D&D 4E 4E Oldschool

[Syrsuro]

After playing 4E for over a year (and 3.5 for several years before that) I have finally come to grips with what it is that makes me yearn quietly for the older school systems (O/AD&D)and why I see both 3.x and 4E as serious departures from that.

And no, I don't want to get into system bashing - that isn't the point. People like what they like.

In my case, although I like many things about 4E I do see a major shift in what the players do during a play session. Not one mandated by the rules and not one that couldn't be avoided in theory. But one that, none-the-less was due to the game mechanics.

In the older games, combats were shorter. Now this seems so obvious, that it hardly needs to be said. It wasn't difficult to fit 10 or more combat encounters into a game session. But was is often missed is that those 10 or more combat encounters still took up only around half of the game time. The rest was spent exploring and interacting with the environment (both physical and social). This is the reason why many people say that there is less roleplaying in 4E - it isn't that there needs to be, it is just that combats are these huge, monolithic blocks of time which tend to not leave as much time for anything else (unless you decide to cut back on the number of combats which, although fine for some, doesn't actually represent how the game was played - at least not in my experience.

Which brings me to the change I am considering for some areas...

Create an area with some reason why resting (even 5 minute rests) are not viable. This reason can be wandering monsters, hazardous effects (extreme cold) or whatever.

Decide on the monsters that will populate this area and modify them by reducing them to 1/4 hit points (and reduce their experience awarded by 1/4 to compensate*).

Damage and other abilities are unchanged.

Create a difficult encounter using these modified creatures. This gives you around 20 monsters with which to populate the area. Place them in a variety of different rooms (perhaps with the ability to come running if an alarm is sounded, etc.)

The end result is an area where the players experience is that of numerous monsters requiring an ongoing battle of multiple 'encounters. Rather than encounter driven combats with no time left to consider the space between those encounters, the entire area is now relevant and exploring and interaction becomes more important.

Because this extended encounter space takes place without resting (and is thus a single encounter), the game mechanisms are still somewhat balaced.

In short, you have an area that feels more like an old-school game than it does a modern game while adhering to the basic game mechanics.

(In practice, I will probably have this area lead to a more traditional 4E encounter whose opponents feel even stronger by comparison to the 1/4 hp ones mentioned above.)

Comments? Anyone tried anything like this?

Carl

*And yes, I know that this makes them grant the same experience as a minion by RAW. However I don't think there is any question but that minions are not worth 1/4 of a regular. These creatures are far closer to being 1/4 of a regular. Minions ought to be more like 1/8 or less.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I don't actually entirely agree with you on the subject of minions. They MAY not be as good as 1/4 of a normal monster, depending on the situation. OTOH I've had some minions that returned far more value than that in a fight. I also think a monster with 1/4 of normal hit points and otherwise full powers is probably worth a good bit more than 25% of a normal monster. Maybe as much as 50% or at low levels even more.

I'm not 100% sure I agree with you about the discrepancy in combat encounter lengths either. I think its true that simpler encounters in 4e tend not to be as easy to resolve really quickly. More complex ones may be a bit slower in some cases, but nothing like a factor of 10. Maybe more like a factor of 33%. A well run 4e encounter should take at most an hour. A key 1e or 2e encounter would rarely be resolved in less time than that.

The thing is a lot of the more trivial encounters in old D&D really were just that, pretty much trivial. While there can certainly be fairly trivial 4e encounters, the game just wasn't designed with a lot of them happening in mind. So maybe you might find your proposed method feels a bit more like old D&D, but then again it may not.

But the main thing I'm not convinced of is that reducing monster HP even that drastically is going to necessarily make combat suddenly massively faster. 4e encounter speed is slower partly because everyone has a lot more meaningful options to think about than before and actually carefully setting up terrain and opponents matters.

I guess basically try it and let us know how it goes. I wouldn't mind if combat WAS faster at times.

 

[Syrsuro]

I think it definately makes it faster - how can it not? Fewer hit points means fewer hits to kill the opponent. Fewer hits to kill the opponent means fewer rounds to do that damage.

The fact that a 'round' is now far more complex and takes longer than a round in older school games is also a factor. But I don't see how reducing the hit points can not reduce combat length. There is just a limit on how far you can usefully reduce that length (reduce the opponents too far and they might as well all be minions and the battles stop being challenging).

And yes, many encounters were trivial in 'old school' games. For two reasons: One, it was the cumulative effect of multiple encounters that mattered, not one single encounter (i.e. resource management with hp being one of the primary resources) and Two, the point was not that the combat itself was the challenge. The challenge was to succeed at whatever your particular goal was and the encounters merely one more obstacle in your way. In fact, keeping both of those facts in mind, often the best option was to avoid the combat rather than to seek it out.

Carl

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mmmm, I think its still true. Combat is just a way to solve some problem. But I figure setting up the encounter and then whatever all stuff happens to wrap it up at the end is a decent part of the time. That doesn't really change regardless of the number of rounds the battle goes. Of course things will take LESS time with weaker monsters. It seems to me maybe half as long is about the most though. I think it also depends on play style, and how organized everyone is.

Overall I think a lesser number of quality fights is the most fun. If there are enough skill challenges and whatnot then things move along fine. If its all tough fights then it gets a bit slow. Old D&D battles were a little faster. Not too much though as I recall.

I don't tend to drag out fights either. If the monsters are pretty much defeated, then usually they'll break off or the last 1 or 2 surrender or just fall down and die. At least 4e fights usually seem to be pretty interesting. Overall it doesn't really feel that much different from the old days, except fighters actually count for something past 7th level.

 

[aco175]

I'm trying to remember how much we used minis and a grid back then. I remember using figures mostly and no grid, but saying you can get about halfway to the bad guy on your turn. Can I run around him to backstab, no, you can only get in position. I wonder how much this talk sped things up, without counting squares.

Also, I seem to remember having less options as far as things that my character can do.

I do not have a big problem with minions, they seem to do what they are made to do. I try to speed up combat by killing bad guys when all looks lost and its just down to the last man. There is an old post about after a few rounds damage done on both sides becomes greater and greater until folks are dropping like flies. I think it was sudden death or overtime.

 

[FireLance]

I wonder if you could achieve the same effect by messing with the default time frame of the game. Essentially, everything that normally happens after a 5-minute short rest (recovering encounter powers, spending healing surges to regain hit points, etc.) now happens after a 6-hour extended rest, and everything that normally happens after a 6-hour extended rest (recovering daily powers, regaining healing surges, etc.) now happens after a 1-week rest.

Under this new time frame, the characters should be able to take on one of what would normally be considered a "standard" encounter per "day" of game time, or a larger number of smaller encounters over the course of the day. The scaling would be an issue, though: five equal-level monsters, encountered individually, are generally not as dangerous as the same five monsters encountered at once.

Assuming the PCs take one round to kill each monster and each monster gets to act before the PCs kill it, a single monster would get one action against the PCs before dying. Two monsters would collectively get three actions against the PCs before dying (the first monster gets one action and then is killed, the second monster takes two actions before it is killed). Three monsters would get six actions, four monsters would get ten actions, and five monsters would get fifteen actions.

So, in the course of a "day", a party might reasonably be expected to take on:
A single big encounter with five monsters;
One encounter with four monsters and another with three;
Two encounters with three monsters and an encounter with two;
One encounter with three monsters and three encounters with two;
Five encounters with two monsters;
Fifteen encounters with a single monster;
Or any other combination which results in approximately 15 actions for the monsters over the course of a day.

 

[eriktheguy]

Really interesting idea by OP, and good thread so far. I like firelance's idea a lot. This would be a completely different style of campaign, probably on the same pacing level as 3e. OPs idea would be a good way to run a single dungeon crawl, but take my advice, and try 1/2 HP and smaller encounter groups before you try 1/4 HP. 1/4 is a drastic change and will probably render controllers as the undisputed best role in the game. Give it a shot and let us know how it works out.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Firelance approach was discussed before. I wouldn't go so far to turn a short rest into an extended rest. Maybe extending the length of a short rest to a full hour and an extended rest to 24 hours (or even 48) might already do the trick.

Individual combats might not be a full encounter under this premise. But the PCs can't find a resting place after each of these combats, they basically have to clear an area "worth" one full encounter. You can probably increase the encounter level notably under this premise, since the "action economy" works in favor of the PCs here. They get more actions in this encounter area then their enemies.

It might also help to introduce monsters with less hit points, but don't assume that 1/4 hit points also equals 1/4 the challenge - action economy now works in favor of the monsters. Assuming 1/2 the challenge seems about fair.

You could also try a "naive" approach. Just run encounters way beyond the PCs level. The only resources that will cost them are daily resources, primarily healing surges. But hey, "easy" encounters in 3E or even earlier editions didn't cost much more than hit points, either. It's unlikely the Wizard will unleash his Fireball against 2 Hobgoblin Warriors, the Fighter and Rogue will do just fine against them without him.

A further approach might be to cover combat scenarios not always by the fully-fledged combat rules - instead, use a skill challenge. The PCs can spend an encounter power to make an attack roll instead of a skill roll to gain successes (or failures), and they may spend daily powers to gain automatic successes or negate failures.

Combat Skill Challenge:
[sblock=Teutonic Overengineering]
Level: The level of the challenge is equal to the level of the encounter.

Complexity: Special, see below.

Primary Skills: All.
Each skill can be used, the difficulty is typically hard. Most skills can be applied in some manner, but each skill can be used only once per individual.

Exceptions are by power source. These skills can be used repeatedly, but each repeated use after the first adds a cumulative +2 bonus to the DC.
Martial: Choose one skill of Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance or Stealth
Arcane, Psionic: Choose one skill of Arcana or Insight
Divine: Choose one skill of Arcana, Heal or Religion
Primal: Choose one skill of Endurance or Nature
Shadow: Choose one skill of Bluff or Stealth.
If a check fails, one character loses a healing surge. Characters can make a decision based on their characters primary role (as determined by their first class, not multi class feats) who loses that surge.
- A Leader can spend an encounter utility power to negate the healing surge loss.
- A Defender can always choose to accept a healing surge loss.
- If another character failed his check, the Controller may choose who takes the healing surge loss.
- If it was a Striker that failed his check, he can choose a Defender to take the loss.
- The character himself can choose to take the healing surge loss.
If there is discussion in the group, resolve in the above sequence.


Further Exceptional options exist by the presence of monster roles. Each option can be used once per creature of that role. Elites count as two monsters, Solos as 4 and 4 Minions as one.
Artillery vs Striker: Acrobatics, Athletics
Brute vs Controller or Defender: Athletics, Endurance
Controller vs Leader: Heal
Lurker vs Defender or Striker: Endurance, Insight, Perception
Skirmisher vs Controller or Defender: Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance, Insight
Soldier vs Defender or Striker: Athletics, Endurance, Stealth
Leader Subrole vs Leader: Bluff, Diplomacy and Insight

Secondary Skills:
Aid Another is not possible in a combat skill challenge. Instead, characters can choose to use any skill against a moderate DC to grant a +2 bonus to an allies check (including an attack, see below). On a failed check, he inflicts a -2 penalty instead. Each skill can be used only once for this purpose, except for the skills listed under primary skills appropriate for the characters power source.

In addition of skills, encounter and daily attack or utility powers can be expended.
The player may expend one encounter power to make an attack roll against a defense of 14 + level. On a hit, he gains a success. The player may expend one healing surge to negate a failure.
The player may expend one daily attack power to make an attack roll against a defense of 14 + level. On a hit, he gains one success. A failure does not count against the challenge.
The player may expend one daily utility power to negate one failure just made.

Success or Failure:
Failure or minor successes cost additional healing surges. If a PC has less healing surges available than required, either another ally can choose to expend the healing surges, or he takes damage equal to his healing surge value for each surge missing. You can use the same sequence as for in-challenge mechanics to allow people to "trade" their losses. In addition, a Leader may choose to expend any number of remaining daily attack or utility powers to negate 2 lost healing surges per power expended.

Failure: 3 failures before 4 successes:
The PCs lost and are retreating. Each PC lose 2 healing surges for each success missing to 4 successes. A PC that is reduced to 0 hit points or less was captured by the enemies. A PC that is reduced to his negative bloodied value was killed.

Complexity 1 (4 success before 3 failures): The PCs succeeded, but barely so.
They lose 2 healing surges for each failure. If a PC is reduced to 0 hit points or less, an enemy could escape. If a PC was reduced to his negative bloodied value, an enemy escaped and took him with him, maybe as a hostage aiding his escape.

Complexity 2 (6 successes before 3 failures): The PCs succeeded, with minor failures. They lose 1 healing surge for each failure. If a PC was reduced to 0 hit points or less, an enemy could escape and might reoccur in a later encounter or warn his comrades.

Complexity 3 (8 successes before 3 failures): The PC succeeded and took down all opponents. A character can choose to capture one enemy, but must expend 2 healing surges for each failure per enemy.

Complexity 4 (8 successes before 3 failures): The PC succeeded, with great success. A character can choose to capture one enemy, but must expend one healing surge for each failure per enemy.

Complexity 5 (10 successes before 3 failures): The PC succeeded, with excellent success. The captured all enemies, minus one enemy for every failure.
A character can choose to capture additional enemies, but must expend one healing surge for each failure per enemy.
[/sblock]

 

[Syrsuro]

Really interesting idea by OP, and good thread so far. I like firelance's idea a lot. This would be a completely different style of campaign, probably on the same pacing level as 3e. OPs idea would be a good way to run a single dungeon crawl, but take my advice, and try 1/2 HP and smaller encounter groups before you try 1/4 HP. 1/4 is a drastic change and will probably render controllers as the undisputed best role in the game. Give it a shot and let us know how it works out.

I agree that firelance's approach has merit, it just happens that I am trying to see what can be done entirely 'behind the screen', i.e. without making any changes to the character rules, only to what the DM controls. This does make some things much harder.

And yes, this will make controllers extremely powerful (although, in a way, that is also reminiscent of 'old school'). It just happens that in my own group there currentlly is no controller (as a primary role - there are a couple of secondary role controllers). On the other hand, what it does do is make attacks that target multiple opponents (by anyone) proportionally more powerful. My hope is that this can be manaaged.

Individual combats might not be a full encounter under this premise. But the PCs can't find a resting place after each of these combats, they basically have to clear an area "worth" one full encounter. You can probably increase the encounter level notably under this premise, since the "action economy" works in favor of the PCs here. They get more actions in this encounter area then their enemies.

It might also help to introduce monsters with less hit points, but don't assume that 1/4 hit points also equals 1/4 the challenge - action economy now works in favor of the monsters. Assuming 1/2 the challenge seems about fair.

And there you have it. By redefining the 'encounter' in an 'encounter area' with multiple engagements but no resting you are swinging the 'action economy' in one way while by decreasing the hit points and increasing the body count you are potentially swinging the 'action economy' the other way. Or more precisely, reducing the hit points also swings the effective action economy in favor of the players (in a very real sense an attack that targets multiple opponents can be seen as one pseudo-action per target) while increasing the body count swings it in the other way.

In theory there is a point where those trends cancel out and the math still works. It is likely that that balance point is different for any given group of characters: the more their attacks hit multiple (reduced hit point) opponents, the more the math is unbalanced in the players favor; the larger the size of the individual engagements the more the action economy favors the monsters. The hard part is going to be finding that new balance.

On the other hand, players in general seem to be able to handle quite a bit more than the default system wants to throw at them. I suspect that they could actually handle two or three 'encounters worth' of such weakened monsters without too much difficulty - the only resource they are likely to run short on is leader assisted healing (I also considered allowing one minor change to the system from the player's perspective and that was to allow second wind and only second wind to recharge between different engagements within an encounter area).

That will be the real test: At present, I know about how many surges they will spend in a typical 'balanced' encounter. So one option may be to just defer the question of experience point parity until I see how it all balances out.

At present, my plan is to do this to occasional encounters, not all encounters (which is part of why I want to do this entirely from 'behind the screen'). If I can make changes like this entirely from my perspective (especially if I can rationalize the 'no resting' with ingame logic) it increases the tools I have available to design with. If I have to change the players rules to make changes, it restricts what I can do and forces me to use this changed math all of the time.

Carl

 

[Mythlore]

I actually like the concept presented initially in this thread.

To populate an area with two dozen 'commoner' creatures and maybe a few 'elite commoners' (also known as your standard creature with a combat role), and mixing the rest up with minions... It would provide a more organic feeling to the 'encounter area'. I think I can draw a parallel to Diablo and Diablo II -- an area is generally populated with no more than 3-4 'species' or variants of a creature -- and there's always at least one or two uniques, exceptionals, champions, elites, and the such.

You wouldn't know which ones necessarily take 1 swing to kill (minion, 1 hp) from the ones which might require a slightly more invested effort (minor, 1/4 hp) -- and then there's got to be a few full-level monsters (standard, full hp) to keep the combat interesting, and give the party a reason to use their encounter powers and daily powers.

In this case, because you are quartering the creatures' hit points, a scorching burst column (area burst 1) might not clear them all out, even if it hits -- thus providing a good reason to lower the defense scores by 1 or 2 points, if the alternative isn't to just quarter the hit points. Further, if you miss with a power that does damage on a miss (this concept, to me, strikes me as usefully as 'friendly fire'), since it doesn't follow the minion rule of 'no effect on miss', your power simply cannot be wasted. This is especially useful if you are going to walk around with 1 or 2 encounter powers at levels 3-4, and rely on tactics like charge, shift, bull rush, and the other modalities which offer you tactical options. This would enable you to play the 'at-will' game, instead.

Now, if you put your creatures into a mostly confined space, with some distance and some logic, you could populate a small cavern-dungeon and reason out that reinforcements may take 2 rounds to prepare arms, gather together, and perform a ramshackle attack -- not counting the time it might take for creatures to come in for movement. Remember, of course, that even primitive creatures have an alarm system: it's called shouting and death cries. If you start the battle, you might expect 3-4 waves, or you might find role-play ways to 'play assassin' and encounter only 2-3 of the creatures at a time, dispatching them as quietly as you can.

This, I think, might fit the essence of the first post's idea -- that you have a sort of target goal (like a skill challenge might) -- and that you can come up with a plan to tackle it all. If you get your short rests, then you can take on more things; your leader will have their healing powers, you'll get your second winds, etc. And, it provides the -option- to take a short break, but not too long -- which might be necessary halfway through: you never knew in Diablo/II when you might have to make another trip back to town for a minute to heal up and such.