 2.0 has the best solution.

The thing to keep in mind about a total damage save game is the randomness. Some people like that play style. Where every PC (or NPC) is just one failed save away from death or unconsciousness. I don't care for it, myself.

I have found that it makes it harder to judge encounter difficulty and it can be very anti-climactic when the entire party gets taken out by some orcs, or when the final duel with the villain ends in the first round with a bad roll on the damage save.

Now, of course a pure HP system has drawbacks in terms of you have to keep track of hp for every monster and minor mook your group fights.

Spycraft 2.0 has the best solution. Basically, use HP for the main villains and PCs and give the mooks a damage save. You can customize it based on how tough you want mooks to be. You can give them a damage save bonus equal Fort Save or HP/5, whichever is higher. Every time a PC hits and does damage, have the mook make a damage save vs. a DC of 10 + 1/2 the damage dealt by the PC. A failed save means the mook dies or goes unconscious.

Those numbers are totally ballpark so feel free to tweak the lethality depending on your preferences. If the PCs are having a hard time versus some mooks, you can implement a rule where every successful hit after the first results in a cumulative -2 or whatever to the mook's damage save until they fail and die.

The elegance of this system is that you quickly generate damage save bonuses and stuff on the fly without having to preconvert anything. Also PCs can be created and still roll damage as usual. Likewise, since PCs still have HP, you have much more control over the lethality of the encounter.

 

[der_kluge]

You might consider Castles and Crusades. It's a much simpler system overall, and moves a lot faster than your average 3rd edition game. Check out my exhaustive review.

 

[Gundark]

You might consider Castles and Crusades. It's a much simpler system overall, and moves a lot faster than your average 3rd edition game. Check out my exhaustive review.

Will do. I took a look at damage saves as I thought that it would speed up combat over the Hit point system. The idea is that It would mean me and the players doing less math at the table. Not sure what system C&C uses for combat. Does it port well over to regular D&D?

Edit: Read your review on enworld.... ...interesting. Didn't say anything about combat. However from reading other reviews it looks like it uses Hit points which is what I think is slowing down combat to begin with.

 

[S'mon]

C&C uses hit points, but it doesn't use square-counting, Reach & Attacks of Opportunity are greatly simplified & far less important (basically: if you approach a large creature it attacks you first). Basically it's 1e/2e combat, which IME is about 2-3 times as fast as 3e combat.

 

[tetsujin28]

not easily but its doible

The system provided in Mutants & Masterminds (1e) is a bit quicker.

 

[Philthulhu]

If all else fails, just roshambo for it.

And yes it was tried once... but only once. The DM went first and won.


Seriously, though, I'm fairly happy with the way combat works now, though for a new campaign we've tried dumbing it down a bit. Not much, and you still have to use hp and have a record of basically every critter the party comes across, so I guess it's not all that different.

I think I'll be looking up some of these suggestions myself. I'm sick of writing all this stuff down whenever I DM....

 

[Gundark]

Well I used the rules from true 20 and ported them over to d20. And I ran a test drive of the rules...they weren't deadly enough... . The group tank had a pretty high damage save and just could seem to get hurt. What ended up happening was that the combat rounds went faster but the combat itself went longer than if I'd used Hit points. *sigh* back to the drawing board . What I may do is only allow half the armour value to be allowed in the damage save...if this doesn't work then I'll try the Spycraft 2.0 approach.