Savage Wombat
Hero
Half of the discussions on this particular topic inevitably make me think of Knights of the Dinner Table.
Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)
Half of the discussions on this particular topic inevitably make me think of Knights of the Dinner Table.
What about mercenary/soldier hirelings? I don't remember any rule addressing the XP issue in respect of them, either in D&D or AD&D, except perhaps the AD&D guidelines for discounting XP based on risk.
Iosue
Legend
It does when you have multi-phase plans. Lots of moving parts, mini-plans to execute the larger plan, making adjustments to account for complications. To use Ocean's 11 as an example, the plan itself is made very early on and relayed to Brad Pitt after the poker game. The lion's share of the movie is them then methodically executing that plan, much of it involving the prep for the actual heist, which is carried out in the film's climax.
"Blow through" has a nuance of rushing by, not giving something the usual amount of time and attention, which is really not appropriate here. In any style, be that CaW or CaS, or any other style one might suggest, the ideal is that something takes just as long or just as short a time as necessary and desired.
Yes. The exact resolution system for this particular thing is unimportant. The important thing is where the decision points are.
Yes, but the degree of abstractness varies from edition to edition. OD&D and Expert are probably the most abstract, 3e and 4e the most granular (it's very much my position that greater HP numbers of 3e and 4e did not make PCs and monsters more powerful, but rather allowed for greater granularity in combat). AD&D (1st and 2nd edition) fall in the middle, depending on how much wanted to use spell casting times, weapon speeds, and the like.
The hireling/henchman distinction in AD&D (or specialist/retainer distinction in Expert D&D) falls between those who provide logistic support (hirelings) and those who join the party (henchmen). Mercenary/soldier hirelings are meant to guard strongholds and camps, rather than invade the dungeon or provide protection in the wilderness. You could, certainly, take a man-at-arms or sergeant into the dungeon with you, but they would then perforce be part of the party as henchmen, and take a share of XP.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Planning and execution could occur in phases, sure. You could plan, execute, adjust plans and execute them. Planning and execution are distinct, though you could cycle through them faster and faster... By the time you're doing them virtually simultaneously, you're on to tactics, and have left strategic focus behind.
Yes. That's why I chose it. 'Fast combat' for it's own sake evokes that connotation. From the original article:
Execution, as far as combat, in any case, is de-valued.CaW said:
Greater hps in 3e were prettymuch just inflation, I think. In 4e, they were intentionally to extend combats (in terms of rounds) enough to open up dynamic combats and allow tactical decisions to be meaningful. But as far as levels of abstraction go, D&D has always been very abstract, and drawing lines between editions is pretty nearly pointless. Though, I guess, on the conceptual level, 4e's separation of fluff and mechanics in powers is an extra level of abstraction other editions didn't resort to.
Last edited:
Iosue
Legend
But we're not, or at least I'm not, talking about planning vs. execution, but rather prep vs. execution. Pemerton suggested that a good description of operational play was "select a target/mission, choose the right equipment and spells, plan it out, and then methodolically proceed to implement that plan." You then suggested that this didn't sound like CaW because CaW "blows through" the foregone conclusion of the planning and prep, rather than methodically implement/execute that plan. My whole point is that the prep of the plan is part of its execution.
That's why I disagree with your choice of words. It presumes a) that there is a "right" amount of time to spent on combat, b) that this is a longer time than that spent by CaW advocates, and c) they are thus rushing through it by not spending that time. I disagree with that premise. Likewise, I would not agree with a characterization of 4e play as "drawing out combat". Objectively, there is no standard for how long combats should take.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Once you've split that hair, you're /still/ blowing through the remaining half of it.
Not at all. CaW assumes that there's a 'right' amount of time spend on combat (for CaW), and that it's very little time. I provided a direct quote to that from the original article. That's inconsistent with the idea of methodical planning, prep, /and/ (the rest of) execution.
Agreed. 4e specifically addressed an issue with 3e combats becoming 'static,' by increasing the importance of tactics by: eliminating full-round actions (so creatures could move while still attacking at full effectiveness), adding 'riders' & minor-action powers so that characters could perform other tactically meaningful actions without unduly sacrificing DPR/'action,' formalizing involuntary movement (so positioning could potentially be needed every round), and increasing hps relative to damage dealt (to avoid 'rocket tag' and allow combats to be long enough in rounds for tactics to matter). Some or all of that has been construed as making combats take 'too long' (which, again, I agree borders on nonsense, since there's no definitive 'right' duration for combats), and the original CaW article re-iterates that criticism.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Let's be fair though. You could probably shave off some of the time 4e combats take and not lose much in the way of tactical depth and go a long way towards making a lot of people happier with the system. Me, personally, I blame the plethora of interrupt actions that PC's can take. It's such a huge time drag to constantly have to stop after virtually every action and look around the table to make sure no one's going to jump in with some interrupt of some sort.
And then you have the whole "Wait, I can do something about that if you want? Do you want me to or should I save it for later? Is now a good time? What do you think" conversation which can become mind bogglingly annoying after the fifteenth time.
I would be very, very happy if 4e ejected about 90% of the off turn actions, or went the Warlord route of being able to grant actions during your turn, rather than stopping other people's actions in the middle.
I love that 4e broke the mould of the round and turn being discrete units, but, IMO, they went way too far with it.
And then you have the whole "Wait, I can do something about that if you want? Do you want me to or should I save it for later? Is now a good time? What do you think" conversation which can become mind bogglingly annoying after the fifteenth time.
I would be very, very happy if 4e ejected about 90% of the off turn actions, or went the Warlord route of being able to grant actions during your turn, rather than stopping other people's actions in the middle.
I love that 4e broke the mould of the round and turn being discrete units, but, IMO, they went way too far with it.
Tony Vargas
Legend
That might well speed up combat (OTOH, it might not speed it up, much, it depends on how well the group handles such options), but, it would also eliminate some of that tactical depth. How the increased speed stacks up to the loss of tactical depth depends on the group.
On the plus side, if a group decides that such powers aren't worth the extra time, they could avoid choosing them, and the DM could, likewise, avoid having monsters use such powers.
Similar Threads
