Rules to speed up 3e combat

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Howdy all.

While gathering information for my 3e revamp project focused on trying to bring back a 2e feel (yes, someone's making another revision, surprise), one of the things I've heard over and over again (and noticed myself) is that 2e combat was much faster and 3e combat is much slower, relatively speaking. However, I never got any specific reasons for this besides "high levels go slower" and "AoOs are complicated"--and since I played 2e and 3e with different groups with different skill levels, personal experience isn't going to help here.

So I'm asking a few questions to you folks, particularly anyone who also played older editions:

1. What in particular helped speed up 2e combat relative to 3e? Was it fewer rules, more intuitive rules, what?
2. What in particular slows down 3e the most for your group(s)? Is it the number of choices, the complication, something else?
3. What have you done to mitigate the slowdown, mechanically? As in, not "everyone decides what to do in 30 seconds or delays" or that sort of thing.
4. What are some ideas to mitigate problems that you haven't necessarily used before? Weird ideas are fine; we can hash them out into something usable.

As an example, I'm removing AoOs because keeping track of what provokes when and where is a pain, and also because it pretty much requires a grid rather than the more freeform 2e combat. Instead, there are feats and other abilities that let you make attacks as immediate actions, so instead of keeping track of who moves where and what they're doing, you can simply say "I smack the guy moving next to me" whenever you want. If AoOs' detailed movement tracking and complicated provoking caused problems, one can remove those two aspects while still allowing the tactical influence of out-of-turn attacks.

If you can think of something that slows down both 2e and 3e, of course feel free to contribute that as well; I'm looking to streamline combat in general, not make 3e an exact copy of 2e. There's a reason I'm starting with 3e and looking back instead of the reverse, after all.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

[Zeta Kai]

You know, ever since swift actions & immediate actions were introduced to D20, I've been wondering why we still need attacks of opportunity. The ostensible reason for AoO's is to prevent the guard-bypass scenario. AoO's stop an assassin from running past a line of guards & kill the king, because every time they enter a guard's threatened space, they provoke an attack.

But with an immediate action, the guards could act out of turn & do the same thing: protect their king. But performing immediate attacks are a lot easier mechanically, & end up using a lot less convoluted rules. An immediate action takes up less text in the book, the same amount of time at the game table, & less rules mastery on the part of the players. So why do we have those clunky, funky AoO's?

[Zeful]

You know, ever since swift actions & immediate actions were introduced to D20, I've been wondering why we still need attacks of opportunity.

They weren't introduced at beginning of an edition, so they're really only variant rules.

[Zeta Kai]

They weren't introduced at beginning of an edition, so they're really only variant rules.

Both swift & immediate actions made it into the SRD. Not as variants, but as valid action types on par with standard, move, full-round, & free actions. They may have been introduced in non-core material (the Miniatures Handbook & the Expanded Psionic Handbook, respectively), but they are official & better than AoO's in most respects.

[AstralFire]

Mainly because too many builds were built around ridiculous AoO usage, probably, for them to feel comfortable removing something that was built into the game and not overpowered, just inelegant. I've wondered the same.

[Gorgondantess]

Let's give some examples, shall we?
1st of all, in 2e, there weren't full-round actions and swift actionsand move actions and all that. You can move, and you can attack/cast a spell/drink a potion/whatever. That's it.
2nd, things like checks were self contained. There were no DCs- if you make a saving throw vs. a level 1 wizard casting charm person, it's the same as a saving throw vs. a level 20 wizard casting dominate person. Skill checks were just rolling below the requisite score with some arbitrary modifiers.
3rd, there weren't things like critical hits- you roll an attack roll, and you roll damage. You're done.
There weren't things like metamagic for wizards and clerics. You cast one spell a turn. The end.
Anyhow, that's only the tip of the iceberg. The thing is, 3e is (or at least tries to be) more realistic and balanced. If you want realism, you need complexity (try playing GURPS). 2e preferred simplicity. Complex things take longer than simple things. If you want things to go quicker, you'll need to give up something too.

[Zeful]

Both swift & immediate actions made it into the SRD. Not as variants, but as valid action types on par with standard, move, full-round, & free actions. They may have been introduced in non-core material (the Miniatures Handbook & the Expanded Psionic Handbook, respectively), but they are official & better than AoO's in most respects.

The SRD is simply material under the OGL. OGL material isn't necessarily core material. So unless there's a errata of the Core books to include swift and immeadiate actions, they're variant rules. Good variant rules, but variant rules nonetheless.

[gabado]

Simple when the player starts his or her turn count down from ten or somthing if the player does not take their turn before 0 they get skipped.

[Rhawin]

But with an immediate action, the guards could act out of turn & do the same thing: protect their king. But performing immediate attacks are a lot easier mechanically, & end up using a lot less convoluted rules. An immediate action takes up less text in the book, the same amount of time at the game table, & less rules mastery on the part of the players. So why do we have those clunky, funky AoO's?

If you mean to make it so that attacks can be made as immediate actions regardless of what your opponent is doing, then you introduce a whole host of problems and essentially provide everyone with a free attack each round. If you mean to make AoOs simply act as immediate action but rely on the same triggers, then the rules are just as convoluted, only now you can't AoO and use immediate actions on the same turn, and Combat Reflexes and similar effects would be more complicated. Keeping AoOs as they are would likely be simpler. Besides, once all the players have learned how AoOs work (at most 1-2 sessions of regular play) the rules themselves don't limit time, only the extra rolling.

Zone of Control effects are hard to implement in turn-based games, despite being incredibly important in anything both described as 'tactical' and involving melee. Simply blocking movement is unrealistic and overly prohibitive, so instead AoOs are used to imitate leaving yourself open to attack. Perhaps there's an easier way to reach the same result but I can't think of one off the top of my head.

/ontopic
AoOs, as stated previously, and the many action types slow down combat. More monsters and characters have spells, special abilities, and other effects as well, making it take longer for them to decide what to do on their turn (which is why "Count to ten" rules are effective, but then combat feels rushed and businesslike rather than fun).

Another problem is the number of dice involved, especially at higher levels. Its not uncommon for characters to need to roll dozens of d6s each round *cough*dragonfireinspiration*cough*, and characters have more attacks per round. Higher hit point totals make combat last more rounds and therefore more time. Both of these bring play to a crawl at higher levels.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Thanks for the feedback, folks.

1st of all, in 2e, there weren't full-round actions and swift actionsand move actions and all that. You can move, and you can attack/cast a spell/drink a potion/whatever. That's it.

That's basically the standard/move action thing 3e has. I'm only keeping swift and immediate actions so the former can be shorthand for "it doesn't take an action, but you can only do one" and the latter for tactical things like the AoO replacement.

2nd, things like checks were self contained. There were no DCs- if you make a saving throw vs. a level 1 wizard casting charm person, it's the same as a saving throw vs. a level 20 wizard casting dominate person. Skill checks were just rolling below the requisite score with some arbitrary modifiers.

I've already tried to get back to the old save tables by standardizing DCs (10 + 1/2 level + Cha mod for all abilities, regardless) and cutting down on modifier types (currently enhancement, insight, armor, and deflection). I dearly miss THAC0, but taking all of 3e and putting it on a 20-point spread isn't going to work.

3rd, there weren't things like critical hits- you roll an attack roll, and you roll damage. You're done.

Got that too--20 is an auto-hit and nothing more; you can get special effects like Vorpal or stunning or whatever, but nothing by default.

There weren't things like metamagic for wizards and clerics. You cast one spell a turn. The end.

Yep, Quicken's gone. And good riddance.

Anyhow, that's only the tip of the iceberg. The thing is, 3e is (or at least tries to be) more realistic and balanced. If you want realism, you need complexity (try playing GURPS).

I prefer the complete ruleset and verisimilitude of 3e, another reason I'm starting with it. The main problem is complexity versus complication; complexity is good, allowing customization and representation of most everything, while complication is bad, slowing things down for no reason. The 3e skill system is complex; the 3e grapple system is complicated. I'm trying to condense all of the complexity as I can to simplify it a bit without losing the good aspects, and remove the complicated or problematic parts.

2e preferred simplicity. Complex things take longer than simple things. If you want things to go quicker, you'll need to give up something too.

Which I fully realize; I'm trying to make it resemble 2e in feel and speed, not be 2e, or I'd just play 2e. I'm changing a lot more than the combat system, I just needed a bit more help with this part to get the feel and flow right.

If you mean to make it so that attacks can be made as immediate actions regardless of what your opponent is doing, then you introduce a whole host of problems and essentially provide everyone with a free attack each round. If you mean to make AoOs simply act as immediate action but rely on the same triggers, then the rules are just as convoluted, only now you can't AoO and use immediate actions on the same turn, and Combat Reflexes and similar effects would be more complicated. Keeping AoOs as they are would likely be simpler. Besides, once all the players have learned how AoOs work (at most 1-2 sessions of regular play) the rules themselves don't limit time, only the extra rolling.

The way I'm doing it is as follows:

Opportunist [Combat]
Prerequisite
BAB +6
Benefit
As an immediate action, you may make a single melee or ranged attack against any opponent within melee reach (for melee attacks) or one range increment (for ranged attacks). A ranged attack made in this way takes a cumulative -1 penalty on the attack roll for every 5 feet of distance between you and the target.

It's much simpler this way, it limits the amount of attacks you can take outside of your turn to 1 regardless (and takes the place of other immediate actions), and it gives archery types some love. Yes, it's better than regular AoOs, but that's also intentional, and you can't get it until 6th level at the earliest.

AoOs, as stated previously, and the many action types slow down combat. More monsters and characters have spells, special abilities, and other effects as well, making it take longer for them to decide what to do on their turn (which is why "Count to ten" rules are effective, but then combat feels rushed and businesslike rather than fun).

Making it so that swift actions are really only a switch for "can use it this round"/"can't use it this round" and that immediate actions are basically an AoO as above should help, I think.

Plethora of spells--I'm cutting down spells per day and spells known, so that should make that a bit easier.

Monster special abilities--It's a fairly wide variance, from one or two for mooks to tons for unique creatures. What do you think the optimum number of abilities for both allowing a dynamic combat and keeping things simple is? I'm thinking 2-4, but I'm open to suggestions.

Another problem is the number of dice involved, especially at higher levels. Its not uncommon for characters to need to roll dozens of d6s each round *cough*dragonfireinspiration*cough*, and characters have more attacks per round. Higher hit point totals make combat last more rounds and therefore more time. Both of these bring play to a crawl at higher levels.

Multiple attacks--those are gone; 1 attack per round, with a limited number of extras from haste, TWF, and such, so that should help.

Lots of dice--Hey, we all love to roll that fistful of dice.

High HP--Here's one place I'm struggling. I want to keep the d4/d6/d8/d10 HD spread, but I don't think cutting HD off at 10th level like 1e and 2e is a good idea to limit HP. Does anyone have ideas for a good compromise to keep HP low yet still allow for sufficient differentiation among classes?

[Rhawin]

The problem I have with that AoO fix is it basically removes AoOs. Rather than preventing monsters from walking up to Wizards, it just adds a nice chunk of damage each round. Softies are extra soft with this, and the melee classes are even more unappealing targets for most monsters. Depending on your changes to spellcasting in general and Wizards in particular this can be a good thing, though.The other main function of AoOs, spell disruption, is retained.

Can you elaborate why you think cutting HP off at level 10 is a bad idea? Classes are still differentiated, only the margin doesn't grow as large (ie Fighters still have 40 more hitpoints than wizards). It adds "realism" in that high level Fighters can't ignore surely lethal dangers, makes Wizards vulnerable when their protections are down, and keeps weapon damage relevant.

[Morandir Nailo]

Simplifying AoOs is definitely a good start, and I think that cutting down HP is a great idea as well; but I'd also suggest that you do the same thing for monster hp, by not applying their Con bonus with each hit die - just give the bonus once.

If you compare monster HP between 2e and 3e you'll find that in a lot of cases, HP doubled (or even tripled!), yet weapon and spell damage remained the same. As an example, a Troll has 63 HP in 3e but would average in the mid 30s in 2e - almost doubling its time onstage, as it were. This is because monsters now have a Con score, and ability scores have larger bonuses, and monsters are given HP the same way that PCs are.

So by taking monster HP back to Pre-3e levels, you speed up fights (monsters don't last as long), Fighters do more damage with each attack (in terms of % of HP), and the Evocation school becomes a more attractive choice for Wizards (direct damage is useful now).

Mor

[Raenir Salazar]

are you cutting down the spells er day of sorc/wizards? I dont see how that speeds up combat so much as exhausts their ability to survive encounters quicker.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The problem I have with that AoO fix is it basically removes AoOs. Rather than preventing monsters from walking up to Wizards, it just adds a nice chunk of damage each round. Softies are extra soft with this, and the melee classes are even more unappealing targets for most monsters. Depending on your changes to spellcasting in general and Wizards in particular this can be a good thing, though.The other main function of AoOs, spell disruption, is retained.

Well, you generally won't want to use it as just another attack, since there are (or will be at some point) other options for your immediate actions, like parries and such, that you could use instead. When you really want to screw with the wizard, though, you can give it a swing no matter what. And of course not all characters will have this or the other immediate action options; if they spend a feat on it, they might as well get to use it.

Can you elaborate why you think cutting HP off at level 10 is a bad idea? Classes are still differentiated, only the margin doesn't grow as large (ie Fighters still have 40 more hitpoints than wizards). It adds "realism" in that high level Fighters can't ignore surely lethal dangers, makes Wizards vulnerable when their protections are down, and keeps weapon damage relevant.

The problem is the cutoff point is just that--it's a point. Steady HP growth before that, almost nil after that. That makes any scaling abilities jump up rapidly in power between levels 10 and 11, and enforces an arbitrary cutoff point where characters can't really fight monsters on the other side of the gap without doing a bit too much or a bit too little damage.

Simplifying AoOs is definitely a good start, and I think that cutting down HP is a great idea as well; but I'd also suggest that you do the same thing for monster hp, by not applying their Con bonus with each hit die - just give the bonus once.

If you compare monster HP between 2e and 3e you'll find that in a lot of cases, HP doubled (or even tripled!), yet weapon and spell damage remained the same. As an example, a Troll has 63 HP in 3e but would average in the mid 30s in 2e - almost doubling its time onstage, as it were. This is because monsters now have a Con score, and ability scores have larger bonuses, and monsters are given HP the same way that PCs are.

So by taking monster HP back to Pre-3e levels, you speed up fights (monsters don't last as long), Fighters do more damage with each attack (in terms of % of HP), and the Evocation school becomes a more attractive choice for Wizards (direct damage is useful now).

Mor

Well, I have two thoughts on this point. First, I want to keep monsters and PCs on the same system. Making players and DMs "play by the same rules," as it were, is one of the things I think 3e got right, and going to back to a 2e "random numbers on a page" philosophy goes against that, even if it's something as minor as dropping the Con bonus--for that way lies ignoring stats and the 4e worldview.

Second, though, I have been trying to cut down on the Con issue. Monster HD (except for dragons) are going down a step or two, which should cut back HP a bit, and I'm changing up modifiers. Right now, it looks like I'll be using a scale similar to the 2e mental scores, where everything between 7 and 14 is a +0 and modifiers are either 7-score (for 1-6) or score-14 (for 15+). This means that monsters with average Con can go without Con modifiers to HP, while boss types can still have a higher Con to give them a boost. (Granted, this will also necessitate pruning some ability boosters and going back to the old set-a-score-to-X items, but I think I prefer that.)

-----------------------------------------

I just realized I might be giving the wrong impression by having an answer for a lot of these suggestions. If I already have an answer for your suggestion, that's a good thing; it means I figured something out and have a plan for it already, not that I think it's a bad suggestion or anything. The best possible outcome would be that no one can think of anything I haven't covered, which means I don't have too much extra work, but I somehow doubt that will happen.

[Rhawin]

The problem is the cutoff point is just that--it's a point. Steady HP growth before that, almost nil after that. That makes any scaling abilities jump up rapidly in power between levels 10 and 11, and enforces an arbitrary cutoff point where characters can't really fight monsters on the other side of the gap without doing a bit too much or a bit too little damage.

It wouldn't be too difficult to make it more gradual, in that case. Hit die 6-10 can be smaller or suffer a set penalty based on die size (so Wizards aren't too fragile). This penalty can be increased for hit die 11-15 and again for 16+.

An example...
Barbarians gain 1d12 + Con levels 1-5. At level 6, this is reduced to 1d10 + Con. At level 11, this is further reduced to 1d6. From level 16 onwards, Barbarians (and other d12 hit die creatures) gain 3 hit points per level.
Wizards gain 1d4 + Con HP for levels 1-5. At level 6, this is reduced to 2 + Con HP. At level 11, this is further reduced to 2 HP per level. From level 16 onwards, Wizards gain a mere 1 hit point per level.

Of course it would have to be balanced against however damage works out in your variant.

I'm changing up modifiers. Right now, it looks like I'll be using a scale similar to the 2e mental scores, where everything between 7 and 14 is a +0 and modifiers are either 7-score (for 1-6) or score-14 (for 15+)

Be wary of adding cutoffs to ability scores and wide berths of scores which provide identical (or nearly identical) effect.
Minor nitpick - I think you mean score-7 rather than 7-score.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It wouldn't be too difficult to make it more gradual, in that case. Hit die 6-10 can be smaller or suffer a set penalty based on die size (so Wizards aren't too fragile). This penalty can be increased for hit die 11-15 and again for 16+.

Hmm...so a fighter might go from d10 to d8 to d6 to d4 as he levels, and wizard might go from d4 to d3 to d2 to 1? That...could work, actually, though I wonder if splitting things up into 5-level groups is the right way to go about it; it has the cutoff issue, but much less dramatic, so I don't anticipate any particular problems. I'll run some numbers on that.

Of course it would have to be balanced against however damage works out in your variant.

Damage is pretty much remaining the same. The damage scale has basically remained unchanged since 1e, so going back to 2e HP levels shouldn't necessitate any changes.

Be wary of adding cutoffs to ability scores and wide berths of scores which provide identical (or nearly identical) effect.

I'm trying to do a couple of things with this:

1) Make rolling for scores more palatable. Proponents of point buy are quick to point out that one guy rolling high and one guy rolling low severely unbalances a group. This is the case in 3e, but in prior editions one guy could roll all 8s and one guy could roll all 12s and both would be on the same footing.

2) Make bonuses more meaningful. If bonuses start at 12 and ability boosts are plentiful, 4d6 drop lowest ensures that PCs are always better across the board than most NPCs; that leads to the "all PCs are special" mentality I don't really like. If bonuses start higher and are harder to come by, but provide higher bonuses later on, then you can (A) really appreciate a higher score and (B) go from mostly average to heroic fairly quickly as you level.

Minor nitpick - I think you mean score-7 rather than 7-score.

-------------------------------

Anyone else have any other ideas, or have any opinions on monster abilities?

[DracoDei]

Why does going to the more stretched out set of modifiers mean you should go to the "set stat to X" type items? It seems to me that those were a mistake since as soon as you got one it made your original roll irrelevant.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Why does going to the more stretched out set of modifiers mean you should go to the "set stat to X" type items?

1) If you don't get modifiers until a score of 15, then a character with Str 10 has absolutely no use for a +4 to Str, a charcater with Str 13 gets a +2 bonus from it, and a character with Str 15 gets a +4 bonus from it. If instead you have an item that sets your score to 15, then whether you have Str 1 or Str 11 you end up with a +1 bonus.

It seems to me that those were a mistake since as soon as you got one it made your original roll irrelevant.

Well it usually did that because those items all granted bonuses higher than could be achieved with actual rolls--if they range from granting an 18 to granting a 29, anyone with a score of 17 or lower wants one. In contrast, my plan is to basically have items work like this:

• if you have a score below 8 it's set to 8, turning a negative modifier into +0;
• if you have a score between 8 and 15 it's set to 15, turning a +0 into a positive modifier;
• if you have a score between 15 and 18, it's set to 18, granting the highest score you could have rolled.

Individual items can go higher, but like the belts of giant strength you have to meet certain prerequisites to use them. That way, you can't just dump something to an 8 and end up with an 18, and characters with higher than an 18 can get higher scores but can't end up with every score higher than 18.

------------------------------------------------------------

Another question I just thought of: How would you speed up character creation in 3e? I've seen a few DMs say they were afraid to do "old school" kinds of games (high lethality, more player involvement rather than Search when finding traps, lots more save-or-dies, etc.) because chargen in 3e is so time-consuming, whereas in 1e and 2e character creation is a breeze.

Here's what you have to do to make a 3e 1st-level character:

• Roll abilities
• Choose race and apply racial mods
• Choose class
• Assign skill points
• Choose feat(s)
• Choose equipment
• Choose class abilities, if a class with variable abilities (monk feats, ranger style, etc.)
• Choose spells, if a caster
• Calculate attack, AC, saves, etc.

Here's what I remember doing for a 2e character:

• Roll abilities
• Choose race and apply racial mods
• Choose class
• Choose equipment
• Choose spells, if a caster

Nonweapon proficiencies stood in for skills, but they were binary and much easier to assign; spells were rolled randomly; equipment was very similar; AC was based on armor+shield; there were fewer THAC0 modifiers; and so on. Even with all that taken into account, however, I'm not seeing huge differences in creation times--if you just pick X+Int skills at 4 ranks and go with suggested feats and spells, you can generate characters really quickly.

Where have you folks found the slowdown to be most prominent, what are some differences between the two I may have missed, and what can be done about it?