Just for reference. If player's roll a Natural 1, it's a monster critical hit. It really keeps players fearful of the dreaded 1. If players roll a Natural 20 on a block check, sometimes I let them shield bash enemies over, temporarily blind them, or maybe they'll get to riposte. Sometimes I even ask the players what they do if I trust them to not come up with something ridiculous. Also. We did some math and it actually needs to be 12+ATTACK BONUS for the DC to be completely fair.
@@Ajmes I think you're misunderstanding how this works. Natural 1 on a block check is equivalent to a monster rolling a Natural 20 and critically hitting the player. There is no difference.
I love Mörk Borg! I will say, from my personal experience, Mörk Borg is more fun in quick bursts than long form. Short term player facing combat has it's perks! For me, personally, it is a LITTLE less engaging as a GM. It's always important to remember that a GM is also playing the game. You want it to be engaging on both ends and constant player facing rolls becomes a little dull for me.
I removed initiative altogether. then went with an AC as damage reduction system. there is no to-hit roll. the player describes the action, then rolls damage. if the weapon damage has an amount that exceeds the targets AC, then the amount over the AC, is the damage taken. the attack roll is open ended - meaning; I roll 1D6 and result is a 6. I roll again and add to the total. (sometimes called, exploding dice) because I never say "roll for initiative" the scene progresses without interruption. players are not limited or restricted by an 'action economy'. they say what the character is attempting and any required rolls are made. to add to the mayhem, I am usually having multiple players resolving activities at the same time while declaring activities of the opposition. any intense conflict should have an amount of chaos. not everyone is aware of what others in the group are doing or their intentions. having 'time' to plan a course of action for optimal results, doesn't really happen in any melee brawl. for new players, having a structured, rigid format for a conflict is good. but, an experienced gaming group should prefer a less rigid system.
I removed Initiative too but i let players plan out who goes first and last , the same with the enemies . I put Damage-reduction to the equipped armors as an effect because this makes armors viable and not suddenly useless because the AC is just higher . But your idea sound cool on its own too.
I use something similar but just removed AC and went with Def and you have to roll it to avoid getting hit failure amount equals damage taken, armour is danage soak
I had my players try it out during a gladiator battle and they loved it so much that our whole next campaign has been using it and it’s been a blast! I’ve been toying with the idea of making block checks, dodge checks, or parry checks
the math is even simpler: 21 - the character's AC is their defence number, write that on the character sheet instead of AC. then just add the enemy attack bonus to get the dc they need for blocking.
This is genius and surprising that it’s not already in the game. It’s one of the things I like the most in games like monster of the week. But had never thought of it this way except as “letting the players roll the monster’s attack” which in my opinion/experience isn’t fun.
Yeah I think blocking would be good against a single powerful enemy, but a horde of weak ones might become tedious for players. Though I think it might be interesting to impose penalties to block after you have been attacked a certain number of times. It is difficult to defend against attacks when you are being attacked from all sides.
The game breaks down a lot and becomes slow when there are lots of enemies. My recommendation would be to just roll a check per group of monsters; if there are 12 skeletons. Maybe each group of 3 has 1 attack against a target. If they don't block the attack, they take damage equivalent to two or three of them (up to you).
My suggestion with multiple enemies - regardless whether or not I'm using player-facing rolls or not - is to combine their attacks into group rolls. D&D 3.5's Help rule added +2 per reasonable helper. So I'd break my attackers into 3-5 attackers, and roll once, adding +6 to +10 to the roll. It's also logical in that multiple attackers working together to gain one hit against a superior opponent is tactically wise. With 5E - since it hates math - would be one attack roll with Advantage per three or four attackers, then make damage +50% (or throw in another damage die, etc.).
I like the idea of glancing blows but I've not tried it yet. I'd probably do 10+Enemy Attack Bonus for that then; it would slightly change the math but I think players would like that.
It's an old idea in other systems. I know Eden Studios used that for its RPG's (All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc...). Theirs went a step further by giving monsters different types of attacks to chose from each round and making higher damage attacks easier to avoid, while lower damage attacks were harder to avoid. Essentially, big attacks have a bigger windup so you have more time to react vs a quicker lighter attack.
The DC needs to be: 12+Monster's Attack Bonus. Example: PC has AC 20, monster has +9 bonus and thus hits on >=11. A 50:50 chance. Set DC to 12+9=21. PC gets a bonus of +10 meeting on >=11. A 50:50 chance. If the DC was 11+9=20. A PC with a bonus of +10 would meet the DC with a >=10 on the die. A 55% chance of beating the check. Not 50:50.
I wrote up a superhero system that works on this concept, as in that game there are many different ways and rolls that could be made to defend yourself.
For clarification: The goblin (5e) in your example has a +4 attack bonus (11+4=15) and +2 dex modifier (11+2=13). Which on do you use? Maybe I'll have a go at it at one of my next games!
Yeah my bad; in Shadowdark we don't use proficiency bonus and that's the main system I play now. Yeah add prof bonus; ACs can get really high in 5e with the right builds.
Shouldn't defence DC be 12 + Monster's Attack Bonus? I've always played that way and now I'm wondering whether it was too hard for my players. Example I've used for my math: PC has AC 10 (no Dex bonus, no armour), Monsters has +0 Attack Bonus. In standard combat I need at least a 10 to hit PC. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (9 results total) = attack failure/successful defence (45% chance) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (11 results total) = successful attack /defence failure (55% chance) In player-facing defence it would look like this (to keep same probability): 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (9 results total) = attack failure/successful defence (45% chance) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (11 results total) =successful attack /defence failure (55% chance) Thus a player with +0 Defence Bonus would have to roll at least 12 to defend against Monsters that has +0 Attack Bonus.
Yep you are right. I think the easiest way to imagine this is with a monster with +0 attack and a player with 19 AC. In this situation we know the only attacks that will hit will be a 19 or 20 on the die. But if we swap it to the player rolling that means only a 1 or 2 on the die will result in a hit. If the player has AC 19 and we are making that a +9 on the defense roll Then a 3+9 = 12 and is a monster miss (player success) While a 2+9 = 11 and is a monster hit (player fail) It does make it sound harder than it actually is though even though it is mathematically equivalent which is unfortunate. It might make more sense to instead do the formula as something like d20 + AC-12 to beat monsters DC 10 + bonus to attack. Instead of d20 + AC-10 to beat monsters DC 12 + bonus to attack. It is quicker as a GM to figure out the number to beat and will make the numbers to beat smaller and therefore less unfair sounding. But this will depend on the group obviously and puts a bit more faith in player’s calculations.
To me, it’s simpler to just use the PC’s AC and require the player to roll under their AC to successfully block/dodge/or parry based on whether they are heavily armored or dexterous. For example, a paladin with an AC of 18 would use 18 as their base number minus the monster’s roll to hit. In this example, let’s say a +4. So, 18 - 4 = 14, so the player must roll a 14 or lower to block or evade. A Nat 20 when defending would still confer a critical hit, but for the monster rather than the player. Having to roll under for defending and over for attacking just seems to mechanically match the flavor of the moment.
One thing that often comes to my mind is the idea that during a character's initiative, it wouldn't be a simple attack-end turn deal, but the moment you attack an enemy with melee, he'd have a chance to retaliate and the same would be true if he attacked you. I never thought deeply in how this mechanic would play out in the long run, but I do find it an interesting concept on how to keep combat strategic and dynamic.
Sounds like you might like my "Counterattack Side Initiative" 1. Party goes first. Individual initiative is wisdom plus initiative modifier (DEX bonus + init bonuses). 2. If a party member's last action against a target (bad guy usually) fails, they become next in the initiative order. (Only one turn per round still.) After the counterattack turn is over, original initiative resumes. 3. Party members can hold their turn to wait until another member takes initiative but if that party member's last action fails, they go after the target of the failed actions counterattack turn. Just use checkboxes to track initiative if you need
Attack and Parry rolls are in the system of The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge), and it makes combat so much more exciting. The constant attack-parry-alternation gives you the feeling of literally fencing each other. What a disappointment when I learned that D&D has only a single roll against a static value. How boring! Yes, I will definitely let my players do it, whether they like it or not. Also, you could add additional effects on a critical parry roll (cancels a Critical Hit, gives you advantage on your next attack, etc.) You earned my subscription with that, I hope you have more awesome ideas like that! But careful about luck points! They bear a great risk to negate chance and make the game too easy (not to die is already too easy in DnD, IHMO. In Pathfinder Luck Points are abundant and combat can become too easy). I rather hand out extra dice depending on how great their exploits, ideas, or roleplaying was (1d4-1d12) and let them apply them also to damage (most players use it for that!).
I’m a big fan of critting my players because feeling some kind of mortal fear, I feel, is part of the fun and experience of danger as a player. So in this model, perhaps if they roll a 1 the enemy crits, yeah?
Nat 1 to defend means they get crit fixs your objection. Nat 20 to defend tho…. Hmmmm…. Perhaps the enemy hits themselves or you get a hit on them… Maybe advantage on your turn?
Exactly! I didn't mention it during the video, but I allow my players to do some pretty cool stuff when they crit on a block check, like knocking the enemy over, riposting, etc.
So I tried running Illmire for my group, and they couldn't leave the region fast enough. Basically, they thought the villagers were too hostile to keep them interested in doing anything there.
@@LokisLair I know, I just figured that a new video would more likely get a response and I looked into it b/c of you and it fit the world in terms of number of humaniod species in the area better.
How do you find it working with something like monsters with many attacks? An example might be ghouls, in many systems they have 3 attacks each. Does it still run as smoothly? Does it increase combat length when there are also saves added to it? Lets say 3 ghouls attack the same PC, that would be 9 attacks, and potentially 9 saves (if they all succeed, time to go play the lottery~)
@@LokisLair I agree with you, except with ghouls in particular, they move on after they've paralyzed, so you would have to ask them to roll and keep track of the attacks. I'm just not sure tbh, on paper it sounds the same, but does it run the same?
My concern is that it might slow combat down if the GM needs to ask each player to roll block checks agsinst varying numbsrs, instead of knowing the players ACs and rolling the dice more quickly with just a simple question to see if the player's character can do anything about the attack.
I start each combat by saying something like "Goblins have a Block DC of 13", so you need to roll a 13 or higher on your block checks to dodge them. It's a simple sentence and I find players are ready to roll dice quicker than I am.
Just for reference. If player's roll a Natural 1, it's a monster critical hit. It really keeps players fearful of the dreaded 1. If players roll a Natural 20 on a block check, sometimes I let them shield bash enemies over, temporarily blind them, or maybe they'll get to riposte. Sometimes I even ask the players what they do if I trust them to not come up with something ridiculous.
Also. We did some math and it actually needs to be 12+ATTACK BONUS for the DC to be completely fair.
Monsters almost always outnumber players, giving crits to monsters even on a defensive roll related to them is an extremely one-sided balance change.
So would a shield add to the block check? Or a temporary AC boost like the shield spell?
@@johngleeman8347 Obviously.. .yes?
@@Ajmes I think you're misunderstanding how this works. Natural 1 on a block check is equivalent to a monster rolling a Natural 20 and critically hitting the player. There is no difference.
@@johngleeman8347 It would raise the block check bonus because the modifier is based on your AC.
Mork Borg is entirely player facing and it’s fantastic
I love Mörk Borg!
I will say, from my personal experience, Mörk Borg is more fun in quick bursts than long form. Short term player facing combat has it's perks! For me, personally, it is a LITTLE less engaging as a GM.
It's always important to remember that a GM is also playing the game. You want it to be engaging on both ends and constant player facing rolls becomes a little dull for me.
I removed initiative altogether.
then went with an AC as damage reduction system.
there is no to-hit roll.
the player describes the action, then rolls damage. if the weapon damage has an amount that exceeds the targets AC, then the amount over the AC, is the damage taken.
the attack roll is open ended - meaning; I roll 1D6 and result is a 6. I roll again and add to the total. (sometimes called, exploding dice)
because I never say "roll for initiative" the scene progresses without interruption. players are not limited or restricted by an 'action economy'. they say what the character is attempting and any required rolls are made.
to add to the mayhem, I am usually having multiple players resolving activities at the same time while declaring activities of the opposition.
any intense conflict should have an amount of chaos. not everyone is aware of what others in the group are doing or their intentions. having 'time' to plan a course of action for optimal results, doesn't really happen in any melee brawl.
for new players, having a structured, rigid format for a conflict is good. but, an experienced gaming group should prefer a less rigid system.
I removed Initiative too but i let players plan out who goes first and last , the same with the enemies .
I put Damage-reduction to the equipped armors as an effect because this makes armors viable and not suddenly useless because the AC is just higher .
But your idea sound cool on its own too.
I use something similar but just removed AC and went with Def and you have to roll it to avoid getting hit failure amount equals damage taken, armour is danage soak
I had my players try it out during a gladiator battle and they loved it so much that our whole next campaign has been using it and it’s been a blast!
I’ve been toying with the idea of making block checks, dodge checks, or parry checks
Would work well for a group that’s very combat oriented.
the math is even simpler: 21 - the character's AC is their defence number, write that on the character sheet instead of AC. then just add the enemy attack bonus to get the dc they need for blocking.
In designing my game, I avoided having the GM roll at all. Little did I know that their was a specific term for that. Thanks!
@@Muto-yo7vl I barely roll either and I prefer it that way.
I’ve been doing this for about 7 years and my players love it! I’m never looking back!
This is genius and surprising that it’s not already in the game. It’s one of the things I like the most in games like monster of the week. But had never thought of it this way except as “letting the players roll the monster’s attack” which in my opinion/experience isn’t fun.
Cheers! I'm really glad people are digging it. My new group have been doing it for the first time and i've got really good feedback from them.
I use it and it's great.
But when there's a lot of enemies attacks I prefer to roll as the dm just to speed the process
Yeah I think blocking would be good against a single powerful enemy, but a horde of weak ones might become tedious for players. Though I think it might be interesting to impose penalties to block after you have been attacked a certain number of times. It is difficult to defend against attacks when you are being attacked from all sides.
The game breaks down a lot and becomes slow when there are lots of enemies. My recommendation would be to just roll a check per group of monsters; if there are 12 skeletons. Maybe each group of 3 has 1 attack against a target. If they don't block the attack, they take damage equivalent to two or three of them (up to you).
My suggestion with multiple enemies - regardless whether or not I'm using player-facing rolls or not - is to combine their attacks into group rolls. D&D 3.5's Help rule added +2 per reasonable helper. So I'd break my attackers into 3-5 attackers, and roll once, adding +6 to +10 to the roll. It's also logical in that multiple attackers working together to gain one hit against a superior opponent is tactically wise.
With 5E - since it hates math - would be one attack roll with Advantage per three or four attackers, then make damage +50% (or throw in another damage die, etc.).
We use a rule called glancing blow. If you roll the exact number needed it's a weak or marginal hit that does 1/2 damage (round down).
I like the idea of glancing blows but I've not tried it yet. I'd probably do 10+Enemy Attack Bonus for that then; it would slightly change the math but I think players would like that.
SWADE better, simple and fast, damage matters
It's an old idea in other systems. I know Eden Studios used that for its RPG's (All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc...). Theirs went a step further by giving monsters different types of attacks to chose from each round and making higher damage attacks easier to avoid, while lower damage attacks were harder to avoid. Essentially, big attacks have a bigger windup so you have more time to react vs a quicker lighter attack.
The DC needs to be: 12+Monster's Attack Bonus.
Example: PC has AC 20, monster has +9 bonus and thus hits on >=11. A 50:50 chance.
Set DC to 12+9=21. PC gets a bonus of +10 meeting on >=11. A 50:50 chance.
If the DC was 11+9=20. A PC with a bonus of +10 would meet the DC with a >=10 on the die. A 55% chance of beating the check. Not 50:50.
Oh shit you're right. Thanks man!
I wrote up a superhero system that works on this concept, as in that game there are many different ways and rolls that could be made to defend yourself.
For clarification: The goblin (5e) in your example has a +4 attack bonus (11+4=15) and +2 dex modifier (11+2=13). Which on do you use? Maybe I'll have a go at it at one of my next games!
Yeah my bad; in Shadowdark we don't use proficiency bonus and that's the main system I play now. Yeah add prof bonus; ACs can get really high in 5e with the right builds.
Shouldn't defence DC be 12 + Monster's Attack Bonus? I've always played that way and now I'm wondering whether it was too hard for my players.
Example I've used for my math:
PC has AC 10 (no Dex bonus, no armour), Monsters has +0 Attack Bonus.
In standard combat I need at least a 10 to hit PC.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (9 results total) = attack failure/successful defence (45% chance)
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (11 results total) = successful attack /defence failure (55% chance)
In player-facing defence it would look like this (to keep same probability):
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (9 results total) = attack failure/successful defence (45% chance)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (11 results total) =successful attack /defence failure (55% chance)
Thus a player with +0 Defence Bonus would have to roll at least 12 to defend against Monsters that has +0 Attack Bonus.
Yep you are right.
I think the easiest way to imagine this is with a monster with +0 attack and a player with 19 AC. In this situation we know the only attacks that will hit will be a 19 or 20 on the die.
But if we swap it to the player rolling that means only a 1 or 2 on the die will result in a hit.
If the player has AC 19 and we are making that a +9 on the defense roll
Then a 3+9 = 12 and is a monster miss (player success)
While a 2+9 = 11 and is a monster hit (player fail)
It does make it sound harder than it actually is though even though it is mathematically equivalent which is unfortunate.
It might make more sense to instead do the formula as something like
d20 + AC-12 to beat monsters DC 10 + bonus to attack.
Instead of d20 + AC-10 to beat monsters DC 12 + bonus to attack.
It is quicker as a GM to figure out the number to beat and will make the numbers to beat smaller and therefore less unfair sounding.
But this will depend on the group obviously and puts a bit more faith in player’s calculations.
To me, it’s simpler to just use the PC’s AC and require the player to roll under their AC to successfully block/dodge/or parry based on whether they are heavily armored or dexterous.
For example, a paladin with an AC of 18 would use 18 as their base number minus the monster’s roll to hit. In this example, let’s say a +4. So, 18 - 4 = 14, so the player must roll a 14 or lower to block or evade. A Nat 20 when defending would still confer a critical hit, but for the monster rather than the player.
Having to roll under for defending and over for attacking just seems to mechanically match the flavor of the moment.
I was also interested in this for my pf2e game. But id also have to adjust the crit system to -9/+11 i think
Great game last night..was fun. Blocking worked nicely
Thanks man! Can’t wait for the next one.
One thing that often comes to my mind is the idea that during a character's initiative, it wouldn't be a simple attack-end turn deal, but the moment you attack an enemy with melee, he'd have a chance to retaliate and the same would be true if he attacked you.
I never thought deeply in how this mechanic would play out in the long run, but I do find it an interesting concept on how to keep combat strategic and dynamic.
Sounds like you might like my "Counterattack Side Initiative"
1. Party goes first. Individual initiative is wisdom plus initiative modifier (DEX bonus + init bonuses).
2. If a party member's last action against a target (bad guy usually) fails, they become next in the initiative order. (Only one turn per round still.) After the counterattack turn is over, original initiative resumes.
3. Party members can hold their turn to wait until another member takes initiative but if that party member's last action fails, they go after the target of the failed actions counterattack turn.
Just use checkboxes to track initiative if you need
Attack and Parry rolls are in the system of The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge), and it makes combat so much more exciting. The constant attack-parry-alternation gives you the feeling of literally fencing each other. What a disappointment when I learned that D&D has only a single roll against a static value. How boring! Yes, I will definitely let my players do it, whether they like it or not.
Also, you could add additional effects on a critical parry roll (cancels a Critical Hit, gives you advantage on your next attack, etc.)
You earned my subscription with that, I hope you have more awesome ideas like that!
But careful about luck points! They bear a great risk to negate chance and make the game too easy (not to die is already too easy in DnD, IHMO. In Pathfinder Luck Points are abundant and combat can become too easy). I rather hand out extra dice depending on how great their exploits, ideas, or roleplaying was (1d4-1d12) and let them apply them also to damage (most players use it for that!).
If you want to take away player facing combat from me, you have to pry it from my dead hands, so much I do love it 😁
I’m a big fan of critting my players because feeling some kind of mortal fear, I feel, is part of the fun and experience of danger as a player. So in this model, perhaps if they roll a 1 the enemy crits, yeah?
Exactly yeah.
Nat 1 to defend means they get crit fixs your objection. Nat 20 to defend tho…. Hmmmm…. Perhaps the enemy hits themselves or you get a hit on them… Maybe advantage on your turn?
Exactly! I didn't mention it during the video, but I allow my players to do some pretty cool stuff when they crit on a block check, like knocking the enemy over, riposting, etc.
So I tried running Illmire for my group, and they couldn't leave the region fast enough. Basically, they thought the villagers were too hostile to keep them interested in doing anything there.
This isn't the illmire video but yeah I agree. I think you have to give them reasons to stick around; like a family member has gone missing, etc.
@@LokisLair I know, I just figured that a new video would more likely get a response and I looked into it b/c of you and it fit the world in terms of number of humaniod species in the area better.
How do you find it working with something like monsters with many attacks? An example might be ghouls, in many systems they have 3 attacks each. Does it still run as smoothly? Does it increase combat length when there are also saves added to it? Lets say 3 ghouls attack the same PC, that would be 9 attacks, and potentially 9 saves (if they all succeed, time to go play the lottery~)
i mean its the same amount of time whether you're rolling or they are.
@@LokisLair I agree with you, except with ghouls in particular, they move on after they've paralyzed, so you would have to ask them to roll and keep track of the attacks. I'm just not sure tbh, on paper it sounds the same, but does it run the same?
@@deViatel Try it and see. Players can easily roll multiple d20s at the same time; the dc is always the same per creature.
My concern is that it might slow combat down if the GM needs to ask each player to roll block checks agsinst varying numbsrs, instead of knowing the players ACs and rolling the dice more quickly with just a simple question to see if the player's character can do anything about the attack.
I start each combat by saying something like "Goblins have a Block DC of 13", so you need to roll a 13 or higher on your block checks to dodge them. It's a simple sentence and I find players are ready to roll dice quicker than I am.
Halfling luck tho for this... Nearly never (1/400) take a crit unlike if the monsters attack.. luckya lready can be used to reroll an attack anyways..
Why is the cleric in blue in her bikini in a dungeon? Was in the starting picture. Lol which god does she worship?
The god of tits and wine!
@@LokisLair where do I sign up !
Hahaha! NOT where I saw this exchange going. 😅
Ugh. If I wanted a player-facing fantasy game, I'd play Dungeon World.