What I'd like to see in an RPG - Scalability in combat

[Glyfair]

I love the focus 4E has on flavorful, detailed combats with lots of character abilities, focus on terrain, etc. as obstacles, and long combats with lots of choices. I feel this version of D&D captures this the best. It fits the feel of important combats.

On the other hand, I am attracted to the speed of older edition combats. The simplicity allows many combats in a short period of time.

What I'd like to see in an RPG (especially a version of D&D) is the ability to have combats that scale. One that has the feel of 4E for the big, important battles and the feel of earlier editions for other combats.

I do enjoy one RPG that has that built in, Heroquest. There is a simple basic resolution system. However, big dramatic encounters (which do not have to be combat) use an expanded version of the basic system that allow for the ebb and flow of a battle. Unfortunately, I generally prefer a more tactical combat and Heroquest is not built to be tactical.

It certainly could be handled, but I am not sure how attractive it would be to players. Characters could be built similar to 4E characters, but certain abilities would only be usable in the big encounters. The shorter encounters would have less abilities to be used, and probably higher damage in some fashion available.

Thoughts?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Glyfair,

Scalability in terms of what you are saying could be interestingly handled by making the "lesser combat" encounters be something competed in "Exploration Mode" rather than "Combat mode". Rather than round by round encounters, you would instead have psuedo-combat skill challenges. Satisfying enough? Maybe not but it would be one way of doing it.

An alternative approach is to maintain the combat mode for all encounters but end combats in different ways to the traditional "all the enemies have 0hps" fight-to-the-death. As soon as an important tactical goal or morale situation is reached, end the combat with a fitting description of what happens after that point (with the option to re-enter combat mode if applicable).

Sometimes the goal or situation will be obvious, other times less so. Does the wizard get to slink away or is he captured? In 4e, you could have a bidding system of expenditure of surges to work out the outcome. The party agree on a number of surges to invest in total, and this indicates which outcome to enact. For example, the wizard got away, the wizard was killed/suicided or the wizard was captured.

Interesting topic.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Whisper72]

Isn't this already dealt with using the 'mook' rules? In the less interesting combats, less interesting foes are used, who are defeated by one hit.

Maybe expand upon this idea, to increase 'mook' status to other enemies as well. Combine this with the idea put forth by Herrenmann, that the outcome of these more powerful mooks upon defeat is not so much death as much as flight, surrender, retreat, whatever is logical for the situation...

 

[Zinovia]

Use 2-3 hit minions, with a threshold HP above which they can be killed in one it. I tend to make that number around the At-will crit or Encounter power damage value of the strikers. That way if they crit or use a solid damaging encounter power, the multi- hit minion goes down in one hit, otherwise it takes any 2-3 hits to bring it down, regardless of damage.

Have the baddies in less important fights make a morale check to continue fighting. They will run away or surrender if they fail it. This can happen at several points: when half their number are dead, when their leader is killed, or for cowardly or uncommited foes, make an individual check as soon as that foe takes damage. Animals attacking the group to eat them are never going to fight to the death for instance; they will run away at the first signs of strong resistance. This may backfire if you have a group like mine who never lets anything escape from them ever if they can help it. Paranoid and vindictive, that's them.

Add in skill challenge elements, that if successful can defeat the foes all at once, or put them at a huge disadvantage. I.e. The group uses coordinated tactics (roll their attack stat on a check) to maneuver foes into a hazard (lava, mud, stinging nettles) or beneath the chandelier the rogue is cutting the rope of, or under a nest of wasps you drop on them. Or picture water creatures in an ice cave that are using a spell written out in runes or glyphs to keep their pool from freezing. As they lob ranged attacks at you, ducking beneath the water for concealment, one of the party notices the glyphs, and figures out their intent. A couple of arcana checks later, with maybe thievery to alter the glyphs, and you manage to turn the temperature setting to super cold, freezing the foes in place.

Use an attack from a single normal but high damage foe of their level+2 to cost them a surge or three, but that they can defeat easily as a group. Lurkers are good for this. The group expends minimal time, but the foe hits hard so it is still exciting.

Keep the full 4E challenges for the fights that matter. Good luck!

 

[frankthedm]

Isn't this already dealt with using the 'mook' rules? In the less interesting combats, less interesting foes are used, who are defeated by one hit.

That makes foes DIE faster, but time is still sucked up by tactical spacing, each person deciding which squares to move through and choosing what actions to take based on previous character's actions.

 

[Mark CMG]

Don't set up a battlefield (don't use minis) for most unimportant combat.

 

[the Jester]

Don't set up a battlefield (don't use minis) for most unimportant combat.

Honestly, this will be the biggest factor for most groups.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Don't set up a battlefield (don't use minis) for most unimportant combat.

A good start. I could even see a switch to "zones" or the like, as opposed to specific distances and all that, for the lesser encounters.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Part of the difficulty with this is that detailed combat systems are often employed for two reasons:

(1) Because people enjoy the detailed combats. (In which case, less-detailed combats may conflict with their reason for playing the game. "This is boring!")

(2) Because character's lives are at stake, so precision is desired. (In which case, people may object to serious consequences arising from a less-detailed encounter. ("If we'd really fought them, I never would have died.")

With that being said, my initial observation here is that there are two extremes which are relatively easy to cover in 4E:

(1) Hyper-Detailed. (Using the full combat system, where every single action is detailed.)
(2) Near fluff. (The combat is resolved as one or two steps of a skill challenge.)

I think the interesting question is a systemic solution which lies somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[wolfpunk]

Is part of the problem that the players take to long to decide what to do on their turn? Get a little 10 or 15 second timer, if they haven't started describing their action, they delay to the end of the round, if at the end of the round they still can't come up with an action in 10 or 15 seconds, they lose their turn.

4e combat doesn't have to be slow, just help the players understand that they need to know what their character can do and be ready to do it.

Maybe I am being overly critical and or completely missing the point of your post.