@@JPMSkywizard well rn, i got to focus on rebuilding myself, learning and note taking DnD and Pathfinder 2e stuff then redo my system. P a i n but doable.
@@Earthmote I like to make "parodies" of things as 1. It fun and 2. Things spiral out of control in a good way This one is based off some crazy lady called "The Mad Gasser of Mattoon" lady in a plague doctor style get up literally throwing gas through the town. The youtube channel "Bedtime Stories" did a thing on her.
I used to play 2E and I fondly remember 5-hour sessions with 4-5 combats. During my last 5E session, a single combat of 9-10 rounds (one minute!) took 4 hours out of 5: I was one of only 3 players with no pets or sidekicks and we faced a crowd of 20+ humanoids with several casters coming at us in two waves, in a dungeon with narrow corridors and choke points. Unbalanced encounter design? Maybe. Player's analysis-paralysis and slow decision making? Probably. But when each player in mid tier 2 has several options for action, bonus action, movement split and reaction for their highly optimized multiclassed builds stuffed with feats, skills, spells and spell-like abilities, with the consequent occasional debate between RAW and RAI, that might happen. Bottom-line: at the end of the session the players had one level of exhaustion and the DM couldn't articulate properly. I won't remember that as a fun experience...
I've run 5e sessions like that! It's exhausting. Probably my fault for poorly designed encounters, but I think the points I highlighted still added onto it.
I think we have all been in this exact same position, and I find myself of two minds of it. On one hand, I don't think there is anything wrong with spending 4 hours on an awesome combat encounter. Campaign ending encounters against that wannabe god, or even just a dungeon delve that went wrong that see's your shield guardian walking through a trough of lava just to get into an awesome flanking position (yes I speak from experience). On the other hand, sometimes the combat is meaningless, everyone knows it, and ultimately it was only time spent fighting for the sake of fighting instead of something else. I have DM'd both of these too, and will do so time and again. It just ain't easy to find a happy medium, especially when D&D only has one method for "combat", full blown combat. Instead of a "skill challenge" system (best of x number of rolls), with appropriate stakes for losing.
@@campfirecult4375 2e is my favorite D$D looking back on it, but both 5e and 2e are bloated or streamlined depending on whether or not you stick with Core or use additional options. I remember the Edition Wars when WoTC had everyone regurgitating that 5e was better because it didn't have the bloat of 3.5. I tried to warn them that it was a temporary situation, but you can't stop a mountain slide.
if your seasoned players take more than 2~3mins to decide on what to do in a regular turn then they aren't seasoned players lol also i don't know if you play irl or online, but for those 20 enemies you mentioned, I'd just have 1 single initiative for all of them, it makes things a lot easier, and I take that all of them are the same monster maybe 3-4 being different, i'd have a different initiative for the different ones, but all-in all I'd roll a stupid amount of d20's and then decide on what each of them do, it just makes things faster, and if your players are veterans, they don't need/want all that narrative flair or attacks hitting unless its a crit. the only reason my combat takes 2hrs, its because I have 7 players on my table, but each of them gladly knows what to do to make the combat quicker.
At my table, these speed hacks work: ●The side that presents the threat goes first (PCs vs NPCs). ●Players take turns clockwise around the table. ●Each round, all actions resolve simultaneously; so a PC can save his buddy and be cut down at the same time. The dice arbitrate what succeeds or fails.
At least from 3.X onwards, the thrill of a fight had to come from something other than the risk of failure. Adding options that allows you to do cool stuff was one way to keep the thrill. If you're taking the life of your PC into your hands when you start a fight, you won't get bored easily.
B/X side based initiative is so good I port it into every game now. That d6 roll alters the flow of battle and keeps everyone on their toes. Simple but game changing.
I played adnd for a few games with a very experienced gamemaster. For me changing the entire way of combat in terms of what players can do in each of their turns, would just be messy and annoying but changing up initiative makes the whole thing interesting. Ill try it and see if that doesnt just add 1 more unnecessary role to the conbat
In the system I’ve been writing, I use a system of combat that uses what I call, “ladder initiative”. I The start of combat, I start with 1. Each action or weapon has a speed score. The score of whatever action the player wants to do is added to their personal initiative. As I continue to count, once their number comes up, they perform their action, dice are rolled and everything is resolved, then they declare their next action and add that speed score to their last initiative count. Then I keep counting. Players are keeping track of their own initiative and watching the battlefield change as they wait for their number to come up. This keeps them super engaged and preparing for their action. Most combat ends up being 10-15 minutes long and is super action packed and stressful (in a good way). It also helps that my system is a little more on the deadly side, so players are considering their moves very carefully. Rather than track initiative for all the NPCs, each npc has a speed score between 2 and 5, meaning each npc of that type will go every second, third, fourth, or fifth initiative count based on type. I have a chart in my screen that has 30 counts with highlighted spots for each of those speeds showing on which counts they are to act. So I just declare the number, check my chart and if one of the npc speeds present in the battle shows up on that number, those NPCs perform an action if it makes sense for them to do so. Characters can all move one space (or inch) per count as well, ideally getting into position to perform their actions when their number comes up. So players are also engaged moving their pieces as I continue counting and moving NPCs around. Admittedly, this system is a little jarring for someone coming from a round-based combat system, but once the player wraps their head around it combat speeds up like crazy and all players are on the edge of their seat. As GM, I am only worrying about the NPCs and answering the occasional question about the battlefield or opponents for the players to make informed decisions. The players take care of themselves.
Pathfinder 2e solves this with the 3 action economy, Opportunity of Attack is rare, crits are relative to the DC, and diagonal movement. It ends up being more coordination-focused and surprisingly easy to resolve quickly. B/x solutions are also fantastic, just a different flavor. Really it's just that D&D from 3.5e onwards made some bad design choices and we're all kind-of stuck with them.
Pathfinder 2e doesn't solve this... what are you talking about? lol PF2E mechanics make a level 3 combat feel like a level 8 in DnD, everyone has more options and more decision points BECAUSE of the 3 action economy
You know, it's one thing to say that you crave simpler rulesets, but in doing so, there are elements that you lose that can make for enjoyable combat. I'm thinking of the super tactical options from pf2e like flanking, grappling, shoving etc. Things that make combat dynamic and interesting instead of just a hack-fest.
I think the issue really comes down to the HP pool. Players and non-boss monsters just have too much health, which drags things out. WFRP is very crunchy, a single round of combat in that can twice as long as a round in D&D but that one round is the equivalent of 3 or so rounds of D&D because a single hit on any character is so much more decisive.
HP bloat is part of it, but it really is just the number of options that players have, and most importantly, how many of those options are unique to that race/class. In any turn you can attack, cast a spell, use a racial or class ability, use a magic item, interact with the environment... and that's just standard actions. Games benefit from the removal or toning down of most of this. If you want to run a tactical combat sim, play a video game - it's too much for a single DM to keep up with.
I really like the Palladium/Rifts combat system. Init, winner rolls to strike, opponent can then roll to parry, dodge, or give up those options to simultaneous/counter strike. Damage for the round (if any) is figured, and rinse and repeat in a nutshell, that’s how it works. Yes, when you add Martial Arts and special training or weapons, cybernetics or other enhancements, things can bog down for a few rounds but even in Alpha’s vs 20 Invid Shock Troopers, things went fairly quickly. Except when they threw volleys of mini-missiles. Then the damage calculations could get sticky.
A decent middle-ground between sidebased and individual initiatives that I've used before is the initiative from Mothership 0e. Everyone rolls initiative, players that roll 1-10 go after the monster(s), and those that rolled 11-20 go before. It has some of the speed and combo move potential of sidebased, but with a little bit less of the possible swinginess you mention with using sidebased in 5e.
It's a really simple solution that I've used for a while and people make fun of me for until they sit at my table, but damn does it work wonders. I fullheartedly second this, combat should be fast, dangerous, and dynamic to be exciting. Heck one of the most feared enemies in my dungeon I'm currently running for a level 20 party is some fire giant barons, they only have 104 hit points and always go last, but my players go absolutely crazy to make sure that thing doesn't get a turn, because if he does he is a whirlwind of firey death and has been known to drop multiple PCs in a round. Keep in mind the party is level 20, so 104 hit points isn't a lot, but its still an incredibly large number for me, the average hp of all my monsters excluding bosses in this dungeon is 37. The players were just telling me a few minutes ago when I ended session that they know they're only halfway through this dungeon, but they're getting whooped, the casters are almost out of spell slots, the paladin is out of heals, and they've just downed their last healing potions. Then added that they simultaneously feel like badasses but like they're in mortal danger at the same time, and they think that is awesome, especially for high level 5e
We use Pathfinder 1e. I find the system is fast as along as the players know what they want to do at their turn. I have a good group so combat is normally quick. I do remember one of my player's wizard back in my 2nd edition D&D collage games that would take forever to decide what spell to use.
I think you touched on the key point and that is the initiative system. Waiting for your turn is the most boring thing in DnD, and it is what makes peopel check out, especially if there is that one player in the group that sits there daydreaming for 10 minutes, and when it's finally his turn he goes "Right... ummm... so I ... umm... one second...." And starts reading his sheet. Oof. Just changing that, if nothing else, and making it so everyone goes together, or making it a side-based initiative, solves most of the problems. Big HP solves the rest, but sadly to revamp that one you have to revamp the entire 5e system. So at that point just play an Old School system. I find that people stuck to DnD just keep trying to hack it to pieces instead of choosing a better system. People want their cake and want to eat it too.
I've played ADnD with a lifelong DM of the system. The segment system in that game makes for a lot more structured combat rounds, but multi-attackers' attack spacing and the spell casting time of said segments can be a little too crunchy at times. While combat did go more smoothly than any 3.5e, PF1e, or 5e games I've been in, combat scenes still took just as long of play time as any of those more modern systems. TL;DR Looking into other and older systems can be great for ideas, but make sure to look at the whole picture of those systems in context. Learn, play, tweak, and repeat. Find what you do and don't like, both as players and DMs/GMs.
In my time of playing 5e there's one time we did a perfectly execited party combo. I got to tell the party what to do, they did exactly what I said, and it was effective. It was cool to see a party combo executed, but I know I'd hate having my turn taken by another.
@@yzfool6639 it was one round. The enemy was dangerous and I said everything at once so everyone agreed beforehand. Like I said, it's fun for one person in the moment. But we're friends so it felt bad to know they had less fun. Group side initiative is better for that stuff.
I appreciate that you have given a lot of thought to this. I've been playing and DMing for 50 years. I haven't noticed a great change in combat length or interactions. I have always started each round with "roll your initiative". I also roll initiative for the monsters when I DM (which is most of the time). I have battled against cell phones, teaching young players, and players who have short attention spans. I will tailor my encounters to suit the party of adventurers. As long as players enjoy the encounter, time doesn't matter much. Having monsters choose their targets is something a DM controls and can be used to make an encounter more interesting. Delaying the entry of some monsters can also give players a shock. The occasional monster fleeing can be a humor moment. A tricky monster will be remembered. All in all, I try to avoid multiple encounters that fall into a pattern of straight combat of four adventurers taking turns killing four monsters one on one. Everything, however, breaks down if you have a group that just abhors combat encounters. Good luck.
7:09 sure, a sword can only do 5-10 damage per round. But when you give it to a rogue with sneak attack or a paladin with smite? When the fighter jumps in with 2 attacks, superiority dice and an action surge? When the spellcasters easily land 20 damage per spell at level 5+? That 45HP is not going to last a single round with a tier 2 party, unless they roll very poorly.
In B/X Dragons breath attack does damage = current HP. So if it wins initiative, its gonna blast the PCs for 45 damage on round 1 (save for half). That's a cooked wizard.
I don't play dnd anymore but 3.5e or 5e work better at levels 1~5. There is E5 for 3.5 that stops level advancement at 5th level and allows PCs to advance in other ways. I feel like focusing on low level play while avoiding adding complexity would be best.
You brought up some very good points. You touched on player involvement, and I would say this is a major source of delay if they are not well versed in their characters abilities. I don't blame the players, however, because it's the system itself that brings the complications in the first place. Playing aids go a long way in fixing this such as cheat sheets for possible actions and spell cards for magic using types. Another frustrating mechanic is misses. To add excitement, I used to give my players a progressive +1 accumulatively for every miss but this didn't really solve the problem, so I just eliminated the miss altogether. players still roll the dice [for crit success or crit failure], but otherwise always hit. I really like the idea of side-based initiatives. I really don't see the problem with balance since if each side performs the same action in a round. It's better than missing and then being gang raped by several opponents all at once. Great videos keep it up Earth mote!! Cheers.
I like the notion of players being able to act together. For instance, it's now more possible to aid fallen teammates (one takes aid, another takes the help action to assist, two players are increasing the chances of a success). Or - two melee fighters rush onto an enemy at the same time, flanking it and possibly acquiring other bonuses (passive radius bonuses to attacks or saves, flank bonuses, etc.). Wombo spell combos - one could be a debuff, the other could be an attack spell. The converse is true as well, with NPC hordes actually acting as such, enemies working in tandem to corner off a spellcaster, that kind of thing. When you have individual turns, you simply think in a different way, acting in a vacuum. You could keep everything else in 5e the same, and simply do the side-based initiative. Because it's all simultaneous, it doesn't matter if someone's action is narrated first or last. I think this would speed up rate of play. Also, it keeps every player engaged during both phases because they're not just acting alone, or waiting for their turn. Their turn is either first, or next, with a lot of chaos in-between. This is so simple, and I can see how this could effect pacing for the better. I think it also foments a notion of actual team work, rather than individually going, with monsters in between, rendering many combinations of possible actions sort of void. As a hot take, I would also remove attacks of opportunity, or reduce damage on AoO (half damage or something), or allow everyone to bonus action disengage. The action economy for alternative actions in 5e renders basically anything but attacking very un-optimized. A lot of my combats end up in a pile in one spot because no one wants to move around (because they'll take damage). This is also true of NPC's or enemies, who would suffer from angling out of a situation, having to take their entire turn to do so, getting attacked, doing no damage, and then getting attacked again on subsequent player turns. Doing any of the above could make the physical combat more fluid, or at least reduce the penalty for attempting to get out of dodge. For example if you're low on HP and flanked by three enemies, in 5e you're just screwed. If you do the above, you'd be able to get out of harms way, cast a web spell, and at least hope for the best. Or you could run behind a pillar and hide, rendering the character untouchable to a lot of ranged attacks for their next turn. Or you could run away and heal. Or get out of dodge, run 20 feet back and fire an exploding arrow into the group, which you would have done with disadvantage before while possibly dying in the process. I agree, complexity does not always equal more fun. Can be great, but needs to be used with care.
Nice points, but could you run us through how to do the old school battle mechanics so I can get a better idea how to do it? Having a little trouble understanding the mechanics from reading those images. Thanks for the video
So, I do prefer old-school games, and in general agree with most everything you said. However, I do need to flag up where you said that damage is relatively similar in editions. Newer editions have lots of way to do more damage. Last 5e session I played in, I did over 100 damage in 2 attacks (paladin smit+crit). No way I could do that in B/X! Granted, I don't need to either, but I guess even with the HP 'bloat', characters maintain parity.
True enough! their abilities can make a huge difference in damage. But I'd argue that even if the abilities less the impact of the HP bloat, they still slow the game down via more dice rolls, more arithmetic, more referencing of rules/mechanics etc.
Something I do for initiative in play by posts I do is I give every monster the same static initiative, which creates a DC like you do for most things. 12 is a good number when in doubt. Any PC that beats this DC with their initiative roll goes before the enemy, then all the enemies, then from that point on it is side initiative of all PCs then all enemies. If there is a big boss, you can either raise the DC or make them unique and have their own initiative, though the 2nd option means there is a chance you don't really have side initiative anymore
The solution is to play AD&D 2nd edition and utilize the book Player's Option: Combat & Tactics. When handling critical hits, I always start the first die off at maximum damage, add the bonuses once, then roll the additional dice and add those. Also, I up the severity of the critical hit tables by one die category. Additionally, a saving throw vs. death reduces the severity by half, but does not negate the injury. In short, combat should feel dangerous and unpredictable, both for the PCs and their enemies.
My D&D experience is mostly confined to BECMI, but I left it years ago because there were certain things that I didn't like-- primarily Vancian magic and Hit Points. In recent years, I have had a nostalgia-driven urge to play again, but turned instead to OSE and other games like ShadowDark and Dragonbane. I much prefer a rules-light approach. I know a lot of people feel they need dozens of options on their character sheet, but as suggested here, I find that only slows things down without adding that much depth. Rather than choosing from a vast menu of action options, I much prefer to simply state what the character is trying to do, then apply some basic rules. I like to lead with the fiction and apply rules as necessary. Personally, I really like Fate Core, which has a grand total of 4 moves: Overcome, Create an Advantage, Attack, Defend. You can do anything you want using this approach. Want to sweep someone's legs out from under them? Create an Advantage. Want to throw sand in their eyes? Create an Advantage. Disarm them? Create an Advantage. Maneuver them into a corner? Create an Advantage. One simple rule lets you do virtually anything, making it quick and easy. Fewer options allows you to focus on imagining what you *want* to do, rather than looking up what you *can* do.
Maybe I missed you mentioning it, but an interesting thing to note is that HP bloat doesn't just apply to monsters. In older editions, there was a cap on how many hit dice you got. Past that point, you only received a fixed number of hit points per level, which did NOT include your Con bonus. Which meant that players having to retreat rather than carry on a prolonged fight was a very real possibility.
I think the side-based initiative, more than anything, has made a massive difference in my games. Now, I'm playing Pf2, so the combat's still take a while but this probably cut combat time in half
On the monsters having complex and diverse things to do. I think it’s a good thing. But I think as soon as the party see a new cool thing twice or thrice that’s enough to show it off and without being boring.
Use alternating initiative. The winning side chooses who among them goes first, then the other side does the same. If you get more than one attack in a round, an ally has to go in between (if possible). The GM can group monsters (two archers attacking at the same time) if there are more monsters than heroes.
I had a idea for a system i want to make, basically all the class features would be in a card/cheat sheet so you can quickly reference them like "can use a action to attempt a disarming blow for -4 aim" or "at level 6, dispels all psi effects at the start of your turn"
Just my opinion ~ The higher the level, the more bogged down combat gets. Even in earlier editions, scaling back hp or capping levels can help, especially if role play and narrative are key in the game. role play in combat with a good DM improving rules for all the player's wild ideas, is way more exciting than games where players are looking for their 'whirlwind attack bonus' because they have that 'feat'. We don't need hard RAW for everything. Again, just my opinion, and as always, relies on open minded DMs and players who trust one another.
We had to stop playing 5e all together because the combat was slow, and more annoyingly, it was boring. It wasn't just the DM either, they put their heart into every combat we had to engage in, but Goddamn it was so slow, and so tiresome. We went back to 4e, and we did our first combat encounter and it was done in not even 10 minutes. Everyone read their sheets, understood what to do, and pretty soon combos flew left and right. We won't be going back lmao
One thing you loose with these extended engagements is that immediacy of combat. Actual combat is FAST. Seconds feel like hours. An actual sword duel might last a few minutes with cautious combatants. But, desperate combat against lots of enemies requires you put them down as fast as possible to avoid being overrun. You don't have time for fancy strategy sessions. (think Blackhawk Down with swords) You have to get the monster(s) on the ground ASAP. If you're not feeling the desperation to come up with an answer NOW before you all die you're missing the essence of combat. I'd suggest your players work out before they go in who handles what. Think of military doing a room clearing. They have a set procedure. One man breaches the door, one man goes right, the other goes left, etc. Your players should be sitting down and hashing this out before they leave the tavern. Because in world, unless they were total newbies, they'd have their party organized and procedures in place before they set foot in the dungeon. Their survival depends on it.
Yes, older edition combat is faster. But remember too, it is also more deadly. At least it was in the Moldvay basic and AD&D I grew up with. Combat was a risky endeavor in general. And remember save vs poison or die? Good times!
I've learned as a DM that lower level (1-5) is ideal because A: it prevents character sheet bloat and players scouring their sheets forever *cough* wizards *cough* and faster combat. B: It's much easier to balance low level D&D imo. I'm also working on the final boss to speed up combat: Convincing my group to try OSE.
I think initiative should be different each round, and I think it should be individual initiative. sure a moment more to roll but it works better than static initiative AND is more realistic than side based rolls.
Just before 2024 dnd rulebook relase i started a new campaing with my homebrew monk school that compeletely changes the combat rotation and tempo and feeling. Now we have played to chapter 3 gaining 3 levels. Well see how the campaing goes once we get to midpoint or end.
Running homebrew rules. I only give players a few HP per level after their initial first level pool. Essential hunan hardiness cannot be much improved by ‘experience’ as opposed to armour/spells. Keeps it scary. Ofc I am using AD&D monsters stats (not 5ed) as more proportionate to this approach.
I'm an Ola AD&D as well as ice player. I don't recall ever losing attention but I'm not a 20 something. I've heard castles and crusades is truly the spiritual successor to AD&D but have never played it. If you have I would love to hear of the experience
Try Mithras. The combat is much more dangerous, visceral, and cinematic. You need players that want that level of realism. If they also know their character and their abilities it makes for a very rich adventure.
The number one thing that slows down combat are unprepared players or an unprepared DM. If the DM and the players know exactly what they want to do on their turns and they are familiar with their characters and the rules then combat should go relatively smoothly, regardless of edtion, or system
The thing that gets me is "what particular vectors make a game that long?" It seems everyone is quick on ancetodes, what systems to play but no stats or half ass proper measurements and experiments.
Side Initiative in D&D 5e would be difficult. The action pool of 5e is huge in comparison to 1st or 2nd edition. I did find that that a Back and Forth Initiative does work very well for 5e and increases player engagement.
WoTC combat isn't sluggish because of complexity. It's due to the heroic hack 'n' slash design of the system. Similar to ARPGs like Diablo or Path of Exile, modern D&D is a numbers game; It's HP and healing. The most complex systems have quick combat, because it's deadly. Examples of such systems would be Hârnmaster and Rolemaster. Hackmaster 5e is pretty much what a 3/3.5 edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons would have been. It's incredibly snappy and quick, despite being more complex, and it keeps player engagement through it's count-based initiative because it's got a feeling of competitve chess with how quickly it moves to the next player's turn. More rules doesn't equal slower. Modern D&D is just horribly designed.
HackMaster is the only ttrpg I've bought physical books aside from AD&D. Sadly it is much slower to do over text so I don't use it for my online play-by-post group.
@@Earthmote, correct you would be. It is a shame to not play, but you only have so much time for these things. I have nothing but praise for the system/settling/adventures North Wind Games has produced.
Dude, I agree with the time spent on 5e combats. I've been playing shadowdark for a while, in Dolmenwood, as I mentioned on a previous video of yours. Maybe it is my groups preference, we'll be getting back to 5e, because of the combat, we like it even if it takes some extra time. But it felt good to play fast combats for a while
It funny, i remember when I was preparing to do a campaign for a friend, i was going to do a Fallout 2 style thing where the heroes generally go first with 2 to 3 actions they can do to keep it streamline. Currently forgot what i would of done but I think it noice.
The original version of D&D was an outgrowth of wargaming, hence it had an emphasis on "combat". The mechanics of the early game reflected the quick turns and quick resolution of a single exchange of attacks. As you ably illustrate, the modern game has moved away from a wargame mentality and each player character and many monsters have so many options during their turn that they feel like an entire army rather than a single creature in comparison to 1970 era wargames. Some will like this, many may not.
I never find combat frustrating while playing or running D&D. I find other people frustrating when they take forever to take their turn, or the DM fudges or saves us because of poor encounter planning, or people waste time arguing or asking a thousand questions or try and schmooze the DM into letting them cheat. Save time: Use Theater of the Mind for simple or easy combats. Us the battle board for complex or important combats. Use minions (one hit), or a small d6 to track HP instead of tracking them exactly and individually for lesser monsters. Use average damage. Be prepared to run your combat and know the monster's abilities and your party's abilities. Nose out of books, make rulings instead of looking up rules (spells are an exception). No arguing. Make sure to set the expectation that your players need to pay attention when it's not their turn, and be prepared when it comes for their turn. they also need to know their character's abilities. I will never use side initiative, or around the table.
"Yes, we can quibble about if that logically makes sense..." It doesn't. "...or if that's the best way to handle combat..." It is. Not everything has to make sense! That's the biggest problem with 3e--it got too bogged down by trying to hard to make everything concrete and sensible. If you look at any individual 3e rule, you'll go "Yeah, that makes sense." But it made the game practically unplayable, and D&D has never really recovered! Sacrifices have to be made for good gameplay.
When during the game you have to open the rule books and spend time seeing how something works, in my opinion it is a sign of bad game design. For me, fewer rules and simplicity = more speed and fun (and more choices for everyone).
I tried 5E as both player and DM. Gotta say, I now only consider TSR, or products that merely reorganized TSR rules like OSE, to be real DnD. WoTC is something else, not DnD.
5E wasn't built around side-based initiative. It is not that simple just to change the whole concept of battle. When every PC has lots of abilities (just like enemies), when positioning matters, it is more crucial to split turns between all characters. 5E is not some OSR-game, were you have just fews bonks and maybe someone has 1 spell (like OSE) and you all have 10 HP max. Since PCs in 5E are more deadly than typical monsters, ofc their initiative will make victory in one-two turns. Side-based initiative is a great idea, but I think it doesn't work with 5E without breaking the game.
You say that, but in many instances it's fundamentally the same. Let's take a simple example, 5 players vs a single monster; sure 2 characters go before the monster, then the monster acts. From that point forward, all 5 characters act then the monster acts and so on. Many DMs group similar monsters together. Maybe there's the giant and 5 hobgoblins. That's two activations not 6. With that behaviour, it's not at all uncommon for the same scenario to play out. A couple of characters act, then the giant followed by the hobgoblins... Then all 5 characters. The bigger difference between old school initiative and modern initiative is that old school initiative was rolled every round.
@@benwooding1311 Group of hobgoblins can anihilate party member, because of synergy combat abilities. It is devastating, if such 5 monsters can plan their turn like a SWAT against one character. Again, different approach to the game.
If you add something to the game, you are appose to tweak it so it is line with the rest of the system. "Theortically" if this was a issue, i would make the first round a "scramble" turn like in Xcom, both the players and monsters get a chance to run for cover and do one attack or quick spell to cancel out "i gigabuff the barb to smash the kobold" and the monsters arent "they pull out their gattling gun and wipe out the first npc they seee" Idk why but dnd people seem to forget adjusting things they add in. Like it is unpossible.
@@Subject_Keter Scramble mehacnic looks really great. I also thought about it from time to time. It is not impossible. The problem is that Dnd books are poorly written and you basically don't even learn how to tweak or adjust game. For example, Pathfinder teaches you and gives you all the instruments for theses tasks. That's why it is understandable how to move things around.
@@sonder_ua "Appearently" the dnd community considers it "unpossible" and "crazy" to fix dnd but like.. we are what we are because became creative and not fucking golems who cant figure out how to string a bow or get off our beds. I dont need tools, charts and other systems to do my craft. The only thing i need to do is make the game fun for the bois and people who want to play with me. This isnt coding where it unpossible to learn because everyone hides the info, it is right in front of you. You just need the balls to take it and make it yours.
@10:20 I would love to see a video of this. I have never really understood how old school combat was run. If I am casting a spell, I have to let you know, so you can target me with missile and melee attacks so that I lose my spell? Also, I don't get to move? I don't know about you, but I can do dance, katas, walk, run, etc. while talking. Seems like that I should be able to move and cast a spell. I guess I should not bring up the whole they hated mages back then, but I would love to see examples of b/x combat. Every one of the examples I have seen has made mistakes or did not make sense. I love Earthmote videos and hope others do as well.
I would summarize this video as, "Combat takes more time when you give players fun options, and when the monsters can do interesting things." I can't believe how many people find this objectionable. But I thought I was having a stroke when I heard you compare the raw hp scores of monsters in different editions of the game. One of two things must be true. Either you don't comprehend that
To be more real though, I encourage you to think about how there’s way more ways to differentiate characters and monsters than just special abilities, a monster that ambushes, vs. Charges vs. Uses hit an run tactics will feel very different even if they use the exact same stats. Sometimes less is just more with these kinds of things. The last thing I wanna say is characters can do way more than what’s on their character sheets! Kicking over tables to get cover, throwing sand in people’s eyes, trying diplomacy etc. All this is to say, to each their own, it’s fine to prefer one style of game over the other, just wanted to provide some extra input
It's insane that TTRPG TH-camrs have to trash talk D&D to get clicks and clout and wind us saying cartoonishly dishonest things like "It is a flaw of modern D&D, specifically, that players get bored at the table and look at their phones and need to be caught up. That's a problem of the game system and not bad GMing, bad players and modern culture." Just a wild thing to say. Man, I'm sorry. This video was beyond the threshold of what is a respectable use of my time. I gotta unsubscribe.
im not sure its necessarily complexity, so much as internet addled brains. i got started in 2e but personally prefer 3.5 the most, and in a group with a strict no screens only paper rule things still move by pretty quick, and 3.5 is arguably the most complex edition. 5e in particular cut back alot of things, personally i hated that it gutted the skills system, 5e skills are awful and make no sense to me. either way, its overall a simpler system than 3.5 yet i find things still take notably longer in a group using it. maybe its the system itself, maybe its my poor attitude about it (im always a little grumpy if im playing 5e because frankly i hate it and it means i lost the argument for 3.5, so it could be all my fault lol) or maybe social media and tik toc has actually rotted peoples brains and the average attention span of people is now stuck at goldfish level. who really knows for certain?
Old school DnD combat was WAY better. ❤ Every round you rolled initiative. You stated what you were going to do at the beginning of the round. Everyone rolled individually and modified their roll by weapon speed, Dex modifier, magic bonus, etc. It was ALWAYS exciting and unique. Daggers were much faster than Great Swords. High Dex characters had a big advantage here. Low Dex had a penalty. It seemed more realistic by far. Sometimes it sucked and your spell was wasted because the monster died or the situation didn't apply anymore. Many times the spell going first made a tremendous diff. But that's how life is. New DnD turned the game into a bland 2D board game, a video game with flashy imaginary colors and lots of dice rolls for damage. "Psychic damage"?!? Everyone can see in the dark and behind every corner. "Advantage"?!? Dumb. No thanks.
Y'all really need to stop and ask if faster combat really does equal funner combat. I've played GURPS and Roll Master on the slower side and Rangers of Shadowdeep which is the fastest and most efficient combat I can image a combat mechanic to be. Those extra dice rolls and charts can build tension and suspense while the fiddly bits open up for lots of strategic thinking that can change the outcome of the whole battle dramatically making the Player as well as the Character the hero of the Day. fast combat is just "boom boom boom on to the next roll". I'm not saying slower is better. I'm saying that sometimes something sounds true and reasonable but still isn't. Ask yourself what you want and why.
Someone who isn't paying attention when it isn't their turn is being inconsiderate. The game isn't only about that one person. At my table, the players are invested in *each other*, so when their turn is over, they are still interested in what happens for the next character. It's not, "I did my turn, so I'll play monopoly go until it's my turn again..." If I had players like that, I wouldn't have them after that session, because I'd replace them.
thanks, this was an excellent reminder of a better, more balanced game than the current play. could the primary differences between the bloated, OP, needlessly complex modern game and the clean, simplistic, older version be explained by the fact that the older version was designed to be exclusively analog with a live and active referee and the modern version was designed to become so complex as to be entertaining only with digital play using an AI referee? that notion does credit wotc/hasbro having a LOT more foresight and intelligence than they normally show, but...
I would counter with the consumer unability to adapt or otherwise conform the product to their standards as a sign of weakness. How can you claim such is a thing if you never tried it? How can it be made better if the consumers never even tried to wrangle it.
@@Subject_Keter how wonderful, a wotc troll complete with sideways personal swipes: if you have not noted exactly what was sited in this video and mentioned in my comment, then you either are not playing the game (which is troll like behavior) or you have never played the pre-wotc games (which is, again, troll-like behavior). in either case, your opinion (and swipe) are moot. I have regularly played every version on both sides of the screen from B to 2024 (when they were current) in groups large and small. i can state empirically that every wotc version bogs down if played as intended, the worse being 2024. despite wotc's apparent disdain for the playability of the game in the community, i have enjoyed almost every session (including ones using v2 and 4e). sorry for the length of this reply, but i do not intend on placing another for this video or continuing a discussion with the likes of any shill troll. enjoy....
@@CruentusV ya nah. You are clearly a golem who cant even process what they want, how they would do it or let alone be able to achieve the stuff they want. Also for someone that says "you are a troll for.. fixing the system" i say in return. "All systems are sloggish and stoggie because they must be inputted through a crappy interface called humanity. If you are unable to meet it half way or backstab it to adjust it, you are a troll to generate customers for X system 😂 I can play Pathfinder 2e and muck it up but it doesnt make the system bad 😂 I can play dnd 5e and make it better for my table 😂 Please show me the part where wotc manifest the pinkertons to make me unable to make dnd better." 😮😅😂😂
I still think we need to dump initiative & turns and play combat as it is in reality: everything takes place in real time, players move their minis, roll the dice for hits & damage, and only pause play to resolve spells or more complicated actions. Fighting a dragon or a bunch of Orcs is one of the most fantastical things you can do in an rpg. Reducing combat to a turn-based boardgame destroys the immersion and tension that make the game fun.
My brain melts just trying to imagine what this would be like. In a bad way. This is what mmorpgs are made for. As for tabletop? I doubt any game designer would try it. Would it simulate the chaos and energy of battle? Sure! Would it be fun? No... especially not for the GM trying to hear and track all the data while also using thier own moves.
@@KKRDM Lol you may be right. 😅 But if you **were** to design a "real time" combat system, how would you do it? I think it would work best for a Conan-style hack and slash where the PCs are fighting a bunch of minions. For example who all have 1 hp, the same AC, and similar weapons. Keep combat simple, so no fancy actions. Offload some of the DM's duties to the players that don't require DM oversight. Players handle their own character's to-hit and damage rolls, the DM does the same with the monsters. Use hit point tracks for PCs and non-minion monsters accessible to all players. Movement might have to be regulated to prevent complete chaos. Like players move their PC mini by rolling 1d4 or 1d6 # of grid squares.
Have you heard of a system that uses Stamina in place of Action points? You spend Stamina to do things and it resets at the start of your turn. But, if you spent all of it, you might lose a huge amount of HP!
@@Subject_Keter DND uses hit points that get ridiculously high, without any methods to chunk it down outside spells and monsters. SWADE doesnt even use hit points, you hit a target hard enough to shake them, wound em, gives multiple wounds possibly. its quick on its own, compared to 5es most commonly used spells like fireball: im not waiting around for soemthing as ridiculous as e gigantic spell list for the spellcasters to read through, roll literally 8d6 if not mroe dice, and then roll saving throws for every last unit caught in an aoe, and doing more math for their damage taken, health points lsot of each of them. SWADE is simple, and yet provides more complexity to combat and roleplay expression. in SWADE itll be like "I cast Blast (Hurriance), i roll 2d6... no imma upcast it to 3d6 (a maximum) and i get... 13 damage." In SWADE especially, the non important characters are called extras, and they tend to have 1 wound maxiomum, not 1 hitpoint like 4e, but theyre meant to be wiped at 1 wound of damage. I also dont get your " wotc ai dungeon master" you understand that 5e is absolutely garbage right? or you think its worth anyones time? I ran 5e extremely fast, and my table was fast, and it still took too long.
So what I get from this video is that yall hate giving players agency. You don’t want them to strategize and have cool abilities they can use, you want them to always do the same things in the same order and as quick as possible cause you want to keep it moving…why are you even playing D&D? Play an RPG made for Roleplaying more, hell there are even some without any combat! Stop playing games and systems that favor combat or are built around it, if you don’t find combat fun. Just don’t remove the fun part from the combat cause you hate it.
If enough people are feeling this is an issue, it's legitimate. Just because you want your whole 3 hr session to be one combat doesn't mean everyone else does. I like the combat, but I also agree that it's the longest portion of the session every time. A much larger part of dnd is the rp and world building itself. The quest. Being a fan of dnd to the point, I'm excited about future sessions. When they come, I want as much to happen as can happen. If combat is taking up so much of it. That my team and I can barely get through several rooms before the 3 hr session ends. Then, something can be done to make it a better balance of combat and rp.
I had to scribble down ‘psychedelic acid spray’ for my next monster. Perfectly useable in an Old school game.
I remember i was going to make a entire subspecies of dragons that fire weird shit like hypnotic gas or life destorying rays. 😂
Maybe its a fine mist that they inhale, does some damage but also causes hallucinations or something.
@@Subject_Keter That sounds awesome. Its not too late...
@@JPMSkywizard well rn, i got to focus on rebuilding myself, learning and note taking DnD and Pathfinder 2e stuff then redo my system.
P a i n but doable.
@@Earthmote I like to make "parodies" of things as 1. It fun and 2. Things spiral out of control in a good way
This one is based off some crazy lady called "The Mad Gasser of Mattoon" lady in a plague doctor style get up literally throwing gas through the town.
The youtube channel "Bedtime Stories" did a thing on her.
I used to play 2E and I fondly remember 5-hour sessions with 4-5 combats. During my last 5E session, a single combat of 9-10 rounds (one minute!) took 4 hours out of 5: I was one of only 3 players with no pets or sidekicks and we faced a crowd of 20+ humanoids with several casters coming at us in two waves, in a dungeon with narrow corridors and choke points. Unbalanced encounter design? Maybe. Player's analysis-paralysis and slow decision making? Probably. But when each player in mid tier 2 has several options for action, bonus action, movement split and reaction for their highly optimized multiclassed builds stuffed with feats, skills, spells and spell-like abilities, with the consequent occasional debate between RAW and RAI, that might happen. Bottom-line: at the end of the session the players had one level of exhaustion and the DM couldn't articulate properly. I won't remember that as a fun experience...
I've run 5e sessions like that! It's exhausting. Probably my fault for poorly designed encounters, but I think the points I highlighted still added onto it.
I tried 5e, hated running it, never again. old school 2e dm here. how do people like this new bloat? lol
I think we have all been in this exact same position, and I find myself of two minds of it. On one hand, I don't think there is anything wrong with spending 4 hours on an awesome combat encounter. Campaign ending encounters against that wannabe god, or even just a dungeon delve that went wrong that see's your shield guardian walking through a trough of lava just to get into an awesome flanking position (yes I speak from experience). On the other hand, sometimes the combat is meaningless, everyone knows it, and ultimately it was only time spent fighting for the sake of fighting instead of something else.
I have DM'd both of these too, and will do so time and again. It just ain't easy to find a happy medium, especially when D&D only has one method for "combat", full blown combat. Instead of a "skill challenge" system (best of x number of rolls), with appropriate stakes for losing.
@@campfirecult4375 2e is my favorite D$D looking back on it, but both 5e and 2e are bloated or streamlined depending on whether or not you stick with Core or use additional options. I remember the Edition Wars when WoTC had everyone regurgitating that 5e was better because it didn't have the bloat of 3.5. I tried to warn them that it was a temporary situation, but you can't stop a mountain slide.
if your seasoned players take more than 2~3mins to decide on what to do in a regular turn then they aren't seasoned players lol
also i don't know if you play irl or online, but for those 20 enemies you mentioned, I'd just have 1 single initiative for all of them, it makes things a lot easier, and I take that all of them are the same monster maybe 3-4 being different, i'd have a different initiative for the different ones, but all-in all I'd roll a stupid amount of d20's and then decide on what each of them do, it just makes things faster, and if your players are veterans, they don't need/want all that narrative flair or attacks hitting unless its a crit.
the only reason my combat takes 2hrs, its because I have 7 players on my table, but each of them gladly knows what to do to make the combat quicker.
At my table, these speed hacks work:
●The side that presents the threat goes first (PCs vs NPCs).
●Players take turns clockwise around the table.
●Each round, all actions resolve simultaneously; so a PC can save his buddy and be cut down at the same time. The dice arbitrate what succeeds or fails.
Sounds like 2nd Edition combat. Quick, to the point and deadly. Good times.
At least from 3.X onwards, the thrill of a fight had to come from something other than the risk of failure. Adding options that allows you to do cool stuff was one way to keep the thrill.
If you're taking the life of your PC into your hands when you start a fight, you won't get bored easily.
B/X side based initiative is so good I port it into every game now. That d6 roll alters the flow of battle and keeps everyone on their toes. Simple but game changing.
Same here. Sometimes the first really is the best.
I played adnd for a few games with a very experienced gamemaster. For me changing the entire way of combat in terms of what players can do in each of their turns, would just be messy and annoying but changing up initiative makes the whole thing interesting. Ill try it and see if that doesnt just add 1 more unnecessary role to the conbat
In the system I’ve been writing, I use a system of combat that uses what I call, “ladder initiative”. I The start of combat, I start with 1. Each action or weapon has a speed score. The score of whatever action the player wants to do is added to their personal initiative. As I continue to count, once their number comes up, they perform their action, dice are rolled and everything is resolved, then they declare their next action and add that speed score to their last initiative count. Then I keep counting. Players are keeping track of their own initiative and watching the battlefield change as they wait for their number to come up. This keeps them super engaged and preparing for their action. Most combat ends up being 10-15 minutes long and is super action packed and stressful (in a good way). It also helps that my system is a little more on the deadly side, so players are considering their moves very carefully.
Rather than track initiative for all the NPCs, each npc has a speed score between 2 and 5, meaning each npc of that type will go every second, third, fourth, or fifth initiative count based on type. I have a chart in my screen that has 30 counts with highlighted spots for each of those speeds showing on which counts they are to act. So I just declare the number, check my chart and if one of the npc speeds present in the battle shows up on that number, those NPCs perform an action if it makes sense for them to do so.
Characters can all move one space (or inch) per count as well, ideally getting into position to perform their actions when their number comes up. So players are also engaged moving their pieces as I continue counting and moving NPCs around.
Admittedly, this system is a little jarring for someone coming from a round-based combat system, but once the player wraps their head around it combat speeds up like crazy and all players are on the edge of their seat. As GM, I am only worrying about the NPCs and answering the occasional question about the battlefield or opponents for the players to make informed decisions. The players take care of themselves.
Pathfinder 2e solves this with the 3 action economy, Opportunity of Attack is rare, crits are relative to the DC, and diagonal movement. It ends up being more coordination-focused and surprisingly easy to resolve quickly.
B/x solutions are also fantastic, just a different flavor.
Really it's just that D&D from 3.5e onwards made some bad design choices and we're all kind-of stuck with them.
5e also has three actions economy and the combat is frequently a slog.
Pathfinder 2e doesn't solve this... what are you talking about? lol
PF2E mechanics make a level 3 combat feel like a level 8 in DnD, everyone has more options and more decision points BECAUSE of the 3 action economy
@justatallguy I'm sorry your players are slow? Idk what to tell you there other than "My firsthand experience differs."
@@TheCraziestFox lmao k, guess the decade I spent using the DMG to run games was wrong.
You know, it's one thing to say that you crave simpler rulesets, but in doing so, there are elements that you lose that can make for enjoyable combat. I'm thinking of the super tactical options from pf2e like flanking, grappling, shoving etc. Things that make combat dynamic and interesting instead of just a hack-fest.
I think the issue really comes down to the HP pool.
Players and non-boss monsters just have too much health, which drags things out.
WFRP is very crunchy, a single round of combat in that can twice as long as a round in D&D but that one round is the equivalent of 3 or so rounds of D&D because a single hit on any character is so much more decisive.
HP bloat is part of it, but it really is just the number of options that players have, and most importantly, how many of those options are unique to that race/class.
In any turn you can attack, cast a spell, use a racial or class ability, use a magic item, interact with the environment... and that's just standard actions. Games benefit from the removal or toning down of most of this. If you want to run a tactical combat sim, play a video game - it's too much for a single DM to keep up with.
I really like the Palladium/Rifts combat system. Init, winner rolls to strike, opponent can then roll to parry, dodge, or give up those options to simultaneous/counter strike. Damage for the round (if any) is figured, and rinse and repeat in a nutshell, that’s how it works. Yes, when you add Martial Arts and special training or weapons, cybernetics or other enhancements, things can bog down for a few rounds but even in Alpha’s vs 20 Invid Shock Troopers, things went fairly quickly. Except when they threw volleys of mini-missiles. Then the damage calculations could get sticky.
A decent middle-ground between sidebased and individual initiatives that I've used before is the initiative from Mothership 0e. Everyone rolls initiative, players that roll 1-10 go after the monster(s), and those that rolled 11-20 go before. It has some of the speed and combo move potential of sidebased, but with a little bit less of the possible swinginess you mention with using sidebased in 5e.
Could be a good option!
Might be good way to go, especially if you reroll each turn.
@neilhewitson1617 ah yeah, that's the intended method. Forgot to mention that.
Been implementing the ol glass cannon strat. Enemies have fewer HP but it's more meaningful if you get hit
It's a really simple solution that I've used for a while and people make fun of me for until they sit at my table, but damn does it work wonders. I fullheartedly second this, combat should be fast, dangerous, and dynamic to be exciting.
Heck one of the most feared enemies in my dungeon I'm currently running for a level 20 party is some fire giant barons, they only have 104 hit points and always go last, but my players go absolutely crazy to make sure that thing doesn't get a turn, because if he does he is a whirlwind of firey death and has been known to drop multiple PCs in a round.
Keep in mind the party is level 20, so 104 hit points isn't a lot, but its still an incredibly large number for me, the average hp of all my monsters excluding bosses in this dungeon is 37. The players were just telling me a few minutes ago when I ended session that they know they're only halfway through this dungeon, but they're getting whooped, the casters are almost out of spell slots, the paladin is out of heals, and they've just downed their last healing potions. Then added that they simultaneously feel like badasses but like they're in mortal danger at the same time, and they think that is awesome, especially for high level 5e
We use Pathfinder 1e. I find the system is fast as along as the players know what they want to do at their turn. I have a good group so combat is normally quick. I do remember one of my player's wizard back in my 2nd edition D&D collage games that would take forever to decide what spell to use.
If the players are familiar with the system that definitely helps!
Feels like the key here is that your players know what they want to do. Arguably, every system is "faster" when the players know whats up.
I think you touched on the key point and that is the initiative system. Waiting for your turn is the most boring thing in DnD, and it is what makes peopel check out, especially if there is that one player in the group that sits there daydreaming for 10 minutes, and when it's finally his turn he goes "Right... ummm... so I ... umm... one second...." And starts reading his sheet. Oof.
Just changing that, if nothing else, and making it so everyone goes together, or making it a side-based initiative, solves most of the problems. Big HP solves the rest, but sadly to revamp that one you have to revamp the entire 5e system. So at that point just play an Old School system.
I find that people stuck to DnD just keep trying to hack it to pieces instead of choosing a better system. People want their cake and want to eat it too.
I've played ADnD with a lifelong DM of the system. The segment system in that game makes for a lot more structured combat rounds, but multi-attackers' attack spacing and the spell casting time of said segments can be a little too crunchy at times. While combat did go more smoothly than any 3.5e, PF1e, or 5e games I've been in, combat scenes still took just as long of play time as any of those more modern systems.
TL;DR
Looking into other and older systems can be great for ideas, but make sure to look at the whole picture of those systems in context. Learn, play, tweak, and repeat. Find what you do and don't like, both as players and DMs/GMs.
In my time of playing 5e there's one time we did a perfectly execited party combo.
I got to tell the party what to do, they did exactly what I said, and it was effective.
It was cool to see a party combo executed, but I know I'd hate having my turn taken by another.
So, did you continue play all their characters every combat? Sounds fun for you!
@@yzfool6639 it was one round. The enemy was dangerous and I said everything at once so everyone agreed beforehand.
Like I said, it's fun for one person in the moment. But we're friends so it felt bad to know they had less fun. Group side initiative is better for that stuff.
I appreciate that you have given a lot of thought to this. I've been playing and DMing for 50 years. I haven't noticed a great change in combat length or interactions. I have always started each round with "roll your initiative". I also roll initiative for the monsters when I DM (which is most of the time). I have battled against cell phones, teaching young players, and players who have short attention spans. I will tailor my encounters to suit the party of adventurers. As long as players enjoy the encounter, time doesn't matter much. Having monsters choose their targets is something a DM controls and can be used to make an encounter more interesting. Delaying the entry of some monsters can also give players a shock. The occasional monster fleeing can be a humor moment. A tricky monster will be remembered. All in all, I try to avoid multiple encounters that fall into a pattern of straight combat of four adventurers taking turns killing four monsters one on one. Everything, however, breaks down if you have a group that just abhors combat encounters. Good luck.
7:09 sure, a sword can only do 5-10 damage per round. But when you give it to a rogue with sneak attack or a paladin with smite? When the fighter jumps in with 2 attacks, superiority dice and an action surge? When the spellcasters easily land 20 damage per spell at level 5+?
That 45HP is not going to last a single round with a tier 2 party, unless they roll very poorly.
then add more mobs, more targets is the big leveler of combat situations. When players cant focus fire, then it is much more of a challenge.
I mean, if the dragon also rolls good than the part won't last 2 rounds too. 12hp wizard, old dnd sounds like Dark Souls in the PS3
In B/X Dragons breath attack does damage = current HP. So if it wins initiative, its gonna blast the PCs for 45 damage on round 1 (save for half). That's a cooked wizard.
I don't play dnd anymore but 3.5e or 5e work better at levels 1~5. There is E5 for 3.5 that stops level advancement at 5th level and allows PCs to advance in other ways. I feel like focusing on low level play while avoiding adding complexity would be best.
You brought up some very good points. You touched on player involvement, and I would say this is a major source of delay if they are not well versed in their characters abilities. I don't blame the players, however, because it's the system itself that brings the complications in the first place. Playing aids go a long way in fixing this such as cheat sheets for possible actions and spell cards for magic using types. Another frustrating mechanic is misses. To add excitement, I used to give my players a progressive +1 accumulatively for every miss but this didn't really solve the problem, so I just eliminated the miss altogether. players still roll the dice [for crit success or crit failure], but otherwise always hit. I really like the idea of side-based initiatives. I really don't see the problem with balance since if each side performs the same action in a round. It's better than missing and then being gang raped by several opponents all at once. Great videos keep it up Earth mote!! Cheers.
I like the notion of players being able to act together. For instance, it's now more possible to aid fallen teammates (one takes aid, another takes the help action to assist, two players are increasing the chances of a success). Or - two melee fighters rush onto an enemy at the same time, flanking it and possibly acquiring other bonuses (passive radius bonuses to attacks or saves, flank bonuses, etc.). Wombo spell combos - one could be a debuff, the other could be an attack spell. The converse is true as well, with NPC hordes actually acting as such, enemies working in tandem to corner off a spellcaster, that kind of thing. When you have individual turns, you simply think in a different way, acting in a vacuum.
You could keep everything else in 5e the same, and simply do the side-based initiative. Because it's all simultaneous, it doesn't matter if someone's action is narrated first or last. I think this would speed up rate of play. Also, it keeps every player engaged during both phases because they're not just acting alone, or waiting for their turn. Their turn is either first, or next, with a lot of chaos in-between.
This is so simple, and I can see how this could effect pacing for the better.
I think it also foments a notion of actual team work, rather than individually going, with monsters in between, rendering many combinations of possible actions sort of void.
As a hot take, I would also remove attacks of opportunity, or reduce damage on AoO (half damage or something), or allow everyone to bonus action disengage. The action economy for alternative actions in 5e renders basically anything but attacking very un-optimized. A lot of my combats end up in a pile in one spot because no one wants to move around (because they'll take damage). This is also true of NPC's or enemies, who would suffer from angling out of a situation, having to take their entire turn to do so, getting attacked, doing no damage, and then getting attacked again on subsequent player turns. Doing any of the above could make the physical combat more fluid, or at least reduce the penalty for attempting to get out of dodge. For example if you're low on HP and flanked by three enemies, in 5e you're just screwed. If you do the above, you'd be able to get out of harms way, cast a web spell, and at least hope for the best. Or you could run behind a pillar and hide, rendering the character untouchable to a lot of ranged attacks for their next turn. Or you could run away and heal. Or get out of dodge, run 20 feet back and fire an exploding arrow into the group, which you would have done with disadvantage before while possibly dying in the process.
I agree, complexity does not always equal more fun. Can be great, but needs to be used with care.
Tunnels and Trolls is good for this :-)
Great video Earthmote
Nice points, but could you run us through how to do the old school battle mechanics so I can get a better idea how to do it? Having a little trouble understanding the mechanics from reading those images. Thanks for the video
So, I do prefer old-school games, and in general agree with most everything you said. However, I do need to flag up where you said that damage is relatively similar in editions. Newer editions have lots of way to do more damage. Last 5e session I played in, I did over 100 damage in 2 attacks (paladin smit+crit). No way I could do that in B/X! Granted, I don't need to either, but I guess even with the HP 'bloat', characters maintain parity.
True enough! their abilities can make a huge difference in damage. But I'd argue that even if the abilities less the impact of the HP bloat, they still slow the game down via more dice rolls, more arithmetic, more referencing of rules/mechanics etc.
Something I do for initiative in play by posts I do is I give every monster the same static initiative, which creates a DC like you do for most things. 12 is a good number when in doubt. Any PC that beats this DC with their initiative roll goes before the enemy, then all the enemies, then from that point on it is side initiative of all PCs then all enemies. If there is a big boss, you can either raise the DC or make them unique and have their own initiative, though the 2nd option means there is a chance you don't really have side initiative anymore
The solution is to play AD&D 2nd edition and utilize the book Player's Option: Combat & Tactics. When handling critical hits, I always start the first die off at maximum damage, add the bonuses once, then roll the additional dice and add those. Also, I up the severity of the critical hit tables by one die category. Additionally, a saving throw vs. death reduces the severity by half, but does not negate the injury. In short, combat should feel dangerous and unpredictable, both for the PCs and their enemies.
My D&D experience is mostly confined to BECMI, but I left it years ago because there were certain things that I didn't like-- primarily Vancian magic and Hit Points. In recent years, I have had a nostalgia-driven urge to play again, but turned instead to OSE and other games like ShadowDark and Dragonbane.
I much prefer a rules-light approach. I know a lot of people feel they need dozens of options on their character sheet, but as suggested here, I find that only slows things down without adding that much depth. Rather than choosing from a vast menu of action options, I much prefer to simply state what the character is trying to do, then apply some basic rules.
I like to lead with the fiction and apply rules as necessary. Personally, I really like Fate Core, which has a grand total of 4 moves: Overcome, Create an Advantage, Attack, Defend. You can do anything you want using this approach. Want to sweep someone's legs out from under them? Create an Advantage. Want to throw sand in their eyes? Create an Advantage. Disarm them? Create an Advantage. Maneuver them into a corner? Create an Advantage. One simple rule lets you do virtually anything, making it quick and easy.
Fewer options allows you to focus on imagining what you *want* to do, rather than looking up what you *can* do.
Maybe I missed you mentioning it, but an interesting thing to note is that HP bloat doesn't just apply to monsters. In older editions, there was a cap on how many hit dice you got. Past that point, you only received a fixed number of hit points per level, which did NOT include your Con bonus. Which meant that players having to retreat rather than carry on a prolonged fight was a very real possibility.
I think the side-based initiative, more than anything, has made a massive difference in my games. Now, I'm playing Pf2, so the combat's still take a while but this probably cut combat time in half
On the monsters having complex and diverse things to do.
I think it’s a good thing. But I think as soon as the party see a new cool thing twice or thrice that’s enough to show it off and without being boring.
Use alternating initiative. The winning side chooses who among them goes first, then the other side does the same. If you get more than one attack in a round, an ally has to go in between (if possible). The GM can group monsters (two archers attacking at the same time) if there are more monsters than heroes.
This works until you realize they always let the wizard go first so they can start with fireball, every single combat.
@@sleepinggiant4062 I came here for this comment
I had a idea for a system i want to make, basically all the class features would be in a card/cheat sheet so you can quickly reference them like "can use a action to attempt a disarming blow for -4 aim" or "at level 6, dispels all psi effects at the start of your turn"
Look at fabula ultima, they do that
4e did that, and people criticized it as "pushing paper buttons". 4e is awesome though
Just my opinion ~ The higher the level, the more bogged down combat gets. Even in earlier editions, scaling back hp or capping levels can help, especially if role play and narrative are key in the game. role play in combat with a good DM improving rules for all the player's wild ideas, is way more exciting than games where players are looking for their 'whirlwind attack bonus' because they have that 'feat'. We don't need hard RAW for everything. Again, just my opinion, and as always, relies on open minded DMs and players who trust one another.
We had to stop playing 5e all together because the combat was slow, and more annoyingly, it was boring. It wasn't just the DM either, they put their heart into every combat we had to engage in, but Goddamn it was so slow, and so tiresome. We went back to 4e, and we did our first combat encounter and it was done in not even 10 minutes. Everyone read their sheets, understood what to do, and pretty soon combos flew left and right. We won't be going back lmao
One thing you loose with these extended engagements is that immediacy of combat. Actual combat is FAST. Seconds feel like hours. An actual sword duel might last a few minutes with cautious combatants. But, desperate combat against lots of enemies requires you put them down as fast as possible to avoid being overrun. You don't have time for fancy strategy sessions. (think Blackhawk Down with swords) You have to get the monster(s) on the ground ASAP. If you're not feeling the desperation to come up with an answer NOW before you all die you're missing the essence of combat.
I'd suggest your players work out before they go in who handles what. Think of military doing a room clearing. They have a set procedure. One man breaches the door, one man goes right, the other goes left, etc. Your players should be sitting down and hashing this out before they leave the tavern. Because in world, unless they were total newbies, they'd have their party organized and procedures in place before they set foot in the dungeon. Their survival depends on it.
Yes, older edition combat is faster. But remember too, it is also more deadly. At least it was in the Moldvay basic and AD&D I grew up with. Combat was a risky endeavor in general. And remember save vs poison or die? Good times!
That was a feature, not a bug though.
Combat is often best avoided in D&D for that very reason. As a DM, I give XP for the mere encounter, which is experience.
Very good thoughts and logic. 🍻
I've learned as a DM that lower level (1-5) is ideal because A: it prevents character sheet bloat and players scouring their sheets forever *cough* wizards *cough* and faster combat. B: It's much easier to balance low level D&D imo. I'm also working on the final boss to speed up combat: Convincing my group to try OSE.
I think initiative should be different each round, and I think it should be individual initiative. sure a moment more to roll but it works better than static initiative AND is more realistic than side based rolls.
Just before 2024 dnd rulebook relase i started a new campaing with my homebrew monk school that compeletely changes the combat rotation and tempo and feeling. Now we have played to chapter 3 gaining 3 levels. Well see how the campaing goes once we get to midpoint or end.
Running homebrew rules. I only give players a few HP per level after their initial first level pool. Essential hunan hardiness cannot be much improved by ‘experience’ as opposed to armour/spells. Keeps it scary. Ofc I am using AD&D monsters stats (not 5ed) as more proportionate to this approach.
I'm an Ola AD&D as well as ice player. I don't recall ever losing attention but I'm not a 20 something. I've heard castles and crusades is truly the spiritual successor to AD&D but have never played it. If you have I would love to hear of the experience
I have not played C&C! They had a new edition come out recently on Kickstarter though? Maybe it was a reprint, not sure.
Try Mithras. The combat is much more dangerous, visceral, and cinematic. You need players that want that level of realism. If they also know their character and their abilities it makes for a very rich adventure.
love this! we play pathfinder 2e for the combat/tactics!
The number one thing that slows down combat are unprepared players or an unprepared DM. If the DM and the players know exactly what they want to do on their turns and they are familiar with their characters and the rules then combat should go relatively smoothly, regardless of edtion, or system
I've been in games where a big 5e combat took 2.5 hours out of a 3 hour session. Slow combat sucks!
The thing that gets me is "what particular vectors make a game that long?"
It seems everyone is quick on ancetodes, what systems to play but no stats or half ass proper measurements and experiments.
Side Initiative in D&D 5e would be difficult. The action pool of 5e is huge in comparison to 1st or 2nd edition. I did find that that a Back and Forth Initiative does work very well for 5e and increases player engagement.
WoTC combat isn't sluggish because of complexity. It's due to the heroic hack 'n' slash design of the system. Similar to ARPGs like Diablo or Path of Exile, modern D&D is a numbers game; It's HP and healing.
The most complex systems have quick combat, because it's deadly. Examples of such systems would be Hârnmaster and Rolemaster.
Hackmaster 5e is pretty much what a 3/3.5 edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons would have been. It's incredibly snappy and quick, despite being more complex, and it keeps player engagement through it's count-based initiative because it's got a feeling of competitve chess with how quickly it moves to the next player's turn.
More rules doesn't equal slower. Modern D&D is just horribly designed.
HackMaster is the only ttrpg I've bought physical books aside from AD&D.
Sadly it is much slower to do over text so I don't use it for my online play-by-post group.
You are the first one to convince me to try side based battles.
Do you use maps or theater of the mind?
This sounds very close to how HYPERBOREA handles their combat sequence.
Haven't played it, but if I'm thinking of the same system I believe Hyperborea is an AD&D variant, so I'm not surprised.
@@Earthmote, correct you would be. It is a shame to not play, but you only have so much time for these things. I have nothing but praise for the system/settling/adventures North Wind Games has produced.
Dude, I agree with the time spent on 5e combats. I've been playing shadowdark for a while, in Dolmenwood, as I mentioned on a previous video of yours. Maybe it is my groups preference, we'll be getting back to 5e, because of the combat, we like it even if it takes some extra time. But it felt good to play fast combats for a while
Some people like crunchy combat, and that's cool! I just like to keep it moving with the time available for my gaming sessions.
It funny, i remember when I was preparing to do a campaign for a friend, i was going to do a Fallout 2 style thing where the heroes generally go first with 2 to 3 actions they can do to keep it streamline.
Currently forgot what i would of done but I think it noice.
The original version of D&D was an outgrowth of wargaming, hence it had an emphasis on "combat". The mechanics of the early game reflected the quick turns and quick resolution of a single exchange of attacks. As you ably illustrate, the modern game has moved away from a wargame mentality and each player character and many monsters have so many options during their turn that they feel like an entire army rather than a single creature in comparison to 1970 era wargames. Some will like this, many may not.
I've played a lot of 4e, 5e and Pathfinder 2e. I have to say that PF2E combat is waaaay better than DnD. It's just so much more finely balanced.
Haven't played it, but I'm glad you find it an improvement!
I never find combat frustrating while playing or running D&D. I find other people frustrating when they take forever to take their turn, or the DM fudges or saves us because of poor encounter planning, or people waste time arguing or asking a thousand questions or try and schmooze the DM into letting them cheat.
Save time:
Use Theater of the Mind for simple or easy combats. Us the battle board for complex or important combats.
Use minions (one hit), or a small d6 to track HP instead of tracking them exactly and individually for lesser monsters.
Use average damage.
Be prepared to run your combat and know the monster's abilities and your party's abilities.
Nose out of books, make rulings instead of looking up rules (spells are an exception). No arguing.
Make sure to set the expectation that your players need to pay attention when it's not their turn, and be prepared when it comes for their turn. they also need to know their character's abilities.
I will never use side initiative, or around the table.
"Yes, we can quibble about if that logically makes sense..."
It doesn't.
"...or if that's the best way to handle combat..."
It is.
Not everything has to make sense! That's the biggest problem with 3e--it got too bogged down by trying to hard to make everything concrete and sensible. If you look at any individual 3e rule, you'll go "Yeah, that makes sense." But it made the game practically unplayable, and D&D has never really recovered! Sacrifices have to be made for good gameplay.
When during the game you have to open the rule books and spend time seeing how something works, in my opinion it is a sign of bad game design. For me, fewer rules and simplicity = more speed and fun (and more choices for everyone).
Modern games have less of this when "gun" is basically a great choice unless you are in melee
I tried 5E as both player and DM. Gotta say, I now only consider TSR, or products that merely reorganized TSR rules like OSE, to be real DnD. WoTC is something else, not DnD.
Great video
5E wasn't built around side-based initiative. It is not that simple just to change the whole concept of battle. When every PC has lots of abilities (just like enemies), when positioning matters, it is more crucial to split turns between all characters.
5E is not some OSR-game, were you have just fews bonks and maybe someone has 1 spell (like OSE) and you all have 10 HP max.
Since PCs in 5E are more deadly than typical monsters, ofc their initiative will make victory in one-two turns.
Side-based initiative is a great idea, but I think it doesn't work with 5E without breaking the game.
You say that, but in many instances it's fundamentally the same. Let's take a simple example, 5 players vs a single monster; sure 2 characters go before the monster, then the monster acts. From that point forward, all 5 characters act then the monster acts and so on.
Many DMs group similar monsters together. Maybe there's the giant and 5 hobgoblins. That's two activations not 6. With that behaviour, it's not at all uncommon for the same scenario to play out. A couple of characters act, then the giant followed by the hobgoblins... Then all 5 characters.
The bigger difference between old school initiative and modern initiative is that old school initiative was rolled every round.
@@benwooding1311 Group of hobgoblins can anihilate party member, because of synergy combat abilities. It is devastating, if such 5 monsters can plan their turn like a SWAT against one character. Again, different approach to the game.
If you add something to the game, you are appose to tweak it so it is line with the rest of the system.
"Theortically" if this was a issue, i would make the first round a "scramble" turn like in Xcom, both the players and monsters get a chance to run for cover and do one attack or quick spell to cancel out "i gigabuff the barb to smash the kobold" and the monsters arent "they pull out their gattling gun and wipe out the first npc they seee"
Idk why but dnd people seem to forget adjusting things they add in. Like it is unpossible.
@@Subject_Keter Scramble mehacnic looks really great. I also thought about it from time to time.
It is not impossible. The problem is that Dnd books are poorly written and you basically don't even learn how to tweak or adjust game. For example, Pathfinder teaches you and gives you all the instruments for theses tasks. That's why it is understandable how to move things around.
@@sonder_ua "Appearently" the dnd community considers it "unpossible" and "crazy" to fix dnd but like.. we are what we are because became creative and not fucking golems who cant figure out how to string a bow or get off our beds.
I dont need tools, charts and other systems to do my craft. The only thing i need to do is make the game fun for the bois and people who want to play with me.
This isnt coding where it unpossible to learn because everyone hides the info, it is right in front of you. You just need the balls to take it and make it yours.
Have you taken a look at Nimble 5E? I CANNOT wait until it fully releases.
I have not! Do you think its speeds up combat?
You mean a several session long combat with over an hour between turns is not the norm? *gasp
Old man yells at cloud
Good stuff.
Psychedelic Acid is the best spell because it has a duration of 8-12 hours.
Oh, it's a spell. Old school, it wasn't. It was a player action.
@10:20 I would love to see a video of this. I have never really understood how old school combat was run. If I am casting a spell, I have to let you know, so you can target me with missile and melee attacks so that I lose my spell? Also, I don't get to move? I don't know about you, but I can do dance, katas, walk, run, etc. while talking. Seems like that I should be able to move and cast a spell.
I guess I should not bring up the whole they hated mages back then, but I would love to see examples of b/x combat. Every one of the examples I have seen has made mistakes or did not make sense.
I love Earthmote videos and hope others do as well.
If the player is not 'with it', then neither is the character
I would summarize this video as, "Combat takes more time when you give players fun options, and when the monsters can do interesting things." I can't believe how many people find this objectionable.
But I thought I was having a stroke when I heard you compare the raw hp scores of monsters in different editions of the game. One of two things must be true. Either you don't comprehend that
Curious if you’ve played other games than 5e?
To be more real though, I encourage you to think about how there’s way more ways to differentiate characters and monsters than just special abilities, a monster that ambushes, vs. Charges vs. Uses hit an run tactics will feel very different even if they use the exact same stats. Sometimes less is just more with these kinds of things.
The last thing I wanna say is characters can do way more than what’s on their character sheets! Kicking over tables to get cover, throwing sand in people’s eyes, trying diplomacy etc.
All this is to say, to each their own, it’s fine to prefer one style of game over the other, just wanted to provide some extra input
It's insane that TTRPG TH-camrs have to trash talk D&D to get clicks and clout and wind us saying cartoonishly dishonest things like "It is a flaw of modern D&D, specifically, that players get bored at the table and look at their phones and need to be caught up. That's a problem of the game system and not bad GMing, bad players and modern culture." Just a wild thing to say.
Man, I'm sorry. This video was beyond the threshold of what is a respectable use of my time. I gotta unsubscribe.
im not sure its necessarily complexity, so much as internet addled brains. i got started in 2e but personally prefer 3.5 the most, and in a group with a strict no screens only paper rule things still move by pretty quick, and 3.5 is arguably the most complex edition. 5e in particular cut back alot of things, personally i hated that it gutted the skills system, 5e skills are awful and make no sense to me. either way, its overall a simpler system than 3.5 yet i find things still take notably longer in a group using it. maybe its the system itself, maybe its my poor attitude about it (im always a little grumpy if im playing 5e because frankly i hate it and it means i lost the argument for 3.5, so it could be all my fault lol) or maybe social media and tik toc has actually rotted peoples brains and the average attention span of people is now stuck at goldfish level. who really knows for certain?
Old school DnD combat was WAY better. ❤
Every round you rolled initiative. You stated what you were going to do at the beginning of the round. Everyone rolled individually and modified their roll by weapon speed, Dex modifier, magic bonus, etc. It was ALWAYS exciting and unique. Daggers were much faster than Great Swords. High Dex characters had a big advantage here. Low Dex had a penalty. It seemed more realistic by far.
Sometimes it sucked and your spell was wasted because the monster died or the situation didn't apply anymore. Many times the spell going first made a tremendous diff. But that's how life is. New DnD turned the game into a bland 2D board game, a video game with flashy imaginary colors and lots of dice rolls for damage. "Psychic damage"?!? Everyone can see in the dark and behind every corner. "Advantage"?!? Dumb.
No thanks.
Yep
Y'all really need to stop and ask if faster combat really does equal funner combat. I've played GURPS and Roll Master on the slower side and Rangers of Shadowdeep which is the fastest and most efficient combat I can image a combat mechanic to be. Those extra dice rolls and charts can build tension and suspense while the fiddly bits open up for lots of strategic thinking that can change the outcome of the whole battle dramatically making the Player as well as the Character the hero of the Day. fast combat is just "boom boom boom on to the next roll". I'm not saying slower is better. I'm saying that sometimes something sounds true and reasonable but still isn't. Ask yourself what you want and why.
🔥
Someone who isn't paying attention when it isn't their turn is being inconsiderate. The game isn't only about that one person. At my table, the players are invested in *each other*, so when their turn is over, they are still interested in what happens for the next character. It's not, "I did my turn, so I'll play monopoly go until it's my turn again..." If I had players like that, I wouldn't have them after that session, because I'd replace them.
Or correct them.
5e seems like it sucks
No. It's mainly marketing and cognitive bias.
thanks, this was an excellent reminder of a better, more balanced game than the current play. could the primary differences between the bloated, OP, needlessly complex modern game and the clean, simplistic, older version be explained by the fact that the older version was designed to be exclusively analog with a live and active referee and the modern version was designed to become so complex as to be entertaining only with digital play using an AI referee? that notion does credit wotc/hasbro having a LOT more foresight and intelligence than they normally show, but...
I would counter with the consumer unability to adapt or otherwise conform the product to their standards as a sign of weakness.
How can you claim such is a thing if you never tried it?
How can it be made better if the consumers never even tried to wrangle it.
@@Subject_Keter how wonderful, a wotc troll complete with sideways personal swipes: if you have not noted exactly what was sited in this video and mentioned in my comment, then you either are not playing the game (which is troll like behavior) or you have never played the pre-wotc games (which is, again, troll-like behavior). in either case, your opinion (and swipe) are moot. I have regularly played every version on both sides of the screen from B to 2024 (when they were current) in groups large and small. i can state empirically that every wotc version bogs down if played as intended, the worse being 2024. despite wotc's apparent disdain for the playability of the game in the community, i have enjoyed almost every session (including ones using v2 and 4e). sorry for the length of this reply, but i do not intend on placing another for this video or continuing a discussion with the likes of any shill troll. enjoy....
@@CruentusVI happen to agree with you about the old, versus new, game.
@@CruentusV ya nah.
You are clearly a golem who cant even process what they want, how they would do it or let alone be able to achieve the stuff they want.
Also for someone that says "you are a troll for.. fixing the system" i say in return.
"All systems are sloggish and stoggie because they must be inputted through a crappy interface called humanity. If you are unable to meet it half way or backstab it to adjust it, you are a troll to generate customers for X system 😂
I can play Pathfinder 2e and muck it up but it doesnt make the system bad 😂
I can play dnd 5e and make it better for my table 😂
Please show me the part where wotc manifest the pinkertons to make me unable to make dnd better." 😮😅😂😂
I still think we need to dump initiative & turns and play combat as it is in reality: everything takes place in real time, players move their minis, roll the dice for hits & damage, and only pause play to resolve spells or more complicated actions.
Fighting a dragon or a bunch of Orcs is one of the most fantastical things you can do in an rpg. Reducing combat to a turn-based boardgame destroys the immersion and tension that make the game fun.
My brain melts just trying to imagine what this would be like. In a bad way.
This is what mmorpgs are made for.
As for tabletop? I doubt any game designer would try it. Would it simulate the chaos and energy of battle? Sure! Would it be fun? No... especially not for the GM trying to hear and track all the data while also using thier own moves.
@@KKRDM Lol you may be right. 😅
But if you **were** to design a "real time" combat system, how would you do it?
I think it would work best for a Conan-style hack and slash where the PCs are fighting a bunch of minions. For example who all have 1 hp, the same AC, and similar weapons.
Keep combat simple, so no fancy actions. Offload some of the DM's duties to the players that don't require DM oversight. Players handle their own character's to-hit and damage rolls, the DM does the same with the monsters. Use hit point tracks for PCs and non-minion monsters accessible to all players.
Movement might have to be regulated to prevent complete chaos. Like players move their PC mini by rolling 1d4 or 1d6 # of grid squares.
Too many abilities are seemingly made just to make up interesting ability names.
Have you heard of a system that uses Stamina in place of Action points? You spend Stamina to do things and it resets at the start of your turn. But, if you spent all of it, you might lose a huge amount of HP!
Best solution: switch to SWADE which is a far superior system with fast action packed combat
But is it? Normally i say stuff to be "funny" but is it because you follow it like a wotc ai dungeon master or it a placebo?
@@Subject_Keter DND uses hit points that get ridiculously high, without any methods to chunk it down outside spells and monsters.
SWADE doesnt even use hit points, you hit a target hard enough to shake them, wound em, gives multiple wounds possibly.
its quick on its own, compared to 5es most commonly used spells like fireball: im not waiting around for soemthing as ridiculous as e gigantic spell list for the spellcasters to read through, roll literally 8d6 if not mroe dice, and then roll saving throws for every last unit caught in an aoe, and doing more math for their damage taken, health points lsot of each of them.
SWADE is simple, and yet provides more complexity to combat and roleplay expression. in SWADE itll be like "I cast Blast (Hurriance), i roll 2d6... no imma upcast it to 3d6 (a maximum) and i get... 13 damage."
In SWADE especially, the non important characters are called extras, and they tend to have 1 wound maxiomum, not 1 hitpoint like 4e, but theyre meant to be wiped at 1 wound of damage.
I also dont get your " wotc ai dungeon master" you understand that 5e is absolutely garbage right? or you think its worth anyones time? I ran 5e extremely fast, and my table was fast, and it still took too long.
Nah....
What I'm hearing is, the real game is too hard, so play D&D for Dummies instead. How about, Get Good instead?
no system is fast or slow, deadly or not…
I think the best system is the one you make for yourself, tuned to your group.
What do you mean?
@ style can’t be blamed on a book! there are many paths
Consider using a deterministic system instead of die rolls.
So what I get from this video is that yall hate giving players agency. You don’t want them to strategize and have cool abilities they can use, you want them to always do the same things in the same order and as quick as possible cause you want to keep it moving…why are you even playing D&D? Play an RPG made for Roleplaying more, hell there are even some without any combat! Stop playing games and systems that favor combat or are built around it, if you don’t find combat fun. Just don’t remove the fun part from the combat cause you hate it.
If that's all you got from this video I don't imagine you get much from anything, hehehe.
If enough people are feeling this is an issue, it's legitimate. Just because you want your whole 3 hr session to be one combat doesn't mean everyone else does. I like the combat, but I also agree that it's the longest portion of the session every time. A much larger part of dnd is the rp and world building itself. The quest. Being a fan of dnd to the point, I'm excited about future sessions. When they come, I want as much to happen as can happen. If combat is taking up so much of it. That my team and I can barely get through several rooms before the 3 hr session ends. Then, something can be done to make it a better balance of combat and rp.
Absolutely incorrect assumption. You can still do all the stuff and strategies.
This comment is crazy lol