Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Moriancumer 10-09-04, 01:37 PM	These are a few ideas that I have been toying with to speed up battles. One is making one roll for all of your attacks. When the heroes in my campaign get to higher levels the fighters, tanks, and rogues seem to capitalize all the battle time because of multi-attacks. The spell casters do just one action maybe 2 with a speed boost but the 4 to 5 attacks that the others make really bog down the battle and makes a battle that take 30 seconds of game time take hours of real time to resolve. I don't know about you guys but I can't get together for more than about 6-7 hours at most, and that only leaves time for a few good battles. I am considering reworking attack bonuses to be a range of numbers (11-21 for example) keep ac the same. The result would be the hero roles a 15 and the monster has an ac of 29, if the hero has 3 attacks the attack at+11 misses but +16 and +21 would hit and the hero would role the damage from both attacks at one time. I am also considering letting heroes declare they are attacking groups of monsters as opposed to individuals. This is to not limit the damage that could be delivered by the heroes to other opponents after the death of the first. Another problem is getting the initiative in order takes forever for large groups. I am considering doing 2 iniative roles; one for the group of heroes, one for the monsters. Initiative would be modified by the bonuses of course but this would let the heroes gnerally know who in their group would be going first. I think this would stream line combat and let heroes develop a little more strategy in their attacks and develop preset strategies. These are just a couple of ideas for streamlining combat but in my group it has to be done. If you have any house rules or suggestions that help reduce combat time or questions and comments about these ideas that I posted please comment. I would appreciate anything that might be of aid
Moriancumer 10-09-04, 02:54 PM	Bump
Alextroy 10-10-04, 12:56 PM	I am considering reworking attack bonuses to be a range of numbers (11-21 for example) keep ac the same. The result would be the hero roles a 15 and the monster has an ac of 29, if the hero has 3 attacks the attack at+11 misses but +16 and +21 would hit and the hero would role the damage from both attacks at one time. While unsure as to how exactly you are working this, but it creates the problem that your multiple attacks are becoming dependent upon one roll of the dice. If you have three attacks, you have an opportunity to roll well, and there-by hit, three times. This system means one bad roll makes all three attacks miss. A better method is to roll all dice necessary for the attack(s) at once. If your fighter gets three attacks with his long sword, get 3 different color d20s with three matching color d8s. Determine the order of rolls by color and roll all six dice at once. You then call out the ACs hit and the damage done in order. Six die rolls with back and forths have just been reduced to one with a quick delivery of the results. I am also considering letting heroes declare they are attacking groups of monsters as opposed to individuals. This is to not limit the damage that could be delivered by the heroes to other opponents after the death of the first. I don't understand. Please elaborate. Another problem is getting the initiative in order takes forever for large groups. I am considering doing 2 iniative roles; one for the group of heroes, one for the monsters. Initiative would be modified by the bonuses of course but this would let the heroes gnerally know who in their group would be going first. I think this would stream line combat and let heroes develop a little more strategy in their attacks and develop preset strategies. I think this will not have the result you are looking for. Having all monsters then all players go (or vice versa) actually cuts down on the number of combat options available, while maximizing each sides ability to work in concert. One thing I do always do is have easily indentified grouping of monsters always on the same initiative. For example, if I have 8 Goblin warriors, 4 Hobgoblin Warriors, and a Hobgoblin commander in play, the Goblin Warriors have one Initiative, the Hobgolblin Warriors a second, and th Hobgoblin Commander a third. Much better then rolling 13 different Initiatives for the bad guys and trying to figure out who has which initiative. Alextroy
Dartanel 10-10-04, 01:43 PM	What he means by declaring an attack on a group of monsters is to essentially give everyone a limited version of cleave when fighting weak monsters. Example: The party is facing off against a Kobold sorceror and her 12 generic kobold guards. The fighter declares an attack at the 12 kobolds (rather than a single kobold in particular) and hits for 12 damage, rather than just dropping a single kobold (4hp) the fighter drops 3. Then the cleric goes, also attacks the kobold guards. Rolls 6 damage. One more kobold falls and a 5th takes 2 damage. Then the rogue (who was sneaking around all this time) Catches the Sorceror flat footed for a whopping 20 more points then the sorc had. Unfortunately, the Rogue declared an attack on the sorceror, who wasn't a part of the larger group, so the extra damage is lost.
Neoatomic 10-10-04, 02:30 PM	I dont think that if a group of Goblins get the same initiative it make them all take the same damage. They only move and attack at the same time. When a fighter attacks he can only do damage to one and then cleave others. Just because they have the same initiative doesent mean they all take damage from a single attack
Dartanel 10-10-04, 03:28 PM	It doesn't, that's just Moriancumer's idea for a house rule to help him speed up combat.
Moriancumer 10-10-04, 04:30 PM	Hey thanks for the replies. The way that the group attacking would work is like a limiited cleave. The iniative would still be modified by dex and magical effects etc. individually but each group would role once. I like the idea of grouping the same kind of monsters together. The idea of rolling multiple dice together is good to maintain the randomness. I think that the predetermining of who goes first in a group is not as problematic as some might think. The game already allows for waiting to take actions until after someone else has gone. I have simply made it a little easier to do. I also think that it denotes how groups can work figure out strategies. Most of the time nobody knows when anybody else in their group is going to do their actions. This mechanic allows for preplanning . Thanks again for the input and please if anyone else has game speeding house rules please contribute them. :D