How to speed up combat

[42dragon]

Do any of you GM's out there have any advice on how to speed up combat?

I have been playing some other game systems recently. My area is pretty thin on Palladium games . I have really noticed that the combat portion of the games is taking forever. I feel the Palladium systems are much better than these other games, however the combat phase still takes a long time in Palladium system.

Previously, in ages past I hated the old D&D THAC0 system. I wanted to be more in control of my defensive actions. Palladium does a decent job of this. But all the opposed rolls and decisions on actions take forever. Now that I am older and don't have 14+ hours each weekend to game, I could really use a sleeker system. That THAC0 system doesn't seem so bad now.

I have a thought, and am wondering what you have done to speed up combat or what you can contribute to refine my thoughts. Also not sure how to convert my thoughts to Rifts / MDC worlds. But I think it would work well in Palladium / SDC systems.

The basic premise is to create a to hit number based on AR to speed things up. I want to use the existing Palladium systems and existing bonuses to make thing simpler and not necessarily recreate everything.

The way Palladium is set up AR and SDC seem off. A 3rd level fighter type, with decent PP and a WP can bypass even the best plate armor 40-60% of the time which means studded leather armor offers almost no protection from even relativly low level opponents. And there are many topics about how shields kind of suck unless they are being used for cover. But these are places to start.

Use armor's from palladium Chain mail AR 14, SDC 60 (I think). Double the SDC (maybe triple) as the armor will get hit much more often this way. Don't worry it will provide better protection though. So this is your start taget to hit AR 14. Now add in your average + parry/dodge to factor in your defensive skill, add this to the AR. If you have a HtH weapon or two out add the weapon and WP bonus to parry (the highest of the 2 with 2 weapons) to this AR. If you have a shield add +1 small, +3 medium, +5 large bonus to the AR. This is your total to hit AR. Shields and weapons only take damage if they are being targetted. When attacking add your bonus to strike as normal.

Example: 3rd level fighter. HtH Expert. PP 14. WP Sword, WP Shield. Chainmail armor
Chainmail AR 14, SDC 120, +3 parry / dodge, +2 strike / parry with sword, +2 parry with shield, medium shield +3
Final to hit AR 14+3+2+3 = AR 22
This may seem high but with bonuses and of course Natural 20 will bypass the armor.

His opponent has +4 to strike with mace. So any roll of 18 or higher would do damge to his body, any roll 2 or below is automatic miss at my table. Roll between 3 and 17 will damage the armor. And there is no longer any need for opposed rolls. This should cut the combat time in half or more, as you aren't waiting for everyone to decide am I going to parry, dodge, roll with impact, simultaneous strike, ect..

Some modifiers of course. Sneak attack, where no defensive action is possible would just be the AR or the armor. If someone is disarmed they loose the bonus for the weapon or shield. A ranged attacked can use an aimed called shot to negate the shield bonus and perhaps the weapon bonus.

What do you think?

[Killer Cyborg]

Not perfect, but it sounds pretty reasonable.
Have you tried this out?

[42dragon]

No, I haven't tried it out yet. Like I said I have been stuck playing other games (which is better than no games) and have been getting frustrated with how long and drawn out combat is. So I have been trying to come up with ways to speed things up. Starting with Palladium systems as I am most familiar with that.

[jaymz]

I use a phase system in my games. It speeds up combat greatly.

[Damian Magecraft]

I use a phase system in my games. It speeds up combat greatly.

It also solves that pesky movement in combat issue.

[Cinos]

What do you think?

I'm confused. Your post seems to be more about how to fix issues with AR than it does about speeding up attacks.

It adds speed because it removes a roll and a choice from a player. It can be mathed out based on one roll, rather than Choose attack, roll attack, choose defense, roll defense, compare vs defense, compare vs AR, roll damage. It cuts out several steps by replacing them with an automated number system.

I personally dislike it (Since I like active defenses and a two roll system) BUT what you are doing is mechanically sound and should do what you want it to do, with a bit of trial and error to find the right bonus to armor SDC.

[42dragon]

RGG and jaymz, would you mind giving a brief explanation of how your systems work? I am definately open to options here.

RGG, your system sounds interesting. But from the limited info it sounds like for the most part it heavily favors the PC's. Is there really a significant chance for failure or death? (I am not much of a killer GM, so this may still work for me.)

Cinos, thank you for helping to clarify what I was trying to say. To take it a step further yes, the main point is to remove several steps to speed up play. However I think the biggest time saver would come from eliminating some of the discussion or arguments that take place becasue there is no deffensive roll or action to take into account. For example can a 5'10" human with a mace really parry an adult dragon claw attack?

Thinking a little more on this last night, I have realized that this system would also eliminate the lost action for the act of a dodge. This would speed things up the PC's doesn't have to decide if they want to give up an attack or not, and would make things easier to keep track of. It would make it somewhat unfair to a race or class that has the advantage of auto-dodge. Maybe if you have auto-dodge you would get an additional multiplier on your Armor SDC from x2 to x3 to make up for it?

This may make combat faster paced, everyone could be more involved (which would help). But it may not make it faster overall as the additional SDC you would often need to beat through would require more attacks overall.

[flatline]

Best ways to speed up combat are to reduce the amount of rolls required and reduce any bookkeeping.

Things that worked well for us:
1. get rid of attacks per melee. Give everyone 1 attack per round and reduce round length to 1-3 seconds.
2. roll initiative at the beginning of combat (if at all) and then never again. Even better if you can agree on house rules that establish a combat ordering without any rolling or bookkeeping.
3. only roll dice if necessary. learn to depend on GM fiat for as many things as possible.

When we started using narrative combat (which includes the above suggestions), combats that used to take hours were now being resolved in 10's of minutes.

--flatline

[Cinos]

I wouldn't remove the round system flat out without replacing it with a different mechanic. It's a -very- central mechanic to the system, and it drastically changes scaling power, and removes the only game really that has initiative come up more then once (increasing its value). Sure it speeds up combat, but it also suffers a lot more damage to the interest of combat.

As to the auto-dodge problem, I'd later it to a larger dodge bonus. If you want an added bit of complexity, while retaining some math, have it be +1 - 4 to dodge (Number listed as a off the cuff range, math to find where it should sit) against opponents who act lower on the initiative then them. OR have auto-dodge enable the option to roll, instead of taking a flat number. You retain the speed as most players will just have the auto-math, but you give auto-dodge a significant bonus by having the ability to roll (there's no choice in the matter since there's not the lost action to consider, so speed is only slowed by 'find dice, roll, report'. In alternative, alternative, and the simplest of them is +X to dodge against the first attack every turn. It makes them very safe on one vs one, but groups still take them down.

[Soldier of Od]

Example: 3rd level fighter. HtH Expert. PP 14. WP Sword, WP Shield. Chainmail armor
Chainmail AR 14, SDC 120, +3 parry / dodge, +2 strike / parry with sword, +2 parry with shield, medium shield +3
Final to hit AR 14+3+2+3 = AR 22
This may seem high but with bonuses and of course Natural 20 will bypass the armor.

His opponent has +4 to strike with mace. So any roll of 18 or higher would do damge to his body, any roll 2 or below is automatic miss at my table. Roll between 3 and 17 will damage the armor. And there is no longer any need for opposed rolls. This should cut the combat time in half or more, as you aren't waiting for everyone to decide am I going to parry, dodge, roll with impact, simultaneous strike, ect..

What do you think?

Interesting idea, but could you just clarify a couple of things for me please? The defender's total 'AR' is 22, the attacker's bonus is +4 and yuo say he needs to roll an 18 (making 22), to do damage to the body. Current PF rules would need you to get OVER the AR to hit. Defenders always win ties. Are you suggesting a change to that rule too or is that just a miscalculation?

With your rules the character's armour is going to get hit a lot more, obviously. The issue I have is that even if you have a really high dodge or parry bonus, a 'successful' defence means that your armour still takes damage. If I am wearing only soft leather armour, but have a +10 to parry, my meagre armour is still going to take a beating even thought I am defending with an impressive 19.

Also, why reduce the automatic miss down to 2 from the current 4?

And lastly, what are the defence numbers if I am not wearing any armour?

Thanks.

[42dragon]

Sure SoO.

You are correct based on your interpretation of the AR and + to strike. I have always found these target numbers in Palladium to be open to interpretation. For example AR does that mean armor protects everything upto and including that number, which I think is the intent. But then you look at saving throws, save vs. magic target is 12. It is implied that you need to hit that target or higher to save. So these two different aspects both use a target number, but one (AR) you need to beat, and one (save) you need to meet. This is something that can cause confusion, so to make things simple I have always done target numbers as a meet threshold. Your point of defender winning ties also shows meet on saving throw and beat on AR since you are the attacker in AR situation would be consistant with the intent / advantage to the defender.

Thanks for pointing that out, it is something I would have to be sure is clear to players if I implement this system.

Yes, armor will take a lot more damage that is why through trial and error I would have to find the correct SDC multiplier of armor to account for the increased beating armor will take. Maybe something along the lines of +1 to double original AR x2 SDC, double+1 to triple original AR x3 SDC. (Would also act as a gold sink having to repair armor much more often)

In my experience after the first level or 2 (often sooner) almost everyone has a +3 to hit or better, once you add in HTH, WP, attributes, racial bonuses. The target to hit of 4 pretty much never comes into play. That is why I do natural 1 or 2 is automatic miss. If you give a 12th level Long Bow man with sniper a 20% chance to miss on any 1-4 natural roll that is pretty harsh for a true marksman. Sometimes I even only make the natural 1 a miss, and natrual 2-4 minimum damage if you manage to still strike with bonuses.

As for if you are wearing no armor, the process would similar. Start with your 4 HTH or 8 ranged initial target to strike, then add you bonuses as above, and anything below this number is essentially a miss/no damage. Natural AR would work like this as well, you have a natural AR of 12, + bonuses, now your natural AR is say 17.

[jaymz]

Phase system:

3 phases or "turns" per melee instead of each attack/action being a "turn"

Your total attacks per melee are divided accordingly (I can post the chart of you like)

Then each person gets to take whatever number of attacks allotted to that phase or "turn" Each melee is then 3 turns instead of x # of turns based on whoever has the most number of attacks and doesn't leave anyone sitting there waiting for those super speedsters with 8 or 9 attacks to finish their turns in that melee while the guys with only 4 or 5 are already finished.

[Soldier of Od]

Sure SoO.

You are correct based on your interpretation of the AR and + to strike. I have always found these target numbers in Palladium to be open to interpretation. For example AR does that mean armor protects everything upto and including that number, which I think is the intent. But then you look at saving throws, save vs. magic target is 12. It is implied that you need to hit that target or higher to save. So these two different aspects both use a target number, but one (AR) you need to beat, and one (save) you need to meet. This is something that can cause confusion, so to make things simple I have always done target numbers as a meet threshold. Your point of defender winning ties also shows meet on saving throw and beat on AR since you are the attacker in AR situation would be consistant with the intent / advantage to the defender.

Thanks for pointing that out, it is something I would have to be sure is clear to players if I implement this system.

Yes, armor will take a lot more damage that is why through trial and error I would have to find the correct SDC multiplier of armor to account for the increased beating armor will take. Maybe something along the lines of +1 to double original AR x2 SDC, double+1 to triple original AR x3 SDC. (Would also act as a gold sink having to repair armor much more often)

In my experience after the first level or 2 (often sooner) almost everyone has a +3 to hit or better, once you add in HTH, WP, attributes, racial bonuses. The target to hit of 4 pretty much never comes into play. That is why I do natural 1 or 2 is automatic miss. If you give a 12th level Long Bow man with sniper a 20% chance to miss on any 1-4 natural roll that is pretty harsh for a true marksman. Sometimes I even only make the natural 1 a miss, and natrual 2-4 minimum damage if you manage to still strike with bonuses.

As for if you are wearing no armor, the process would similar. Start with your 4 HTH or 8 ranged initial target to strike, then add you bonuses as above, and anything below this number is essentially a miss/no damage. Natural AR would work like this as well, you have a natural AR of 12, + bonuses, now your natural AR is say 17.

Thanks for the clarifications! All makes sense to me now!

I have to say, though, that the numbers for someone without armour seems scarily low. Whereas with the current rules the defender could end up with a roll anywhere between 1-20 (plus bonuses), now you are effectively saying their roll is only 4 (plus bonuses) every time. That's a very big reduction for the defender.

[Damian Magecraft]

Phase system:

3 phases or "turns" per melee instead of each attack/action being a "turn"

Your total attacks per melee are divided accordingly (I can post the chart of you like)

Then each person gets to take whatever number of attacks allotted to that phase or "turn" Each melee is then 3 turns instead of x # of turns based on whoever has the most number of attacks and doesn't leave anyone sitting there waiting for those super speedsters with 8 or 9 attacks to finish their turns in that melee while the guys with only 4 or 5 are already finished.

the only down side is a need to adjust the dodge rules for the opposed rolls to function properly.

[random_username]

Basic Organization: Whatever works such as...

Order of Attackers: Have a list on a piece of paper. Check off each one as you go. Eliminates time wasted backtracking if folks get off topic/sidetracked. Often listed directly above corresponding HP capacity since "check marks" also keep track of rounds when no damage was taken by the target.

Damage Capacity/Hit Point: Running current amount columns on a single page of paper. Cross off old update with new after each hit. Toss out or archive the paper when done.

Reduce The Number of Dice Rolled:
- Single Die: Generally if at all possible use a single die for any damage or healing roll, if need be use a multiplier (5D6 becomes 1D6x5, etc).
- Groups of NPCs: When dealing with large groups of NPCs can roll one attack roll for that group OR have a handy same number of attack dice to roll all at once if entire group attacks single target. Example: four groups of 5 NPCs; have 5 D20s available for attack (or just 1 D20 treated as 5 results). Enable rolling each of the four NPC groups quickly. Also: if attackers can only hit on a natural 20 then can simply have one hit for every 20 NPC attackers (4 groups of 5 NPCs each becomes simply 1 natural 20 out of all 20 NPCs).
= [1xD20; Number of NPCs per group x D20; or 1 natural 20 per 20 NPCs]

Streamline The Most Obviously Slow Area: Once fixed and integrated move onto the next most blatantly slow area.

Only Implement Methods Relevant To Your Own GMing Style: Possibly redundant but simply try not to get bogged down in other people's suggestions hehe.

[Noon]

How often do people really choose between parry or dodge? It's a melee attack, parries are free, parry is usually the exact same as dodge bonus - just parry, for goodness sake! In my play if I have the monsters do a melee attack, I check which would hit then ask the player for X number of parries. I don't stop and ask them if they want to parry. With ranged attacks I ask if they want to dodge - but if they take their time, I indicate I'm about to take it they don't dodge, then after that, I just take it they don't dodge. Why aren't you doing something like that?

I don't allow simultanious strike myself, so I don't know about that.

[Damian Magecraft]

How often do people really choose between parry or dodge? It's a melee attack, parries are free, parry is usually the exact same as dodge bonus - just parry, for goodness sake! In my play if I have the monsters do a melee attack, I check which would hit then ask the player for X number of parries. I don't stop and ask them if they want to parry. With ranged attacks I ask if they want to dodge - but if they take their time, I indicate I'm about to take it they don't dodge, then after that, I just take it they don't dodge. Why aren't you doing something like that?

I don't allow simultanious strike myself, so I don't know about that.

actually dodge often comes out at slightly better than parry (1 to 3 points) so assuming parry in melee is not always the best move as GM (smacks of railroading if you ask me... its the PCs character not the GMs)

[Noon]

If you really think I've told you to roll parries and you are just to obey my command without uttering a word, you aughtn't be complaining about railroading either.

Which am I? Utterly in charge or you can actually talk with me even when I've asked for a roll?

Or the worse of both worlds - you feel utterly downtrodden and can't say a thing, but silently rage about railroading?

W/e.

[flatline]

Natural un modified rolls to beat ar..works best

That's conceptually offensive since it means a skilled attacker is no more likely to penetrate armor than an untrained attacker.

--flatline

[Bill]

I use an action point system. Every attack equals one action point, each maneuver costs one to three action points. A player can spend up to two action points per turn. Characters get a basic free movement per turn and spend action points to enhance that movement. It's more intuitive than it sounds. I have a detailed write-up, if anybody is interested they can PM me an email address.

[The Ruiner]

I use an action point system. Every attack equals one action point, each maneuver costs one to three action points. A player can spend up to two action points per turn. Characters get a basic free movement per turn and spend action points to enhance that movement. It's more intuitive than it sounds. I have a detailed write-up, if anybody is interested they can PM me an email address.

At first glance, that sounds a lot like 3.5 or Pathfinder. Not that I am an expert in either of those mind you.

[say652]

I dont think changing the combat sequence is a "fix"
To me it seems like a different game all together.

[Bill]

I use an action point system. Every attack equals one action point, each maneuver costs one to three action points. A player can spend up to two action points per turn. Characters get a basic free movement per turn and spend action points to enhance that movement. It's more intuitive than it sounds. I have a detailed write-up, if anybody is interested they can PM me an email address.

At first glance, that sounds a lot like 3.5 or Pathfinder. Not that I am an expert in either of those mind you.

I was more influenced by D&D 4. There are a lot of games that take a similar approach though.

[flatline]

Things that worked well for us:
1. get rid of attacks per melee. Give everyone 1 attack per round and reduce round length to 1-3 seconds.

We now pause while power gamers everywhere go into collective apoplexy.

I very much consider myself a power gamer, yet I consider attacks per melee to be one of the worst elements of the system.

--flatline

[Bill]

I dont think changing the combat sequence is a "fix"
To me it seems like a different game all together.

I agree it makes the game different than what might be expected. However, Palladium games are so house-rule friendly and GM empowerment oriented that revamping the combat sequence to suit a GM's playstyle is appropriate; even bordering on encouraged. Also, I think you'd have a difficult time finding two or more unrelated groups that interpret the published rules in a consistent fashion. In so many ways, they're guidelines rather than hard and fast rules.

[say652]

I like the combat system. My favorite of any game I played.
Now the magic SYSTEM. ugh *rubs temples and mutters Mageism*

[PigLickJF]

Phase system:

3 phases or "turns" per melee instead of each attack/action being a "turn"

Your total attacks per melee are divided accordingly (I can post the chart of you like)

Then each person gets to take whatever number of attacks allotted to that phase or "turn" Each melee is then 3 turns instead of x # of turns based on whoever has the most number of attacks and doesn't leave anyone sitting there waiting for those super speedsters with 8 or 9 attacks to finish their turns in that melee while the guys with only 4 or 5 are already finished.

I'm curious about this system, I've considered doing something similar.

How did you settle on three phases? I was considering four phases, since that's sort of the "base" number of attacks for most trained combatants. Did you try different numbers, or just go with three from the start?

You don't necessarily have to post the whole table, but how does the progression work for number of attacks lower or higher than three?

How do you handle dodge (and other "lose an action" actions)? Do you just take those actions from future phases, or do you have some other system to deal with them?

PigLick

[Aaryq]

It's not always possible but a good way to do it is to restrict talking during combat. Inform your players ahead of time, give them each like 3 strikes or so. After that any non-combat related chatter results in a 1 action penalty. Also put a time limit. Combat is fast paced. If it's 15 seconds you keep an eye on your watch and give them 15 seconds to make up their minds on their actions. Most people, while feeling pressure will probably make that same decision in about 3-5 seconds.
Just suggestions

[say652]

I play combat as written. So you have 13 attacks. Ok good job. Why nerf the whole shebang??

[Damian Magecraft]

Phase system:

3 phases or "turns" per melee instead of each attack/action being a "turn"

Your total attacks per melee are divided accordingly (I can post the chart of you like)

Then each person gets to take whatever number of attacks allotted to that phase or "turn" Each melee is then 3 turns instead of x # of turns based on whoever has the most number of attacks and doesn't leave anyone sitting there waiting for those super speedsters with 8 or 9 attacks to finish their turns in that melee while the guys with only 4 or 5 are already finished.

I'm curious about this system, I've considered doing something similar.
I cannot speak for Jaymz...
But I also use the 3 phase system and will try to answer your questions.

How did you settle on three phases? I was considering four phases, since that's sort of the "base" number of attacks for most trained combatants. Did you try different numbers, or just go with three from the start?
I settled on 3 phases primarily because a Melee is 15 seconds in length and 15 is evenly divided 3 (ease of math). I did try 5 phases first but discovered in playtest that the players preferred 3 phases (it provides a perception of faster progression).

You don't necessarily have to post the whole table, but how does the progression work for number of attacks lower or higher than three?
the options available are really only 3...
1: Front loaded: all APM are distributed one at a time starting with the 1st phase and progressing to the last phase before starting over at the first phase
2: Back loaded: all APM are distributed one at a time starting with the 3rd phase and progressing to the 1st phase before starting over at the 3rd phase
3: Center Loaded a chart is developed wherein the APM are distributed "evenly" out from the center. Which would look something like this...
APM Phase distribution
3 1/1/1
4 1/2/1
5 2/1/2
6 2/2/2
7 2/3/2
8 3/2/3
9 3/3/3
etc...

I recommend either Front or Back loading (Mostly because they are the easiest grasp and can be done on the fly quickly and without requiring referencing a chart.

How do you handle dodge (and other "lose an action" actions)? Do you just take those actions from future phases, or do you have some other system to deal with them?
they "lose" the next available action. If that means it comes from the next phase or next melee then that is where it comes from.

PigLick

[flatline]

I play combat as written. So you have 13 attacks. Ok good job. Why nerf the whole shebang??

Because the mechanics are clumsy and get in the way of how we visualize combat. They are, at best, a poor abstraction.

It is easy to do better.

--flatline

[say652]

Not so much. Example. I have 13 attacks and an autodoge.
Initiative. ...21.
Badguys 19.
Attack one. Shoot lightning.
Bad guy rolls a 20 dodged that snit easy like.
Shoots at me. 17.
Pfft Simo strike. I eat some bullets he eats some lightning.
Burn two attacks electric flight. 16.
Fails dodge I hit the badguy.
Now in hand to hand range. Tries to stab me with a knife. I dont have a weapin so no bonus to parry. I simo strike. Again I get stabbed he eats more lightning.


Its nit hard to play the game as written. Jussayin.

[Damian Magecraft]

Not so much. Example. I have 13 attacks and an autodoge.
Initiative. ...21.
Badguys 19.
Attack one. Shoot lightning.
Bad guy rolls a 20 dodged that snit easy like.
Shoots at me. 17.
Pfft Simo strike. I eat some bullets he eats some lightning.
Burn two attacks electric flight. 16.
Fails dodge I hit the badguy.
Now in hand to hand range. Tries to stab me with a knife. I dont have a weapin so no bonus to parry. I simo strike. Again I get stabbed he eats more lightning.


Its nit hard to play the game as written. Jussayin.

Ah... but you did not play that as written...
by RAW when you simoed it burned your next available action...

[say652]

I should jave labeled my bad guy as having six attacks. But pount is proven.

[jaymz]

Phase system:

3 phases or "turns" per melee instead of each attack/action being a "turn"

Your total attacks per melee are divided accordingly (I can post the chart of you like)

Then each person gets to take whatever number of attacks allotted to that phase or "turn" Each melee is then 3 turns instead of x # of turns based on whoever has the most number of attacks and doesn't leave anyone sitting there waiting for those super speedsters with 8 or 9 attacks to finish their turns in that melee while the guys with only 4 or 5 are already finished.

I'm curious about this system, I've considered doing something similar.
I cannot speak for Jaymz...
But I also use the 3 phase system and will try to answer your questions.

How did you settle on three phases? I was considering four phases, since that's sort of the "base" number of attacks for most trained combatants. Did you try different numbers, or just go with three from the start?
I settled on 3 phases primarily because a Melee is 15 seconds in length and 15 is evenly divided 3 (ease of math). I did try 5 phases first but discovered in playtest that the players preferred 3 phases (it provides a perception of faster progression).

You don't necessarily have to post the whole table, but how does the progression work for number of attacks lower or higher than three?
the options available are really only 3...
1: Front loaded: all APM are distributed one at a time starting with the 1st phase and progressing to the last phase before starting over at the first phase
2: Back loaded: all APM are distributed one at a time starting with the 3rd phase and progressing to the 1st phase before starting over at the 3rd phase
3: Center Loaded a chart is developed wherein the APM are distributed "evenly" out from the center. Which would look something like this...
APM Phase distribution
3 1/1/1
4 1/2/1
5 2/1/2
6 2/2/2
7 2/3/2
8 3/2/3
9 3/3/3
etc...

I recommend either Front or Back loading (Mostly because they are the easiest grasp and can be done on the fly quickly and without requiring referencing a chart.

How do you handle dodge (and other "lose an action" actions)? Do you just take those actions from future phases, or do you have some other system to deal with them?
they "lose" the next available action. If that means it comes from the next phase or next melee then that is where it comes from.

PigLick

Damian pretty well covered it but I'll also add:

It allows you to very easily disconnect movement from attacks per melee as it should be.

[Thinyser]

It's not always possible but a good way to do it is to restrict talking during combat. Inform your players ahead of time, give them each like 3 strikes or so. After that any non-combat related chatter results in a 1 action penalty. Also put a time limit. Combat is fast paced. If it's 15 seconds you keep an eye on your watch and give them 15 seconds to make up their minds on their actions. Most people, while feeling pressure will probably make that same decision in about 3-5 seconds.
Just suggestions

^This^

It sounds rather harsh but it works. We often use a 15sec "hourglass" sand timer to keep people motivated to make a decision. Don't tell the GM what you want to do in that time frame you lose that action as if your character was stunned. Unfortunately this is harsher on mages and psychics (at first) but my belief is that it makes them know their character better and a become a more proficient and capable mage or psychic and overall benefit the group more. After a few sessions of a noob mage losing an action or two each combat because they don't know what spells they have and they tend to learn that to be effective they MUST know their skill set and when to apply what, and how.

I have not used the "don't talk if its not combat related" but I'll implement that in tomorrow's session.

[say652]

I don't give that much time. With 13 attacks I need to get my action out in around one second. Go.....to long combat paralysis. Ok your turn....

[jaymz]

I don't give that much time. With 13 attacks I need to get my action out in around one second. Go.....to long combat paralysis. Ok your turn....

Using the 3 phase system mentioned above everyone gets 3 "turns". It how much you can do with each "turn" that matters now.

In your case with 13 attacks....

Turn 1 - you get to use 4 attacks

Turn 2 - you get to use 5 attacks

Turn 3 - you get to use 4 attacks.

[say652]

Wow I might have time to think of more than. Punch. Lightning bolt. Hand clap. Stomp. Mix n repeat lol.

[Thinyser]

I don't give that much time. With 13 attacks I need to get my action out in around one second. Go.....to long combat paralysis. Ok your turn....

Using the 3 phase system mentioned above everyone gets 3 "turns". It how much you can do with each "turn" that matters now.

In your case with 13 attacks....

Turn 1 - you get to use 4 attacks

Turn 2 - you get to use 5 attacks

Turn 3 - you get to use 4 attacks.

How exactly does this speed it up at all?

From what I see, It does not reduce the number of attack or number of defence options (nor their corresponding dice rolls) to any appreciable degree. It does not reduce the damage dice rolls. It doesn't remove the initiative roll (assuming you still do this just once at the beginning of phase 1 to cover that full melee round).

The only benefit I see is that players or NPCs/mobs with lower attacks don't get left hanging at the end of the round "with their thumbs in their butts" as the saying goes, as the players with more attacks continue on.

With that said lets say that "Mr. 13" attacks is up against "Mr. 6" attacks (which would be broken down as 2/2/2 in each phase). They roll initiative and presumably Mr 13 wins because with that many attacks he likely has some bigger bonuses to initiative as well (just a guess).

So Mr 13 attacks (lets just say its a sword duel for simplicity) Mr. 6 can either parry or dodge (or simul attack if you use that) he parries not knowing how fast (#of attacks) his opponent is. Mr. 6 then attacks and Mr. 13 also elects to parry. The next exchange goes the same. At that point Mr. 6 is out of attacks for that phase so as Mr. 13 attacks twice more he tries to parry and realizes he is over matched (at least in # of attacks per melee).

Phase 2 starts and the echanges go the same except Mr.6 uses his 2 attacks as simul attacks vs Mr.13's first 2 attacks, he then continues to try to parry the other 3.

Phase 3 begins and Mr.6 again simul attacks vs Mr.13's first 2 attacks and tries to parry the last 2.

Is there a slight benefit here to the person with lower # of attacks because after the first phase they know they are over matched and can alter tactics? Possibly. Will this change the time it takes to do all those opposing rolls? Not by much other than simul attacks cannot be defended so there are 4 less rolls in the above scenario than if no simul attacks were used.



What am I missing here? I know people use this system and swear by it but for the life of me I cannot understand how it makes combat appreciably faster...

[jaymz]

Well it also allows for multi action things to occur as a "single" action so to speak like power punches, spells etc, that can be said to take until your "next attack" to actually occur depending on ones perspective of how those work (which ther is no definitive answer too)

Also as i said it can allow movement to removed from being tied to attack per melee (which right now will allow a person to get to a given point faster if they have less attacks due to more movement per attack and the fact attacks take a vague amount of time thus more attacks "slows you down" so to speak).

In addition while the actual resolution may be roughly the same amount of time in theory, it can allow the quicker elimination of opponents since you are not using one attack at a time but using multiple attacks at a time. IE as in above you would declare your 4 attacks in the first phase. they could be against multiple opponents or one opponent. whatever they chose to do may put them out of combat in a variety of ways more quickly than doing the standard 1 attack each round robin style.

The side effect is players will feel more involved in combat by and large as they do not sit there waiting for uber attack guy to finish his remaining attacks etc since everyone is taking 3 "turns"

[Damian Magecraft]

Honestly when it comes to speed of combat, Palladium is no faster or slower than any other combat system.
The Tired old saw is "RPGs, where a 3 hour walk takes 3 minutes and a 3 minute fight takes 3 hours."
Note the saying is about ALL rpgs not Rifts or Palladium specifically.

[Thinyser]

Well it also allows for multi action things to occur as a "single" action so to speak like power punches, spells etc, that can be said to take until your "next attack" to actually occur depending on ones perspective of how those work (which ther is no definitive answer too)

Umm I must be missing something then because if you have 13 attacks 4 of which are in the first phase and you use 2 of those to power punch its the exact same. You end up with 11 attacks left for the rest of the melee. Same with magic you cast a spell that (by whatever rules you use) should cost 2 actions it takes 2 of your first 4 actions and either goes off immediately and you lose the next action or it goes off on the 2nd action (depending on how your group/GM does things). Nothing is different.

Also as i said it can allow movement to removed from being tied to attack per melee (which right now will allow a person to get to a given point faster if they have less attacks due to more movement per attack and the fact attacks take a vague amount of time thus more attacks "slows you down" so to speak).

Are you saying that you have to devote the entire phase to movement? because thats the only thing that would even this out. Otherwise people with more attacks are still "slower" (ie move less distance per attack). Again this is exactly the same as regular PB rules unless I'm really dense and missing something here.

In addition while the actual resolution may be roughly the same amount of time in theory, it can allow the quicker elimination of opponents since you are not using one attack at a time but using multiple attacks at a time. IE as in above you would declare your 4 attacks in the first phase. they could be against multiple opponents or one opponent. whatever they chose to do may put them out of combat in a variety of ways more quickly than doing the standard 1 attack each round robin style.

Wait wait wait... so you are saying that I have to say "for the first phase all I do is attack with my sword" and then either roll 1 strike roll or roll 4 (1 for each action) and cannot deviate from this course? Or I cast a single spell and then lose my other actions because that entire phase was devoted to that spell? Or move and lose the ability to attack or cast because I used 1 of my 4 actions during that phase to move?

The side effect is players will feel more involved in combat by and large as they do not sit there waiting for uber attack guy to finish his remaining attacks etc since everyone is taking 3 "turns"

well thats fine and good but it having players feeling involved or engaged does not mean the combat goes any faster (though it may seem faster as those players don't have the "thumb in butt feeling" for several actions each round.)

[jaymz]

The difference is some GMs will say your power punch does actually occur until your next next attack (because you only can use one attack at a time) thus you wait and can be interrupted. In this case your power punch is instantaneous. Same goes for spells that require more than one attack to cast.

No i am saying movement is not attached to your attacks at all. Thus people with SPD 10 can move the exact same distance in the same amount of time (in a phase) and get there the same time as opposed to the way it is now.

No i am saying you declare all of your attacks as opposed to one at a time. IE I am going to shoot him twice, then take a shot at that guy and that guy. You make all four rolls at once. Then the defenders react accordingly as needed if they can. As oposed to "ok I shoot that guy, roll defender rolls, ok I shoot him again, roll defender rolls, etc."

I never said it actually speeds up combat but it does make it seem quicker as players will not be sitting around doing nothing. Time seems to pass quicker when you are doing something as opposed to sitting there waiting. IE it negates the "a watched pot never boils" syndrome.

perception of slowness or quickness has as much to do with the problem as actual slowness or quickness here.

[Thinyser]

The difference is some GMs will say your power punch does actually occur until your next next attack (because you only can use one attack at a time) thus you wait and can be interrupted. In this case your power punch is instantaneous. Same goes for spells that require more than one attack to cast.

That can be done without any phases. The GM just says it takes effect immediately and you lose the next action.

No i am saying movement is not attached to your attacks at all. Thus people with SPD 10 can move the exact same distance in the same amount of time (in a phase) and get there the same time as opposed to the way it is now.

Explain this further please maybe an example using Mr 13 attacks Speed 10 and Mr 6 attacks speed 10. Compare and contrast from PB RAW vs Phase so I can understand exactly how this works. I think I know but I wanna have you clarify to make sure.

No i am saying you declare all of your attacks as opposed to one at a time. IE I am going to shoot him twice, then take a shot at that guy and that guy. You make all four rolls at once. Then the defenders react accordingly as needed if they can. As oposed to "ok I shoot that guy, roll defender rolls, ok I shoot him again, roll defender rolls, etc."

Gotcha, I see how that can speed things up a little bit since you are not going person to person to person around the table as much. This is making much more sense now. Thanks.

I never said it actually speeds up combat but it does make it seem quicker as players will not be sitting around doing nothing. Time seems to pass quicker when you are doing something as opposed to sitting there waiting. IE it negates the "a watched pot never boils" syndrome.

Agreed it will seem faster for sure. Might actually BE a bit faster too.

perception of slowness or quickness has as much to do with the problem as actual slowness or quickness here.

Well that depends I agree that a fast paced fight is more fun for everybody BUT as the OP said he doesn't have 14 hours a weekend to devote to gaming so we are trying to cut down on "actual" time spent grinding through combat. Its nice to perceive things as not taking as long but when dealing with real world time constraints this perception of a 4 hour combat taking only 2 hours (WOW that was an awesome fight) doesn't help get the other 2 hours back.

I myself am in the same boat as the OP. I get to game maybe 1-2 times a month for 5-6 hours each time so quick combat would be awesome for our group. So while a 4 hour combat seeming like 2 hours is a step up from a 4 hour combat draggin on and feeling like a full 4 hours it still eats up the majority of our session where if we could cut it down to 2 hours of actual time that would still leave the majority of the session open for RP and other stuff which is what I think the OP is after (and I would love for my group as well)

[Damian Magecraft]

perception of slowness or quickness has as much to do with the problem as actual slowness or quickness here.

Well that depends I agree that a fast paced fight is more fun for everybody BUT as the OP said he doesn't have 14 hours a weekend to devote to gaming so we are trying to cut down on "actual" time spent grinding through combat. Its nice to perceive things as not taking as long but when dealing with real world time constraints this perception of a 4 hour combat taking only 2 hours (WOW that was an awesome fight) doesn't help get the other 2 hours back.

I myself am in the same boat as the OP. I get to game maybe 1-2 times a month for 5-6 hours each time so quick combat would be awesome for our group. So while a 4 hour combat seeming like 2 hours is a step up from a 4 hour combat draggin on and feeling like a full 4 hours it still eats up the majority of our session where if we could cut it down to 2 hours of actual time that would still leave the majority of the session open for RP and other stuff which is what I think the OP is after (and I would love for my group as well)

one trick that may help is a suggestion I got from another systems boards...
have the players pre-roll and record a series of combat rolls (the suggested number was 25 to 50) then when combat comes up the players tick off the rolls in sequence.
Another trick (also from another systems boards) is to roll both the attack die and the damage die at the same time.
your mileage may vary.

Another big slow down to combats is the GM.
not every fight has to be taken to the last hp...
use mook rules.
if the fight isnt plot integral then pick an arbitrary number of blows that the mook can handle before keeling over.
this rule should be ignored for the "boss" fight.

[Thinyser]

Another big slow down to combats is the GM.
not every fight has to be taken to the last hp...
use mook rules.
if the fight isnt plot integral then pick an arbitrary number of blows that the mook can handle before keeling over.
this rule should be ignored for the "boss" fight.

When I GM I do this as much as possible without seeming to make it too easy on the PCs.

[Damian Magecraft]

Another big slow down to combats is the GM.
not every fight has to be taken to the last hp...
use mook rules.
if the fight isnt plot integral then pick an arbitrary number of blows that the mook can handle before keeling over.
this rule should be ignored for the "boss" fight.

When I GM I do this as much as possible without seeming to make it too easy on the PCs.

The nature of TTRPGs will cause combat to "drag" disproportionately.
I have found that using "convention rules" is always best...
plan for only one major conflict per session.
plan for the major conflict to consume a minimum of 1hr of game time (adjust npcs as needed).
plan for the MC to be the Climax of the session.
plan for a buffer of roughly 30 minutes til the end of session to tie up lose ends.
expect the players to screw up these plans and be prepared to adapt accordingly.

[Bill]

I think what is becoming clear is that the common tweaks don't really speed up the game so much as make it more interactive and enjoyable for a group of characters with a wide range of attacks per melee. If you really want to speed it up, I think you've got to either strip out active defenses, which is one of the fans' favorite aspects of the game, or address MD output vs MDC. Yes, in a game where everynody is packing weapons of mass destruction, they're not doing enough damage to resolve a fight in a fast and exciting manner.
Called shots and power attacks can help with this, but not usually by enough in my experience. Ocassionally, I've considered dividing all MDC values by ten while leaving the attacks as is. I haven't done it yet.

[flatline]

Honestly when it comes to speed of combat, Palladium is no faster or slower than any other combat system.

This is demonstrably false. While it is true that the speed of combat is largely impacted by the players hemming and hawing over what they're going to do, the system still makes a tremendous difference.

The old West End Games Star Wars game (the one with all the d6's) was fast even with indecisive players. White Wolf's d10 system (Vampire, Mage, Werewolf, etc, at least through 2nd edition) were also fast for pretty much the same reasons. If anyone remembers Friday Night Firefight from Cyberpunk, it was exceedingly fast both because the rules were relatively simple and because it was so lethal.

The HERO and Rolemaster systems are typically slow even with decisive players because of table lookups and tedious accounting.

The vanilla Palladium system usually sits somewhere in the middle depending on the house rules in play. Unfortunately the Palladium system is tied to some really awkward ideas, some of which are non-trivial to address with house rules.

--flatline