D&D Combat

Welcome to Bandit's Keep in this video I will discuss techniques for making combat more fun.
Check out my other channel BANDIT'S KEEP ACTUAL PLAY:
/ @banditskeepactualplay
Where I stream Various TTRPG systems.
Follow me on:
Twitter / banditskeep​
Instagram / ​
My podcast can be found here: anchor.fm/dani...
D&D Combat
#dnd #rpg #ttrpg

[@blueshellincident]

You might be shocked how often conventional good video game design principles can apply to tabletop games as well. Telegraphing threats is a very basic principle, very helpful and good to know.

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed

[@TheSimpleMan454]

I vary encounter difficulty in real time sometimes by introducing new stakes. The last squaddie runs for reinforcements and comes back with heavier fighters. A cornered assassin might start a fire to trap the heroes and cover his escape. One thing I do when it comes to tweaking abilities is including states where enemies are stronger or weaker, for example a vampire who's freshly fed will be much faster and have more access to magic, but an ancient just out of the crypt (while powerful) won't be quite as imposing. Both can be taken down a peg by exposing them to holy water or sunlight. Ostensibly the same monster, but when and how players engage it plays a role in difficulty as much as party level and stats.

[@stevefugatt7075]

Nailed it again..... Especially with the "D20 thing." I am of the feeling that the over streamlining was the road to ruin. It dumbed things down to the point that mainstream appeal diluted the gaming community as a whole. It's an unpopular opinion but it is how I see it.

[@BanditsKeep]

Popularity of a game or other hobby often leads to simplification. That being said, those that enjoy the hobby have options to play other versions of the game and clones that support more varied mechanics.

[@aricwilson9711]

Hey Daniel, I just started the plunge into the OSR very recently, and I'm grateful I ran into your channel just last week. I've been devouring your videos since then and your insights have been really encouraging and helpful for someone trying to understand the old-school mindset for someone who didn't get to grow up with it. Me and my group of 3 years are a bunch of younger guys (20s-30s), and I'm hoping to sell them on something other than 5e when it's my next turn to DM, haha. You've mentioned B/X is your favorite system, would you consider someday discussing what you love about the other systems you run, like AS&SH and Coriolis? What do you get out of your experiences with those games that B/X doesn't provide? I'd especially enjoy a comparison to AS&SH, selfishly because that's probably becoming my new game of choice.

[@BanditsKeep]

That’s a great idea for a video! As much as I love BX, playing a variety of systems is my preference.

[@Astartes36]

@@BanditsKeep Yes, this would be very informative! Especially since I don't know much of those other systems.

[@deepqantas]

"You want to shoot into melee? Better not roll a 1."

[@BanditsKeep]

Fair enough warning

[@rolanejo8512]

In ODD if you fire into melee you have a 50% of hitting your ally (probably a hold over from Chainmail). Yikes!

[@BanditsKeep]

In Chainmail you are just not allowed to shoot into a melee - which means moving your troops into melee can “save” them from archers. - learned this the hard way 😂

[@freddaniel5099]

Another interesting video here. I think that using "announcement of intent" is such a fun way to play combat, but seems sadly becoming a lost part of games at so many tables.

[@BanditsKeep]

I agree, when I got back into playing with fifth edition, I did not use it because it was not in the rules, and when I first moved to the old-school renaissance type play I also did not use it because I was used to what I was doing with that edition. But when I finally broke down and used it I will never go back.

[@paulpaulmann8873]

Its in a lot of games. SR 3.5 comes to my mind first. Announce Intent in reverse initative order, cause faster can react to slower. If you just to action in initative order, the slower reacts to the faster, which is weird, cause higher initative literally means: you react faster. Combat rounds are just a abstraction, things are happening pretty much at the same time from a story telling pov.

[@BanditsKeep]

@@paulpaulmann8873 for sure, winning initiative means your blow is struck just before the enemy

[@patrickrobles1036]

I'm working out the details, but the general way I've been running initiative recently is reverse order. Slowest player declares action first, up to the fastest. The fastest player can then decide to make an action that resolves first or before or after any other character they choose. Anyone that can't tell me in a few breaths what they intend to do gets disadvantage on rolls that round.

[@rolanejo8512]

That is one of the reason that I prefer Whitebox to BX: most monsters do only 1 attack and it is based on a d6. As a DM it is easy to just chuck a handful of color coordinated d20s and d6 and in seconds I can narrate an entire round of combat. Great advice as always.

[@BanditsKeep]

Agreed, one attack is so much simpler - especially since combat is supposed to be abstract and each roll is meant to suggest many attacks. The hit dice should take care of the rest, meaning that a creature that would potentially do more damage generally has more hit dice which means they will hit more often.

[@rolanejo8512]

@@BanditsKeep the beauty of 1 minute rounds

[@Aaron-mj9ie]

I think you did an excellent job explaining something that I've had trouble conveying for a long time. When everything in the game works off of the same mechanics, it tends to make players and Gams subconsciously treat all scenarios the same, when in actuality they should be different.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure, I’ve definitely played in games with a single mechanic and it’s fine usually for one shots, but I personally prefer different parts of the game to have different mechanics.

[@Aaron-mj9ie]

@@BanditsKeep long ago, I used to be in the canp that thought all mechanics in a specific game should be the same. Simplicity and "streamlining" both have their allure. But in reality, the business of adventuring should be complex and complicated. There's nothing "Streamlined" about what player characters do. And to reflect that, mechanics should also be a bit more sophisticated than a single die roll for everything.

[@BanditsKeep]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@patrickrobles1036]

Inter-party RP is one of the pillars that support the type of game I prefer to run. My first campaign I had a party of 6 3rd level characters take out a Tarrasque. Long story short, a string of good decisions and great rolls gained them momentary access to a powerful magic item that allowed them to kill the beast (which I was using as a backdrop to add urgency to the narrative). My point, not only allow your players to feel powerful due to level, but also if they make amazing choices. More to the point, allow your players to blow up your game. That's where the really interesting things happen.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure

[@NegativeHeadspace]

Most excellent perspective on rp vs combat. I feel like my players don't know how to do anything without having to roll for some arbitrary skill check. I ask, "what are you going to do?" They state their intent then immediately scoop up the d20. Staring at me like, when do I roll?

[@BanditsKeep]

That can be a hard habit to break, I would for sure not have them roll if they logically can succeed - ranger wants to track something “ok, your are a ranger, you can easily find the trail” stuff like that

[@emdotambient]

Yeah, dice rolls should be limited to "is there a good chance of failure?" If so, then roll. If someone's crawling over some crates and they're not in combat, then just let them do it. If they're in combat and want to leap up onto a crate to get at their enemy, then I have them roll a DEX check just to check for a critical failure. If they fail but it's not a critical fail, they still end up on the crate but maybe they can't attack that round, or maybe they almost get on top but then slip back down to where they were. If they're trying to leap OVER and do an attack at the same time ... then yeah, a normal roll is called for. Don't sweat the little stuff.

[@emdotambient]

I actually like combat a lot and most of the players I run with are the same. The great thing about combat, especially early in a session, is it forces players to get back up to speed on their character's abilities, the rule system we're using, and just getting back in the game. I used to begin sessions just however it played out and I found that a lot of players took an hour or more to get back in the swing of things. Then once I started a session with combat and BOOM everyone was stuck in the game right off the bat. So I make it my rule now to always have a combat encounter within the first 15 minutes of a session. Added bonus, it stops all out-of-game chit chat and cuts back on time wasted with some people socializing, some people looking over their sheets, some people checking their phones or whatever. As soon as combat starts, the game has definitely begun.

[@BanditsKeep]

“Combat encounter” so you create encounters that combat is the only option?

[@emdotambient]

@@BanditsKeep Ha! Well, it's not always the only option but with the players I usually play with combat is the only option they choose. I'm trying to teach my BFRPG group that this is not always the healthy option! Although the start of one campaign I ran in 2019 I started the first session with a pre-recorded intro that gave a brief summary of the "story so far." It alluded to a lot of stuff that happened which they hadn't actually played through, and ended with a shipwreck, a search of a native village and a big combat. It was a set-piece that culminated in a young dragon landing dramatically in the middle of the battle with a gnome rider on its back just about to unleash its breath weapon on some of the group... And then I said ... "The scene fades to black and you see in big yellow letters: ONE MONTH EARLIER." And we went back to before their ship had set sail. Yeah, I rode them on a rail pretty good to start but it all felt pretty natural and they really enjoyed it. They ended the first season back at the battle we started with. So that battle was the beginning and end of the session. Wouldn't run a game like that every time but it really worked that one time.

[@BanditsKeep]

@@emdotambient I can see that being very cool with the right player buy in

[@SentientSoup]

Great content as usual, Daniel! I like when my characters role play through the combat. Keeping both a smooth transition between scenes and the immersion in place. Although, it is a rare occasion that this happens. Some games , when combat happens, the transition is more like , the chairs shuffle, dice get arranged, pencils/pens are handled, like all the tension is about to unleash! I love this game

[@BanditsKeep]

Nice

[@paavohirn3728]

Lots of interesting points! I've come to loathe combat grid and five feet increments. I have my own version of combat zones similar to ICRPG. Melee, medium and long. Combatants in melee can move around in melee range quite freely so it can be more dynamic. Disengaging from melee and moving out to medium is a bit harder. For my group some kind of battle map and minis tend to be useful. I loved your point about multi attacks with monsters. I've already removed multis from characters so that's mostly the same with monsters unless it's what the monster is, like a tentacle thing.

[@DM_Curtis]

The One Ring has a nice system where combatants can either be in a forward front-line position or in the rear (where they can use ranged weapons and, presumably in a D&D game, cast spells). However, you need enough fighters to hold the line (basically 1-for-1 match enemies on their front line) to form a back rank. The point is, you can use minis to show position without need for grid or measuring tape, etc.

[@BanditsKeep]

Oh, I really like that. It enforces the idea that “the fighter protects the magic user“ which is often spoke of in RPG‘s but rarely is there a mechanic.

[@BanditsKeep]

Yes, if I were to use minis I would probably use zones I think that’s really a great idea.

[@TheArcturusProject]

Love it! These are concepts I’ve come across and try to incorporate in my games, but I love how you expound upon them and give more detail. Like *why* to do it, as well as more in depth of *how* to execute.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks! Yes, I think seeing these types of things in practice or with a more complete breakdown helps make it clear why they are good. I feel many times people house rule away or skip rules because they “don’t get it”

[@Davenofs]

Daniel I was trying to avoid this channel because I am very selective and protective with my time. I have to say I am glad I gave it a chance, because you make a lot of fantastic points that have already given me ideas to make my games better. Thanks!

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks, glad you have found something worthwhile here

[@everthingtotal8798]

This video is 100%. If a group is level 7, then the kobolds are no match (extraordinary circumstances aside.) I do however, describe details in fights because my players love it and they see fights as a big part of ROLE play. The trick is to describe very fast; pick up the cadence, like the pace of an actual fight. And, the fights are over in about 15 mins.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure some fight description can be great

[@GodzillasaurusJr]

Something that I do if I want the "8 ghouls" example to go faster, instead of just removing their extra attacks, I have them make one attack but give them a + to hit for every attack I remove.

[@BanditsKeep]

I like that

[@Meeeeeeeestery]

Thanks, Daniel! Great video! I totally agree on basically everything. You talked of a very insightful and balanced approach at DMing, ultimately fair and funny. A lot of communication (telegraph the danger!) before the actual rolling of dice. I'll keep it among my favorites to revise it when I need to be re-informed on how the game should be played. Somehow this reminded me of my intention to use a dice-vs-dice mechanic (you might remember giving me advices on that the last week) to let players do feats and achieve woundrous results. "Let them feel powerful"...well after so many years of gaming I'm finally detoxed from game system and manual fetishism and strongly turning to classic (White Box is definitely my cup). Within that I feel free to let the dice speak and let my players know that they can dehead a red dragon if they are as bold as to take the challenge and roll 1d20+lvl vs 1d20+dragon's HD. My telegraph here is clear and preceding the game: the players know they can live the epic even at first level and it's all in their hands; rewards are huge, as much as risks. To behead a dragon...at 1st level, single handed, roll vs roll. Succeed, and you'll be remembered forever! Fail, and you'll be remembered forever! I'm not sure if this relates and how, or at least, I feel it does, but I can't explain how. I guess it speaks of clarity of intent and simple procedures, of implicit DM-players complicity, of the classic, simple, game being so powerful, as much as you do.

[@BanditsKeep]

That’s awesome and a heck of a quotable line “ succeed and you’ll be remembered forever! Fail and you’ll be remembered forever!”

[@perplexedmoth]

A few minutes in, and you got a subscriber. I wish more people understood and played this game like this. Also great channel name.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank You!

[@Grimlore82]

Fantastic video! I am just starting the video, but we know it will be ;-) love these gaming philosophy vids. EDIT: The stream just ended and yes, it was a fantastic stream. This gives a narrative explanation to the RAW initiative system for the "OSR" era. You also discussed what is the magic of TTRPG's; and the reason I invest so much into the hobby, trust in the narrative. This is foundational! What is this you say?! When the table is firing on all cylinders, everyone is jamming in time, and the synchronicity is working... Magic happens. The players have all agreed and trust each other to just immerse themselves into this fictional world that for these moments, feels like it may truly exist among your group. When the players trust a DM, and the result of this is what I describe above... This how you *win at D&D*.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks Chris!

[@Braincain007]

I think my biggest problem with running combat is coming up with stuff to say when things happens. It kinda just becomes "you hit, you do damage, next, you hit, you do damage next, he hits you, he does damage, next" I can only describe the arrow piercing through the armor of the boss or glancing off his shield so many times before It just starts dragging the combat down. i know it's my job as DM to do these things to bring it to life but sometimes I just can't help it

[@BanditsKeep]

You don’t need to describe every blow - that will certainly slow down combat. Describe them when it counts - a creature is immune it resistant to an attack, describe how it does not affect them. A creature has a ton of HP describe how the powerful blow from the fighter barely scratched it. The creature is getting low on HP describe how it staggers back after the blow. This will help the players understand what is going on more than flowery language with every hit or miss.

[@LightBulbPlayz]

I wanted to stop in and thank you for this series on DM advice. I'll be starting my first long term OSR campaign soon and I know that your advice has opened my eyes to a lot of hidden features and pulled my attention to details I've missed. Please keep doing what you do :) Also I have never even remotely considered looking at OD&D as a potential game to play, but after listening to your podcast I'm definitely considering it for the future.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank you for you kind words. I was in the same place a few years back, then a friend ran OD&D for me and there was something in the simplicity that grabbed me. Let m know how your campaign progresses.

[@LightBulbPlayz]

@@BanditsKeep Will do! We are going to be using Stonehell as our mega dungeon. The setting will be in Ghoul keep and ghoul lands by Small niche games. I'm gonna try to keep it a little lower on magic scale with only Humans and a ghoul/human hybrid(part of setting book) as only available races. Weapons are bronze, and so steel weapons will be functioning as the equivalent of a +1 magic item. A lot of my new players have referenced old school games being like Dark souls, so I just decided to lean into that crumbling ancient kingdom motif with the ghoul lands. Hopefully they take to it.

[@deepqantas]

I wonder if announcing intent would work better if you took turns doing it. As a DM you just eyeball how many enemies you activate at once. Since you're doing it piecemeal, you don't have to memorize or write anything down. Example: DM: These two bandits charge. Fighter: I countercharge them. DM: The archers are taking aim at Magic User and Ranger. MU: Uh-oh... I cast a spell... Let me look up Shield... DM: The hooded figure is also casting a spell Ranger: I take a shot at one of the bandits who haven't moved yet. DM: Ok, those two remaining bandits charge at you. Just you now, Thief. Thief: I sneak up on the hooded figure and give him the knife. I feel like there's probably some clever gameplay there figuring out who in the party goes first and who goes last. Reckless charger sets the conditions while a tactical player gets to exploit any weakness they spot.

[@BanditsKeep]

The way that you are describing it is basically how combat works in Dungeon World - however the rolls are handled as soon as the player says what they are doing so it’s not exactly the same.

[@SusCalvin]

I think the order was missile/movement, magic, melee. Melee acts after any sort of ranged action, which includes both guns and most spells. We played with the order of missile, movement, melee, magic when we tried. It forced players to plan their magic. Using magic as a quick reaction to combat was harder. Sir Bob with a steel chair can run up and club Ralph-Gandalf unless R-G was hiding behind a pair of goons with orders to intercept. A line of hirelings with an arquebus each at the ready turned a lot scarier. They would get their shots off if you ran at them. Sometimes the players would just walk forward in a gun line, ready to take shots at whatever came up in front of them. And a fusilade of four people, two kneeling and firing and two standing and firing over their shoulders, was gnarly to most encounters. You can't just win initiative, dash right up to the firing line and presumably start knocking their rifle barrels aside. They will take a potshot and it will probably hurt. People who managed to plan a clever ambush or flanking manouver could avoid all this. If you have surprise and come up behind the PCs and their goon squad as they line their guns in another direction, they don't get that "overwatch shot" on you.

[@BanditsKeep]

Moving first can prevent missile fire - unless you allow pass through of course

[@SusCalvin]

@@BanditsKeep I liked that we couldn't move faster than a bullet. If there are guns in the fight, they will start by opening up. We can't win initiative to run up and grab the gun out of a bloke's hand before they can take their overwatch shot. Using corridors and narrow passages to direct the combat is a fun tactical detail, letting people ignore that with a gun would make this jockeying for position less important. If their wizard is hiding behind three goons with ballistic shields, you're not going to easily shoot through them at her.

[@28mmRPG]

I've been running my combats in all RPG's as simultaneous... As a GM I roll the adversary's die at the same time the Player does (if its a group vs group). If it's the party vs one, then everyone rolls and I roll for the single person/monster with a declaration of the target player or multiple targets if it has more than one attack.... We then divvy out the damage and mentally resolve the round.

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool! I’ve been doing simultaneous melee combat for OD&D and it works out pretty well. I do missile and magic. Separately (but also simultaneously) as well. I’be been considering trying this with other systems, but I find the excitement of rolling initiative to be fun.

[@ichisichify]

i designed a tactical game in the vein of 4th edition before, until i had the epiphany that the "tell me what your character does" rule doesn't end when combat starts.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure!

[@SusCalvin]

Call of Cthulhu has a similar missile weapons rule people often forget: Anyone with a readied missile weapon attacks first. An investigator holding a pistol with rate of fire 2 would take one shot before everyone else, and the second shot during normal initiative. It goes both ways, if you meet a mi-go with an electric gun or a cultist with an ingram they get the same benefit and you just shoot in Dex order..

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed, I know they get a bonus to their dex with with readied gun

[@SusCalvin]

@@BanditsKeep Call of Cthulhu has slight little differences in editions. We played old Delta Green, so 5th is what we used. If you have a readied gun, you automatically take the first shot. On your second shot, you start including everyone else in the Dex order. The mr. Mi-go can try to beat your Dex and grab your gun with a pincer. That was gnarly in Delta Green where automatic weapons were much more common, and a fed could put 10 bullets into a mi-go first thing they did. If you fire a burst, it all goes as one attack.

[@DarkHorseCom]

Great video Daniel. This is a bit off-topic: what camera are you using here?? The picture quality is very crisp and clear!

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks 🙏🏻 - Nikon z62 with the 24-70 f4 kit lens

[@SusCalvin]

I haven't had any issue with large groups using multiple attacks. Eight gorillas with two swipes each means two rolls for them each, but each attack is so easy to resolve that all it adds is one quick roll after the first roll. Maybe a gorilla hits twice and deals damage twice, then it's a second extra roll too. Some monsters we've constructed have alternatives when they attack. They do two swipes OR one bite, or a bite OR a breath attack. They don't pile on everything they got in each round, they also have an upper limit to their actions.

[@BanditsKeep]

Upper limit? How do you handle that?

[@SusCalvin]

@@BanditsKeep Like you give them a set of attacks with that OR specification. They're not going to use every attack they have every round. Attack OR use spell if the creature has spells. Some special powers can have an x/day limitation, so the jungle dragon can only spit acid on three of you. After that, it will just have to bite your noses off.

[@jamescole4317]

Holy shit, completely off topic, amazing advice as always, but nice tattoo!

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks!

[@Goblinerd]

Yes please on the multiple monster attacks video!!! And p_p_p_please explain wtf is up with carrion crawlers and their EIGHT ATTACKS!??!? I've considered having phases of attacks, where each participant gets 1 attack, then we cycle back around for multiple attacks, one attack at a time till all attacks have gone off, one cycle at a time. This way, creatures get their multiple attacks, but players might kill them before they get to use them all.

[@BanditsKeep]

That’s a pretty interesting idea!

[@Goblinerd]

@@BanditsKeep Well, as always, I'm interested in your opinion and would definitely watch that vid :) As for my idea, thanks! Don't know how well it would go in practice, but I'm thinking of trying it out. I got it from another RPG, I just can't remember which... GURPS maybe?

[@snakeoi1sean]

I think if I was running a monster with multiple attacks and I wanted to speed up combat, I might just "trade in" the other attacks for a bonus to hit. So it is basically the threat it was designed to be, but is now desperately/savagely engaged in dealing damage to the pcs.

[@snakeoi1sean]

Under this line of thought, I could also allow any players with multiple attacks to do the same (giving them a flat +2 or so on their single hit). Don't know who that'd appeal too, but fair's fair.

[@rolanejo8512]

Hankerin Ferinale uses this great rule for swarms. Instead of having several attacks, every additional minion adds a +1 to the to hit die and the combat die.

[@BanditsKeep]

Yup, that’s a pretty common OSR “rule” I do the same. I also add it to the damage. Though these days I’m enjoying Chainmail and might swap to those rules for combats that involve 10+ bad guys.

[@BanditsKeep]

An auto hit may it may not be “fair” depending on the HD of the monster - as noted below, a bonus to the attack and damage is a common house rule.

[@Goblinerd]

For things like ad-hoc changes to the monster and Tucker's Kobolds, I'm gonna have politely disagree. I think it's fine if some DMs don't want to, but I don't see anything wrong with it. For changes to stat blocks, I usually come up with narrative reasons why the flow of things change. As for Tucker's Kobold-like behavior from monsters, I fail to see the issue. Why can't monsters be tactical, regardless of their respective power level and HD? I once had a group of goblins terrorize my party of lvl5 characters, all because they used sound tactics. It forced the players to retreat, think things through, and come at them from a different angle, so to speak.

[@BanditsKeep]

I’m not saying monster should not use tactics, what I am saying is that you should let parties be powerful when they are powerful and not constantly beat them down and make weak monster strong just so that you can flex your DM muscles. Many DM‘s put so much emphasis on combat and spend so much time planning them, they don’t want the party to “win too easily.”

[@Goblinerd]

@@BanditsKeep Sure, I get what you're saying, and I agree in the sense that I don't artificially inflate weak creatures to be stronger, but, that said, if a Kobold pack lives in a cave, it will be heavily trapped, and they will use pack and skirmish tactics to defend there home. I don't "let" the players feel powerful, they do or do not based on the experiences at the table. If they just trounced an ogre on level 2, only to get swarmed by lesser beings back on level 1 while exiting... so be it. At my table, I have two mantras I repeat to my players: - Nothing is given, everything is earned. - Everything can be taken away. This is true of gear, of xp and levels, and it's also true of a player's sense of his character's worth. They may feel powerful one moment, only to face odds that will make them regret their cockiness the next.

[@BanditsKeep]

I’m with you on the earning, we just have to remember as DMs we hold all the cards and need to “play fair” if we want players that are excited to sit at our table.

[@Goblinerd]

@@BanditsKeep Fair enough, but, in my case, most of the "cool" moments my players tend to remember are the ones where they got outmatched in some way by unassuming foes.

[@BanditsKeep]

@@Goblinerd sure, if done well, it can be compelling. I just think that (Tucker Kobold) advice is taken too often and every fight is always balanced and a challenge- which to me ends up being boring. It’s been a while since I read the original article, but I do believe the premise was that the party was high level and had already cleared the first level Dungeon a long time ago and the DM felt like it was boring for them until they got down to the deeper levels. My solution for that is not making weak monsters kick their ass rather just narrate the first couple levels and move on. Everything does it need to be a long slog. And as always, it’s important to know your group, some tables want to kill 1/2 HD monsters even when they are 8th level, for that TK’s is ideal.

[@DM_Curtis]

It's odd that Moldvay places initiative before NPC reactions and such. I've never seen it played that way. Unless a fight breaks out, you really don't need it, and there's more tension if you don't know who would act first.

[@BanditsKeep]

I always took it as you see something, do you have a chance to speak/attack/run before they do... winning that first initiative gives you the chance to talk before the monsters do there thing - I do agree though that as a DM it would be good to know the reaction before the roll so you know what they will do if they win. If you have a trigger happy group this could allow (upon the monster winning) a chance for a peaceful resolution.

[@krystal2423]

Great video, every time I had a thought you covered it lol. Great minds think alike, right? ;p

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks, we are mind twins 👯‍♂️

[@KayttakaaHumehia]

I agree with most of the points you make but I think you have misunderstood the point in Tucker's kobolds. Or that you just interpret them completely differently than I do, which is ofc also possible. I wouldn't like the kind of kobolds you described either. In my understanding however Tucker's kobolds are not invented to ridicule high level characters out of their position of power. They were invented to make the combat more challenging/interesting without always just putting a higher CR monster in front of the party. Tucker's kobolds are intented to be combatants that realistically viciously fight for their survival. They are low level kobolds because if you would actually DM a dragon in a way a cornered beast would act, even a high level party would almost never survive the encounter, because a dragon is a hyper intelligent beast of chaos, it would target all the weak spots of the party and capitalize on every advantage it would possibly have. Tucker's kobolds could however be any mobs, orcs, humans, elves, maybe a notorius gang of criminals or an elite bodyguard unit etc.. Thus Tucker's kobolds and their derivates should be regarded as high danger/high tier encounter, despite them individually being weak mobs. just my two cents though..

[@BanditsKeep]

That sounds like a fine interpretation. However they are specifically on the first level of the dungeon which should be easy for a high level party. Put the Uber supreme kobolds on level 5, that I’d be fine with.

[@KayttakaaHumehia]

@@BanditsKeep Yes, the DM should "project the danger" very clearly like you mentioned, and putting them in later in the dungeon should do that.

[@JdrD30]

I loe your channel, very inspiring

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank You!

[@duuze4853]

Nice video!

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank You!

[@sgtbigballs666]

When I DM I dont specifically say "why" what they're doing might be a bad idea, instead I ask "do you really want to do that?" Haha, looking at you magic user with fireball 😉 it's nice when they figure out their mistakes for themselves, with a nudge

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed

[@BJBoyd]

Great video. I’m going to share this with my players. - the Arcane Alienist

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks B.J.!

[@KingAndy1992]

I know this is an older video by now, but I'm interested in hearing your opinion about range/distance in theater-of-the-mind combat. I've always run combat without a grid and abstracted distances into 5 "ranges" - melee, short range, mid range, long range, and out of range (with missile weapons usually being able to fire at either short-to-mid or mid-to-long and most spells being mid range unless they're touch spells or only make sense to cast at a longer distance, like Meteor Swarm, for example. Do you think I'm missing out on anything by running things this way? Its always worked for me, but I'm wondering how it compares to what you do.

[@BanditsKeep]

I tend to give rough distances using measurement “you are 30’ from the goblins” I feel the zones can be interesting and simple but I never felt the need to simplify that

[@Joshuazx]

11:00 "move, missile, magic, melee" I think missile, melee, move, magic makes more sense. What is the reasoning for movement first, then missiles, then magic, then melee?

[@BanditsKeep]

I’m guessing it is a holdover from Chainmail - where you cannot shoot spells or missiles from or into melee so a move to engage is a powerful tactic

[@Joshuazx]

@@BanditsKeep That makes sense to me.

[@charlesfieltesjunior4381]

Although I disagree combat should use different rules than the rest of the game, as a mini system not a core mechanic... I am glad that you recognize that you are separating things and making a clear design choice.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks! Yes, there are many different ways to play RPGs and if a group prefers a single core mechanic, that’s great.

[@aaronsmith5055]

👍

[@BanditsKeep]

🙏🏻

[@bizzy5439]

Oh man, you would definitely not like the game I'm writing rn: I limited my design choices by making the entire game JUST the d20 LOL! Regardless, I agree, depending on the game. I think more mechanically interesting games with mini-games scratch a certain itch that mechanically streamlined games just can't :)

[@BanditsKeep]

Ha ha, I actually love The Hateful Place which is super streamlined and run it for a good number of my one shots. I tend to like more variety for long running games though. I’d be pretty interested in hearing what you are creating, keep me updated!

[@SusCalvin]

I don't like giving too much colour flair in combat. When the crew are fighting some VOC guys and shoot their 6th VOC dude, I don't want to make either them or myself come up with an increasing number of descriptions of "I shot that dude". I want to move on and actually resolve what the other five VOC guys want to do about that. Maybe they push a table over and cover, that's substantial.

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed

[@allenyates3469]

I'm going to throw this out there: It's significantly easier to convert non - players to the game if combat is fast paced and exciting. In fact, BX combat is my go to because of it's speed. I'm not quite understanding why you say "doesn't need to be fast" and then referring to BX.

[@BanditsKeep]

I’m simply saying it doesn’t need to be fast, not that BX or any other system is fast or slow.

[@allenyates3469]

@@BanditsKeep gotcha.

[@jaytomioka3137]

The “Core Mechanism” of most modern RPGs are intellectual Laziness masquerading as “integrated game design”.

[@BanditsKeep]

Yikes! I think there’s a place for simplicity, I like very simple games for one shots and throw away ideas, but I definitely prefer a bit more complexity and games I plan on running long term.

[@bizzy5439]

Completely disagree, @Jay Tomioka. Trying to balance all systems in a game engine to one core mechanic or possibly two is a very laborious task, because many things don't fit neatly into that mechanic. Trying to add variation and interest in a single mechanic can be the sign of a great designer

[@BanditsKeep]

@@bizzy5439 good point, I feel that many times though a “core mechanic” is forced because designers (maybe rightfully) believe that is what most people want. Creating a 90% core mechanic game and then adding a few variations brings its own set of problems (like cover in 5e). So I agree, being able to pull it off “right” is the sign of a good designer.

[@spudsbuchlaw]

I'd have to disagree. Never has a game designer done a core mechanic because they couldn't imagine other options, but they chose not to because why was the difference needed? If a rule is unnecessary it's often best to not have it