Three Round Combat

Questing Beast mentioned 3-round combat in his latest Can this DnD hack actually work? The idea is interesting, short brutal combats. Part of me likes the idea as my group has been fighting Giants lately and the bag of hit points that are giants results in a bit of tedious combat (at least from my point of view, my players seem to love it). So I went to the webpage that came up with the Pretendo the website that came up with the idea to see if they had anything that that filled it out better. Alas I was still unsatisfied. The jist:

Combat lasts 3 rounds at most. It may be initiated, decided, and concluded in a single round, or it may be initiated in round 1, decided by round 2, and concluded by round 3—but however it plays out, the victorious side is known by the end of the second round.

Round 3 is for transition and conclusion. At the start of round 3, the enemy side takes stock. The GM signals to players who’s about to win and what their options are.

• If enemies trail, they forfeit. The details depend on the nature of the enemy. Frightened animals may simply whine and run away when they’ve sustained too many wounds. A gang that’s lost their leader and half their fighters may thumb their noses and throw a dagger on their way out—but they still know when they’re beaten. Soldiers may surrender, repeating name, rank, and service number.  
• If enemies lead, they press their advantage. The GM should be transparent about the circumstances—it’s clear they’re winning, and they’re about to get a huge bonus against you if you stick around. The situation changes while preserving players’ agency about how to proceed. The specifics will di!er against di!erent enemies: surrender may be possible with soldiers; fleeing may be the only option against hungry predators; going down swinging may be more palatable than running away in some cases. 

• If unclear, use best judgment—but something changes. In a relatively even match-up, it’s up to the GM to make a ruling based on the nature of the enemy—or just going with “fleeing,” if that’s easier or more satisfying. For instance: a frenzied beast might attack recklessly for a huge bonus to attacks and damage, guaranteeing its own demise in the process; humans might take a breath and o!er to parley; robots might have repeated a routine multiple times, revealing a predictable behavior players can exploit. Again, though, no matter what, something changes.

Pivotal battles might go longer—but in round 3, there’s a twist.

So after reading that I kind of think it makes a good case for ignoring the normal reasons one might roll morale and instead rolling Morale after 3 rounds of combat. If the PCs are winning have the Foes roll at Disadvantage. If the Foes are winning have them roll at Advantage. If the Foe makes their morale roll perhaps they get an extra desperate attack the 4th round. Not sure about the last part but I like the "bloodied" idea from 4E and think something similar could be implemented here make round 4 more interesting.

Here are some Bloodied Effect ideas from 4E filtered through ChatGPT.

d12 Bloodied Effect

1. Makes an immediate melee attack against the nearest foe.
2. Immediately shifts (moves without provoking opportunity attacks) several squares.
3. Gains a bonus to attack rolls until the end of the encounter.
4. Gains resistance to one or more damage types.
5. Recharges one or more expended powers.
6. Summons reinforcements or calls nearby allies.
7. Enters a berserk rage, dealing extra damage but suffering lower defenses.
8. Begins regenerating hit points each round.
9. Gains an additional action each round (or an immediate bonus action in systems that use them).
10. Drops its shield or armor, sacrificing defense for increased offense.
11. Emits poisonous blood, acid, fire, or necrotic energy whenever struck in melee.
12. Reveals a hidden weapon, mutation, or magical ability unavailable before being bloodied.