Example of Basic D&D Combat

[Nebulous]

I'm trying to envision how this encounter would look in 4e:

PCs:
1st level fighter
2nd level elf (wizard)
1st level dwarf (fighter)
2nd level cleric

Monsters:
Elven hobgoblin grunts, level 3 minions.
One hobgoblin subcommander, level 3 soldier (from Dragon).

The hobgoblins move into the room in pairs, and the PCs try to parley first. Diplomacy checks fail. Both sides roll initiative, PCs win. Wizard and Cleric will certainly fall back behind the fighters. An arrow and axe drop two minions immediately.

10 hobgoblins left.

The elf dropping sleep would, at best, drop 4 hobgoblins, but only if they're clumped up, and even then it might just slow them. Plus they have Hobgoblin Resilence. Given the way the hobgoblins are staggered, the spellcaster might have to target the ones past the doorway. You can immediately see how much harder it is to abjudicate without minis for visual reference.

But let's say 4 hobgoblins minions are hit and slowed, and fail their saves the 2nd round and fall unconscious.

6 hobgoblins lef: 5 minions and the subcommander. At this point, there is no morale check comparable in 4e, other than DM fiat. Personally, i'd still have them all charge.

At this point, the dwarf Fighter Fredrik is going to get swarmed (assuming he was out in the open). There is no way that a single hobgoblin can kill him, but for the sake of argument, let's say that he's hit by 5 minions in melee and a critical hit from the leader.

5 + 5 + 5 +5 +5 + 12 = 37 hp damage.

In this scenario, let's say he had 33 hit points, so the dwarf fighter is down, but not dead until his blooded number. In fact, he's only at -4 right now.

Concentrated attacks by the PCs kill two more minions (in the original scenario), but that still leaves 3 minions and the subcommander starting Round Three.

The dwarf would start making Death Saving Throws, and a malicious DM would have the hogbolins attack the dying dwarf, although there's no reason they would do that with 3 viable targets breathing down their throats.

Again, the DM has the opportunity to check for Morale, but there is little reason for the hobgoblins to logically give up the fight, especially when their leader is still alive and kicking. I love having morale, but it is just as easy to make up on the fly without resorting to a die roll.

So, at this point, the fight would continue and change considerably from how it ended up originally. The only way for the fighter to die is very bad luck, lack of help from his allies, or continual attacks from the hobgoblins against his body.

In fact, the whole battle might very well be over. Scorching Burst would have annihilated the minions, and a few encounter powers would take down the subcommander.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Monsters:
Elven hobgoblin grunts, level 3 minions.
One hobgoblin subcommander, level 3 soldier (from Dragon).

AHA!! I knew elves were evil!!

 

[Nebulous]

AHA!! I knew elves were evil!!

I won't even edit it. The truth must be known!

 

[Korgoth]

This is one of the most annoying things that people say in a discussion of D&D -- it's an excuse, a cop-out.

...

Why can't we just acknowledge a rule is wonky, "but here's how we work around it." Or explain why a rule is not wonky. Let's not always fall back on the "they're only guidelines" thing.

That the 'rules' are in fact only guidelines is the basis of Old School play. You cannot understand or practice Old School play without an acceptance of that rule, any more than you can do modern Physics without an understanding and acceptance of gravity.

As Judge, I know best about the individual situation. I'm the one responsible for delivering a good session to my players and so I make the call. If I wanted or needed the rules to make all the calls themselves, i.e. cover every possible situation with a reasonable and consistent result, the actual rules would have to be enormous and complicated.

In something like Advanced Squad Leader you do have an enormous set of rules... precisely because there is no Referee and it's just two guys/teams playing against one another. So the rules have to be exhaustive, because the players all expect realism, fairness and consistency... yet there is no human whose job it is to make sure everything is realistic, fair and consistent in a game of ASL. So you have to externalize a very complicated set of instructions (almost like a program) to automatically adjudicate any of the million different things that can happen. And ASL is actually much more constrained in scope than a role playing game.

The word "rule" as applied to Old School role playing is only spoken analogically... it's not univocal with the word "rule" as it appears in a competitive tournament game.

Initiative rules are a great example of this principle. In a lot of games, a guy can have a loaded crossbow, and a foe can run 30 feet and attack him before he can fire. Now, you can come up with one or more rules (including individual special case rules) to deal with this. Or you can have a simple ruleset and rely on the Judge... to Judge.

Now, among internet pundits there seem to be a fair number who had really lousy DMs that they for some reason never shouted at or punched in the face. Carrying these emotional scars with them decades later, they seek the "perfect set of rules", where "rules" is understood to mean something binding. To me, this is a Quixotic errand. A bad DM can and will ruin any game, no matter how good the rules are. So why not have the rules be a mere set of guidelines and tools?

 

[Galloglaich]

I like a phased combat sequence. (The one I use and linked to is derived from Chainmail and Swords & Spells. There is another one -- which I haven't used -- in the Mentzer Immortals rules, too -- you can also find info on it in MrReapers Rules Cyclopedia errata document: search for 'This is a revision to the Combat Sequence Checklist').

In the sequence I use, standard spellcasting is interrupted by taking damage (e.g. from an arrow), but also by becoming engaged in melee (i.e. you don't have to actually score a melee hit, just get close enough to engage the caster).

I wonder if you should allow an AoO for missile weapons if someone moves in front of an archer (etc.) more than say, 10' ? This would mimic this effect in the BD&D combat, which I like, in 3.5 rules.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

That the 'rules' are in fact only guidelines is the basis of Old School play. You cannot understand or practice Old School play without an acceptance of that rule, any more than you can do modern Physics without an understanding and acceptance of gravity.

As Judge, I know best about the individual situation. I'm the one responsible for delivering a good session to my players and so I make the call. If I wanted or needed the rules to make all the calls themselves, i.e. cover every possible situation with a reasonable and consistent result, the actual rules would have to be enormous and complicated.

In something like Advanced Squad Leader you do have an enormous set of rules... precisely because there is no Referee and it's just two guys/teams playing against one another. So the rules have to be exhaustive, because the players all expect realism, fairness and consistency... yet there is no human whose job it is to make sure everything is realistic, fair and consistent in a game of ASL. So you have to externalize a very complicated set of instructions (almost like a program) to automatically adjudicate any of the million different things that can happen. And ASL is actually much more constrained in scope than a role playing game.

The word "rule" as applied to Old School role playing is only spoken analogically... it's not univocal with the word "rule" as it appears in a competitive tournament game.

Initiative rules are a great example of this principle. In a lot of games, a guy can have a loaded crossbow, and a foe can run 30 feet and attack him before he can fire. Now, you can come up with one or more rules (including individual special case rules) to deal with this. Or you can have a simple ruleset and rely on the Judge... to Judge.

Now, among internet pundits there seem to be a fair number who had really lousy DMs that they for some reason never shouted at or punched in the face. Carrying these emotional scars with them decades later, they seek the "perfect set of rules", where "rules" is understood to mean something binding. To me, this is a Quixotic errand. A bad DM can and will ruin any game, no matter how good the rules are. So why not have the rules be a mere set of guidelines and tools?

Great post!

G.

 

[ExploderWizard]

* * *
Quote:
I choose to see it as emphasis that the booklet clearly says that it’s “rules” are really “guidelines”.

This is one of the most annoying things that people say in a discussion of D&D -- it's an excuse, a cop-out.

In an edition we don't like, a wonky rule is "stupid and an example of why that edition is bad."

In an edition we do like, a wonky rule is "meh, they're only guidelines that you can ignore or change."

Why can't we just acknowledge a rule is wonky, "but here's how we work around it." Or explain why a rule is not wonky. Let's not always fall back on the "they're only guidelines" thing.

* * *


Bullgrit

The wonkiness of individual rules, the problems they create, and the ease of solutions is highly dependent on the system as a whole. Earlier rulesets had some odd subsystems that not everyone liked. Later rulesets still had some wonky rules that not everyone liked.

The difference? In older editions a wonky rule or even subsystem could be changed or removed without as much effect on the rest of the game. Newer rulesets are more integrated with universal mechanics and subsystem dependencies.

Lets say I don't like 1E initiative very much. I discard the whole system and replace it with phases such as Philotomy J. suggested. The game still works.

Now lets say I don't like opportunity attacks in my 3E game so I just get rid of them. Now casters are even more overpowered, certain feats are useless, ect. One item removed and the system is out of whack and needs further corrections.

If we tried to turn OA rules into a guideline, and said that OA's would be granted " when appropriate" it would be even worse. Players would never know when it would be a good time to cast a spell, or if taking certain feats was worth the effort.

For me at least it comes down to complexity. I LIKE GURPS, but realize that its a somewhat complex system that takes a bit of effort to tinker with. Some games run better with guidelines replacing rules than others.

 

[Bullgrit]

You cannot understand or practice Old School play without an acceptance of that rule

But it's only a guideline.

Bullgrit

 

[Celebrim]

I'm trying to envision how this encounter would look in 4e:

PCs:
1st level fighter
2nd level elf (wizard)
1st level dwarf (fighter)
2nd level cleric

Monsters:
Eleven hobgoblin grunts, level 3 minions.
One hobgoblin subcommander, level 3 soldier (from Dragon).

That's one of the problems I have with minions. We infer that because the group is outnumbered, that the majority of the opponents must be minions. But this assumption makes it very difficult if not impossible to communicate in game information without resorting to out of game language.

In any previous edition, communicating 'You are outnumbered, this is probably not a good time to just draw a sword, scream, and leap' was a fairly trivial excercise. I love how in the example of play, the PC's immediately assess, "Twelve hobgoblins is a pretty significant fight. Let's try a different tactic." That was standard play 'back in the day'.

I don't completely miss 'treasure as XP' because it has big problems as well, but I really dislike how not having treasure as XP rewards 'we can't talk to the monster, because that's walking XP'.

Anyway, back to my point, if we have 'minions' the world there has to be a way to mark them as minions, otherwise any gathering of creatures will be assumed to be primarily minions. If the party encounters a warband of 20 hobgoblins, and the point of the encounter is, 'You are outnumbered, this is probably not a good time to just draw a sword, scream, and leap', if you are used to minions you'll probably assess that 19-20 members of the group are minions and act accordingly. If they are in fact all level 3 soldiers, you are suddenly going to find yourself in over your head (and probably very surprised), when the DM's intention was, 'This is an encounter you are supposed to solve through stealth and evasion or some other alternate strategy than straight forward combat.'

The other thing I notice about the example of play is just how much I miss combat turns with phases, no minatures, and the assumption of simultaneous action. That is to say, I love how you don't get to do your whole round worth of actions before anyone else moves. You are moving, and they are moving, at roughly the same time so you can't just step out of melee with something and do your own thing because that something can follow you and be right next to you the whole time.

 

[Scribble]

Morgan rolls a 12 and Fredrik rolls a 16 – both hit! The DM rolls 1d6 for arrow damage and 1d6 for axe damage.

Bullgrit... I'm suprised you didn't mention that one.

1. The DM roles the damage players do with their weapons? I forgot about this and don't remember when this changed.

2. Both weapons deal 1d6 damage. Back then ALL weapons did 1d6 damamge right? I know this was the case in the first set of D&D rules I owned, but there was an optional different weapons do different damage dice rule.