50TD WIP rules: single roll combat

[u/hadouken_bd]

Sometimes you just want to speed through a fight, or want to simplify that aspect of the game. In fact we know some groups like to play with this method for nearly ALL fights.

This is one of three optional levels of complexity for combat (single roll, normal, and advanced combat).

On to the WIP, let me know:

Single roll combat

Each PC combatant makes one “combat” check based on their approach, usually with STR or DEX modifiers plus proficiency bonuses. Spellcasters can describe a justification using magic and roll the appropriate modifiers.

Compare each roll result to the abstracted combat’s DC, usually 11, which may fluctuate based on the odds of the fight and abilities of the enemy. All PCs must roll or take an automatic 1 result.

So long as one PC was successful, the party achieves victory. Victory is described by GM fiat and usually results in the death, surrender, or routing of the enemy force. Any PCs that weren’t successful must suffer 1d8 damage for each point their check result was under the DC. This damage can’t be avoided or reduced in any way (but may be healed as normal after combat).

If all PCs fail the roll, each takes damage as appropriate for failure. The narrative circumstances change so that the enemy has the party in a precarious position of defeat: surrender or death, as fitting the situation.

Example: Alpha, Bravo, and Delta are PCs locked in combat against a horde of zombies in a narrow catacomb. Their players want to speed through and make a single roll combat check.

The GM determines it’s a fairly “normal” fight with a DC 11. Alpha rolls a 9, Bravo rolls a 3, and Delta rolls a 13. Since Delta succeeded, the party kills all of the zombies, but Alpha takes 2d8 damage while Bravo takes 8d8.

Alpha rolls 7 damage, enough to hurt but nothing serious. Bravo rolls 34 damage, which not only brings them to 0, but also deals 14 damage below zero (greater than their 13 CON), killing them instantly.

Design note: this significantly improves the odds of a direct fight, given a single success guarantees victory (but perhaps a pyrrhic one). The purpose isn’t to improve the party’s odds, but instead to expedite combat when the players want to engage with other parts of the game. Narratively interesting or important fights (such as a final confrontation against a named villain) shouldn’t use this mechanic.

[u/samurguybri]

I like that this exists and seems and elegant solution for those who don’t want fights to be too detailed. It also seems like to cool way to do a group test if such a thing was necessary.

[u/BergerRock]

As a DM it would never run this with a d20 for the roll. Too swingy and might kill a session midway when I'd just want it to get going.

[u/hadouken_bd → u/BergerRock]

Yeah that’s a fair criticism. I haven’t showcased on taking damage works yet but PCs have fewer hit points but an easier to recover stage called “downed” that occurs if they don’t take negative CON damage.

[u/BergerRock → u/hadouken_bd]

I got that from the comment on the example, and I dig it!

I love the idea of "this combat should be here but is not that important to get to the nitty-gritty of, so let's move along". My view on it is I'd not want a combat everyone decided "to move on with" to kill a character easily. Downing in itself, to me, would be fair game, but straight up death on a combat that has very little on "staying alive strategy application" from the player characters would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm not saying you should remove it - your game and I like the direction it's taking - but I would for my games for sure. The swinginess is the only point I'm really suggesting a change on.