Improvised Combat

[Chris_Nightwing]

Whilst a recent thread denigrating 4E's handling of improvised combat was closed down, I still read it and thought I would suggest what might be an improvement for 5E.

The accusation against 4E's system was that improvisation resulted in the same outcome as using a power, such that you weren't really taking advantage of your surroundings or really doing something 'cool' at all. In particular, the DC of tasks would increase with level so that the same action would not become easier at later levels.

Now, the latter issue will probably be repaired by the supposed flattening of the mathematics. How can we improve on the former?

To me, improvisation is giving control to the players, letting them freewheel dramatically and mechanically. If you're fighting in a castle dining room then you could swing from a chandelier, knock over a table for cover, grab a silver platter for defence against an arrow and so on. Navigating these tasks in a manner that doesn't make them either useless or superior to ordinary attacks is difficult. I suggest that the key principle ought to be 'the more significant an outcome you want, the more difficult it is' - with limits determined only by the DM.

As an example (with no basis in the new mathematics because I don't know what they will be) consider the infamous chandelier example:

Determine what sort of action it is - I'd say a move action, allowing for some movement towards it, I could specify the number of squares/feet it takes but let's just say if you've got movement left when you're next to it, you can jump!

Offer the player some choices. DC10 Acrobatics, you can get to the bad guy (effectively getting free movement), and attack him. DC 15 you can make this a charge, with all bonus effects. DC20 as DC15 but if you hit, you knock him over or push him back.​

So that's: Low DC - small benefit, Medium DC - better benefit, High dc - something you might not be able to do normally. If it's something you couldn't do again this combat (possibly in this example), then lower each of the DCs (thus you're more likely to obtain the best outcome).

A second example, based more on damage, might be dropping the chandelier onto the bad guy in the hall. Move action: Low DC and you can slide him out of the way, Medium and he's splashed with hot wax for 1d6 damage, High and that's 2d6 damage and he's prone. Neat for just cutting a rope no?

If you feel the need for more codification, simply decide what different effects are worth (ie: immobilise is better than slide/push/pull) - though this way madness lies.

Don't increase the DC of these tasks as characters gain levels, hopefully the bonuses they gain allow their improvisations to be more effective, and indeed, don't increase the damage - dropping chandeliers won't work on demons. If you want high-level improvised moves, provide the necessary setting for them and allow even higher DCs for more damage. (I guess I'm suggesting a static DC/benefit system that doesn't scale with level, but might with situation).

Any other ideas?

 

[Minigiant]

If DDN/5E goes the flatter math route, I'd think it would be easy to create Character equivalent DCs and make a few simple charts of the associated effects to the DCs.

With more static/flatter numbers, the same DC values can stay true at all levels. So dropping a chandelier is a the same AC as hitting a well armored orc (AC 16) or a hard Acrobatic stunt (Skill check DC 18). If the character succeeds, the DM can look up the Hard Improvised Standard Action chart and chooses line 10 (3d6 damage and the target is prone)

 

[LostSoul]

I suggest that the key principle ought to be 'the more significant an outcome you want, the more difficult it is' - with limits determined only by the DM.

My thinking is that this sort of procedure can be harmful to improvisation. Improvisation relies on fictional cues - the players identifying elements of the fiction, such as chandeliers, burning braziers, or the horns on a dinosaur - and using those cues as a springboard for PC action. If you divorce the fictional element from the resolution, players never need to think about the fictional cues, so they don't spend as much time thinking about them, and therefore are less likely to use those cues as a springboard for PC action.

*

Let me try to think if there was any improvisation in recent games:

[sblock]

• The PCs encountered hippogriffs. They captured them through a mixture of physical (using ropes and a patch of grab grass) and social (offering meat, showing they were not dangerous) methods. Is that improvisation?
• The PCs encountered a worg leading a pack of wolves. The PCs had previously dug a pit trap and led the worg into it; then one PC cast a spell and used it to topple an old ruined wall onto the worg. Once the worg was dead and the wolves failed a morale check, the PCs attempted to subdue those who remained. Again, is this improvisation? Not sure.
• The PCs encountered a small group of orcs. The orcs were cut down. No improvisation.
• The PCs encountered a group of tieflings. The tieflings were killed, but some retreated. No improvisation. In retrospect, the archer in the group could have attempted to hamstring one of the tieflings to slow him down; I think that would have counted as improvisation.
• The PCs encountered a group of hyenas. At one point one of the PCs went down and the hyenas threatened to rip his throat out. Another PC led the hyenas away from the unconscious PC's body. Is that improvisation?
• The PCs encountered a group of tieflings. (This is a couple of months back, it's hard to recall.) At one point, the PC Cleric of Torog, god of jailers and torturers, used his divinely-granted strength to grapple a foe (putting her into an arm-lock, I believe), making it easy for another PC to kill him. I guess that's improvisation as the Cleric had no special ability to grapple or apply locks.

[/sblock]

 

[dkyle]

In particular, the DC of tasks would increase with level so that the same action would not become easier at later levels.

That's not how it's supposed to work, but it's a common misconception. A same task should have the same DC, no matter what. The DC by level charts are meant to be for at-level challenges. It's the same as with monsters. You're supposed to use near-level stat blocks. Doesn't mean the PCs don't get better at fighting, it just means that they're expected to take on nastier foes as they get better at fighting. If they decide to go off and raze some poor random village, they should find it much easier at level 30 than at level 1. At level 1, it would be full of low level standard Humans. At level 10, it might have a bunch of minions. At level 30, I wouldn't even bother making any rolls.

For the "Swing from Chandelier" example, I'd just use the jump, and falling rules. Athletics to reach the Chandelier (or further if desired), Acrobatics to land from it gracefully. Those rolls would be exactly the same whether a level 1 or level 30 was doing it. On success, they'd get to attack as a charge. All of that is simply RaW, with fanciful flavoring. If it came up, I'd probably allow an exception to the charge rules, and allow for a direct path to the Chandelier, then a direct path to the target, instead of direct path immediately to the target. That's a minor deviation from the rules, and not one I'd require a roll on.

For the "Drop the Chandelier on them" example, if it's done via DC, it should scale, according to the level of the creature being targeted. Dropping a chandelier on a Kobold is not the same task is dropping it on a Balor. In practice, I wouldn't use a DC. I'd refer to the Terrain Powers part of the DMG2, and quickly stat it as one.

For the Silver platter, it's a small shield, that requires both hands to wield. I don't see that as a skill check.

For knocking over the table, it's actually come up in my 4E game, and I just made it a minor action, no roll required.


So, overall, skills aren't always the best way to do improvisational stuff. A lot of the time, simple reflavoring of RaW is sufficient, or minor deviation. And other times, it's better to use combat rules for improv combat, not try to take primarily out-of-combat Skills and shoehorn them into combat. Or just say "OK, it works, it cost a minor action".

 

[Mattachine]

This is all part of the 4e rules, in the DMG2. It has examples for swinging, pushing things over, gaining cover, and so forth.

 

[D'karr]

I thought similarly that static numbers was the appropriate way to go. But this all depends on what the DM is trying to do.

For example 3.x used a static number for the Tumble Check to avoid an Attack of Opportunity. This seemed like the correct way to go. In play the experience was different. What that check obviated was the "combat" skill of the opponent. So that a 5th level rogue for the rest of his career would never provoke an AoO from ANY opponent because the DC number was static. This didn't work well. It made more sense for the DC of the check to be done against the skill of the opponent, or the "challenge level".

4e did it differently because it took into account the "challenge level". What they did poorly was explain that there are some things that will and should remain static. So for example breaking a wood door should be a DC of X and because that door doesn't get any better with level then the DC is static. Swinging from the chandelier should probably work the same it's a static number possibly modified by some environment conditions, but planting your feet on the Minotaur should factor in the ability of that creature, and can possibly be tied to its level.

A one size fits all solution usually creates more problems than it fixes. 4e provided a variable solution that could fit most problems, but did a poor job of explaining it.

-

 

[D'karr]

The other issue is one of expectation. If I'm running a swashbuckling campaign, I probably want my players to attempt to do all those "swashbuckling stunts." However if I make it completely unattractive to do so then I'm stifling my own campaign by the rules.

The more rolls a player has to make the less likely he'll be to succeed at the appointed task.

So if I want to run a swashbuckling campaign I would probably not make swinging from the chandelier and attacking a bunch of "unnecessary" rolls.

If I tell the player that he needs to use Athletics for grabbing the chandelier, then Acrobatics for swinging, and Acrobatics for landing, then an attack roll. I've just made it completely unlikely that he'll succeed or even worse attempt the action. I just crushed the campaign expectation (swashbuckling) at the altar of "verisimilitude."

If on the other hand I make the entire action one roll, for example an Acrobatics check against the creatures Reflex, I've just encouraged the player to not only attempt the action but also given him a likely chance to succeed. By doing it this way I also took into account the skill of the opposition because the defense is tied to the creatures combat capabilities. So I'm back to the swashbuckling campaign expectation.

I personally prefer that model for assigning difficulty than having things preset in the rule book.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

That's not how it's supposed to work, but it's a common misconception.

Yes, I can see how tasks might be lower level challenges, and therefore easier, fair enough.

For the "Swing from Chandelier" example, I'd just use the jump, and falling rules. Athletics to reach the Chandelier (or further if desired), Acrobatics to land from it gracefully. Those rolls would be exactly the same whether a level 1 or level 30 was doing it. On success, they'd get to attack as a charge.

Now you see, basically that isn't cool any more. I have to pass two skill checks (I probably ought to be trained in both) and I get a charge out of it? Not worth it!

For the "Drop the Chandelier on them" example, if it's done via DC, it should scale, according to the level of the creature being targeted. Dropping a chandelier on a Kobold is not the same task is dropping it on a Balor.

Now, hopefully 5E goes in the direction where in fact it's easier to hit the Balor because it's huge and clumsy. The difference being that it won't notice the damage, whereas the kobold would go splat.

For the Silver platter, it's a small shield, that requires both hands to wield. I don't see that as a skill check.

For knocking over the table, it's actually come up in my 4E game, and I just made it a minor action, no roll required.

The silver platter is basically a shield, yes. I guess shields are just a bit lame - they should do more against arrows. The table knock/minor action is a good call.

I agree that skills aren't always best - minor actions are good for this (though there was an obsession in 4E with giving people more minor actions, reducing the likelihood of fun things being done with them). I think that you do need to offer people Good Things(TM) in exchange for their creativity and willingness to roll an extra die though!

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Let me try to think if there was any improvisation in recent games:

[sblock]

• The PCs encountered hippogriffs. They captured them through a mixture of physical (using ropes and a patch of grab grass) and social (offering meat, showing they were not dangerous) methods. Is that improvisation?
• The PCs encountered a worg leading a pack of wolves. The PCs had previously dug a pit trap and led the worg into it; then one PC cast a spell and used it to topple an old ruined wall onto the worg. Once the worg was dead and the wolves failed a morale check, the PCs attempted to subdue those who remained. Again, is this improvisation? Not sure.
• The PCs encountered a small group of orcs. The orcs were cut down. No improvisation.
• The PCs encountered a group of tieflings. The tieflings were killed, but some retreated. No improvisation. In retrospect, the archer in the group could have attempted to hamstring one of the tieflings to slow him down; I think that would have counted as improvisation.
• The PCs encountered a group of hyenas. At one point one of the PCs went down and the hyenas threatened to rip his throat out. Another PC led the hyenas away from the unconscious PC's body. Is that improvisation?
• The PCs encountered a group of tieflings. (This is a couple of months back, it's hard to recall.) At one point, the PC Cleric of Torog, god of jailers and torturers, used his divinely-granted strength to grapple a foe (putting her into an arm-lock, I believe), making it easy for another PC to kill him. I guess that's improvisation as the Cleric had no special ability to grapple or apply locks.

[/sblock]

I guess I'm referring to specific 'action' improvisation. In which case I'd say luring hyenas in combat, hamstringing and the cleric grapple count. The rest is more narrative advantage, the same as say, stealthing for an ambush. What was frustrating about 4E powers in my mind was that they set a bar for doing cool things - do you have a power that slows someone down because you shoot an arrow in their leg? No. Well you can't. If I let you then you won't take the power that does let you do that. I'd rather that most of these maneuvers be available by default rather than by specific choice.

 

[D'karr]

What was frustrating about 4E powers in my mind was that they set a bar for doing cool things - do you have a power that slows someone down because you shoot an arrow in their leg? No. Well you can't. If I let you then you won't take the power that does let you do that. I'd rather that most of these maneuvers be available by default rather than by specific choice.

I think this is a matter of perspective and DM adjudication.

I would personally have gone the other way on that one. The power route gives you an "accurate" and "predictable" way of doing it. Everyone else can also attempt it. They might just not be as accurate, or predictable.

However, if I want to encourage them doing it then they are as accurate if not more than using the power.

Not having a power and the DM saying "NO you can't do that" is exactly what the game advises against.

If DMs don't follow the advise it's not the system's fault. The fault lies squarely on the DM.


-