D&D General Discuss: Combat as War in D&D

[Lanefan]

Ehhhhhh, this is your analysis from a specific perspective. That's OK, but I would say:

1) 3e and 4e are totally different games, with vastly different design goals. As I see it the problem 3.x/PF/etc has is that it wasn't designed with enough focus on GAME.

That's a feature, not a bug. I'd rather it focus on process simulation first, sort that out (which it vaguely kinda did but not really) and then worry about taking on whatever elements are needed - preferably the minimum required - to make it playable.

A HUGE mistake was made, basically. 3e's job was to rewrite 2e and turn AD&D pea soup muck 'rules' into something that was extensible and realistically playable as-written. Most of the approach seems to have been to try to create a more 'realistic' core, or at least a more 'procedural' one in which most of what would happen in the action at the table could be referred in a general sense to the rules and some mechanic applied to it. I guess they simply didn't get as far as "does this mechanic actually work to produce a playable game?" From what I've heard they basically playtested in a small closed group who's approach was to take 2e characters and material and translate them to 3e and see how it played. Apparently nobody thought to then start a 3e campaign and see how it would evolve, because if they had, and had they done so with their eyes open, they would have run into a lot of bad problems. The result of all the bad problems is, 3e really is NOT extensible, because it is broke at the core. 3.5 attempted to fix it, but it was way too little.

The 3e designers made some colossal mistakes, I'm not disputing that; but their underlying intention was IMO just fine.

So, maybe it is fair to say that 3e has a 'narrow challenge range', though I would go with the more severe "Except below 7th level or so, challenges DON'T WORK AT ALL in 3e."

I'm not talking about the CR system, I'm talking about putting monster(s) X against party Y. In 1e, with its flatter power curve, a 1st-2nd level party can - with a bit of luck and a few casualties - have a reasonable shot at taking down a hill giant. In 3e, they don't have an effing chance in hell.

2) 4e, with its total focus on game and playability, IMHO cannot really be tarred with this criticism.

Its total focus on game and playability, however, means that if one doesn't approach it from a game-first direction it'll fight you. I'd rather approach any RPG from an in-character world simulaton direction first and foremost.

The design FUNDAMENTALLY presupposes that challenges are dramatic tools and automatically provides for the PCs to triumph as the default, assuming the players want to and actually try. In 4e a Ring Wraith, appearing in the night on Weathertop, would be a level-appropriate creature, part of a level appropriate encounter. I'm not sure what level I would assign to the hobbits at that point, I don't think that is an easy question, but clearly it was a highly difficult (say level + 5) encounter. Maybe even higher, as it was the result of failure in at least one SC and thus made more difficult than normally likely! Honestly, I wouldn't even handle it as combat, given all the factors, but I would just remind you that the Ring Wraiths didn't seem to really have a fixed level of power, even in the original story. They were animated by the will of Sauron, and their abilities waxed and waned as his focus was on them, and as his fortunes rose and fell. All of the Nine together, fully mustered for war and at the focus of their master's attention would be immensely powerful. A single, or a few, Wraiths, operating far from their master's power base and without his principal attention were weak enough that fire and a prayer to Elbereth drove them off temporarily.

I think it is perfectly feasible for 4e to present the above, whereas a game like 3e would find it antithetical to its central design thesis and mechanics. The 4e version would be perhaps a level 6 undead lurker (or just a part of an SC without needing a stat block as such). The same being, might appear at the head of an army as a powerful paragon solo monster, finally being defeated only by the coordinated action of two higher level PCs and a lot of their followers and minions (or again, as an SC).

This is one thing about 4e design that I just refuse to accept and, truth be told, have no respect for: that a monster's stats change based on what it is doing and-or who it is fighting. This throws internal consistency within the setting out the window and with it, any reason to treat the setting as anything other than a backdrop to a capital-g Game. Fine for thems as likes it, I suppose; but not for me.

It is fair to say that 4e handles combat and similar stuff more in an 'action adventure' mode than in a literary "battle of good vs evil" mode. So it isn't the best game to do an LotR kind of scenario, but not because of 'narrowness of challenge rating'. Honestly, how wide is the challenge rating of an orc in AD&D? 5th level PCs will basically laugh at orcs. Yeah, 100 orcs is problematic in mostly a logistical sense, but as actual combatants they're basically worthless. I don't see much of a 'wider challenge range' there. Maybe a tiny bit, but again 4e handles that by having several differently leveled orc stat blocks to play with.

An orc might not be the best example as they're rather pathetic, so let's take an ogre. In 1e a 1st-level party can usually deal with an ogre while that same ogre might make even a 5th or higher level party sit up and take notice. Ditto a giant, though add one to each of those levels. In 3e, there's a much narrower range - even as little as a level or two - between pushover and TPKer.

This also shows in how well PCs of different levels can work within the same party. In 3e-4e, someone a level ahead or behind the party stood out like a sore thumb; in 1e, a 3 or 4 level range within a party often works just fine: flatter power curve.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not a bad description, and I personally think the avoidance of any of the language attempting to cast CaW actions in terms of actual strategic thinking is a plus point.

I think where the focus on lethality often comes in is that it is the 'stick' in this equation. In other words, you face the level 1 PCs with a group of ogres instead of some goblins. They are not going to beat that by wading into combat (in any edition of D&D). This will force a more involved plan to be developed. Another element is the color of relations as a 'war', since this implies immediate and direct conflict which must be resolved with some urgency (IE the ogres are COMING TO THE VILLAGE). If the threat was just "some goblins live in a cave down the road, sometimes they make trouble" then the players are much less incentivized to come up with some sort of strategic plan beyond "we go down the road, enter the cave, kick their asses, and take their loot." Now, maybe in any case the later plan will fail, but chances are the adventure will be organized as a graded series of fairly linear encounters with weaker goblins, medium goblins, and the toughest goblins at the end. Maybe the goblins WILL react to the PCs, maybe some sneaking or whatever is indicated, and this could even be an SC in 4e, but the key point is the encounters need not be THAT hard, since the PCs won't be doing anything especially strategic to tilt the odds in their favor.

It may not be CR2 ogres, but a while back my players started at level zero using these rules set against a pack of magebred war wolves using the CR3 winter wolf statblock, There was about 2-3 sessions of planning gathering & setup interacting with NPCs & skill checks to accomplish things ranging from poison bait to painstakingly created traps/defenses & ritually constructed spell type traps such as a weak force cage that gave them a round or two to trgger other stuff , the players were able to successfully rid the town of the breeding pack of war wolves. What the players face in a CaW sirtuation ca be as important as the situation & how empowered they are in CaW. Any single screwup without someone ready to step in & stop the whole plan from collapsing could result in what would have effectively been "yea that's death by massive damage" & there were a few hairy points but they pulled through as a team.

That was an unusual example & it's far from the norm in my games. While it was neither helped nor hindered by the near removal of tactical stuff & so much of the room for crunch the more common minor CaW type interactions are absolutely hindered regularly by it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's a feature, not a bug. I'd rather it focus on process simulation first, sort that out (which it vaguely kinda did but not really) and then worry about taking on whatever elements are needed - preferably the minimum required - to make it playable.

The 3e designers made some colossal mistakes, I'm not disputing that; but their underlying intention was IMO just fine.

Yeah, we know we don't travel down the same stream on that one

I'm not talking about the CR system, I'm talking about putting monster(s) X against party Y. In 1e, with its flatter power curve, a 1st-2nd level party can - with a bit of luck and a few casualties - have a reasonable shot at taking down a hill giant. In 3e, they don't have an effing chance in hell.

1e is just random. That's the issue. If your dice are hot or somebody misses a save or two, then things go your way. I mean, a Hill Giant could, theoretically have, IIRC 9 hit points, and it is only AC4. Thus a level 1 fighter could, though rarely, kill a Hill Giant with a single strike of even a one-handed weapon. But notice how extreme that is, it just shows you how random things are in 1e, swingy as heck. OTOH an AVERAGE Hill Giant has 38 hit points, and can throw rocks 20 inches, further than the range of most missile weapons, for 2-16 points. If the party starts 20 inches away, they're probably ALL toast. Hardly a surprise, but even at melee range the average Hill Giant will easily win the fight. Again, things are pretty swingy, anything could happen.

Mostly you cannot judge 1e monsters by hit dice though. While a Hill Giant seems like a tough monster, they're not really. Not with AC4 and one attack/round. I don't know in 3e, but 4e Hill Giants are pretty strong. Still, a 3rd level party should be quite capable of killing one, albeit the fight will take a while because it will be hard to hit.

Its total focus on game and playability, however, means that if one doesn't approach it from a game-first direction it'll fight you. I'd rather approach any RPG from an in-character world simulaton direction first and foremost.

This is one thing about 4e design that I just refuse to accept and, truth be told, have no respect for: that a monster's stats change based on what it is doing and-or who it is fighting. This throws internal consistency within the setting out the window and with it, any reason to treat the setting as anything other than a backdrop to a capital-g Game. Fine for thems as likes it, I suppose; but not for me.

An orc might not be the best example as they're rather pathetic, so let's take an ogre. In 1e a 1st-level party can usually deal with an ogre while that same ogre might make even a 5th or higher level party sit up and take notice. Ditto a giant, though add one to each of those levels. In 3e, there's a much narrower range - even as little as a level or two - between pushover and TPKer.

This also shows in how well PCs of different levels can work within the same party. In 3e-4e, someone a level ahead or behind the party stood out like a sore thumb; in 1e, a 3 or 4 level range within a party often works just fine: flatter power curve.

I have not really played much 3e, and only a modest amount of 3.5, so not a real expert on a lot of it. In 4e you actually CAN take on some pretty different level creatures, it is just not normal to do so by its theory of play. Once I had a level 7 elite carrion crawler fight a first level party. It was an awesome fight too. The PCs did win, though barely. IIRC I had a barrel of oil nearby, which they finally realized was how to win, lol.

I mean, you really could go pretty far in the more traditional direction with 4e. You just had to make the fights INTERESTING. That was the secret.

 

[Imaculata]

An orc might not be the best example as they're rather pathetic, so let's take an ogre. In 1e a 1st-level party can usually deal with an ogre while that same ogre might make even a 5th or higher level party sit up and take notice. Ditto a giant, though add one to each of those levels. In 3e, there's a much narrower range - even as little as a level or two - between pushover and TPKer.

This also shows in how well PCs of different levels can work within the same party. In 3e-4e, someone a level ahead or behind the party stood out like a sore thumb; in 1e, a 3 or 4 level range within a party often works just fine: flatter power curve.

As a 3e DM and player, I can confirm that this is the case. It flattens out a bit at high levels, but when in the 1-10 level range there is a huge power gap between pc's of different levels.

For monsters, CR's tend to be pretty reliable as a means of setting level appropriate challenges for your players within that same level range. At higher levels the sheer amount of power creep makes setting the right challenge a whole lot of guess work. CR's can only get you that far.

For CAW in a 3e game however, I've found that CR's can be translated pretty easily to mass combat. Simply give the opposition a leader of the same level of the party or slightly higher, and a crew of the same level as the party or slightly lower.

When balancing ship combat, simply compare the ship types. The amount of heavy weapon slots and sections are a good way to compare the relative strength of ships.

For running very large battles with many ships, the default 3e rules of ship to ship combat become way too detailed. But Pathfinder's Mass Combat rules can easily be adapted to simplify and speed up large scale battles. Simply use the average crew level and average hp of a ship section, to calculate its defense and offense values like you would with an army, using Pathfinder's Mass Combat system. This simplifies the fights between ships to simple opposing checks. I modified this system slightly to also take into account any ship upgrades and specialties of the various pirate factions in my setting.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, we know we don't travel down the same stream on that one

1e is just random. That's the issue. If your dice are hot or somebody misses a save or two, then things go your way. I mean, a Hill Giant could, theoretically have, IIRC 9 hit points, and it is only AC4. Thus a level 1 fighter could, though rarely, kill a Hill Giant with a single strike of even a one-handed weapon. But notice how extreme that is, it just shows you how random things are in 1e, swingy as heck. OTOH an AVERAGE Hill Giant has 38 hit points, and can throw rocks 20 inches, further than the range of most missile weapons, for 2-16 points. If the party starts 20 inches away, they're probably ALL toast. Hardly a surprise, but even at melee range the average Hill Giant will easily win the fight. Again, things are pretty swingy, anything could happen.

That swinginess is part of what helps flatten the power curve IMO: upsets can happen either way. I like that.

And yes, a party dumb (or unlucky) enough to have a hill giant see them when they're still 600' away and be able to take target practice while the party cover that ground is in for a world o' hurt.

Mostly you cannot judge 1e monsters by hit dice though. While a Hill Giant seems like a tough monster, they're not really. Not with AC4 and one attack/round. I don't know in 3e, but 4e Hill Giants are pretty strong. Still, a 3rd level party should be quite capable of killing one, albeit the fight will take a while because it will be hard to hit.

A 3rd level party of the typical-for-1e 6-to-8 characters would be quite able to kill one, yes, but likely at cost of at least one or two party members unless they either got lucky or really did some good pre-planning.

I have not really played much 3e, and only a modest amount of 3.5, so not a real expert on a lot of it. In 4e you actually CAN take on some pretty different level creatures, it is just not normal to do so by its theory of play. Once I had a level 7 elite carrion crawler fight a first level party. It was an awesome fight too. The PCs did win, though barely. IIRC I had a barrel of oil nearby, which they finally realized was how to win, lol.

I mean, you really could go pretty far in the more traditional direction with 4e. You just had to make the fights INTERESTING. That was the secret.

Making the fights interesting benefits play in any edition.

 

[Lanefan]

As a 3e DM and player, I can confirm that this is the case. It flattens out a bit at high levels, but when in the 1-10 level range there is a huge power gap between pc's of different levels.

My 3e experience is pretty much all in the 1-10 range, which probably skews my perceptions a bit.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the word "sport" just rubs me the wrong way in this context. Then again, so does the word "war."

No kidding. I think it's pretty clear that "sport" is used almost derogatorily in this context both in the post that spawned this phrase and in the OSR community that adopted it. The former diminishes the nature of the conflict while the latter of which aggrandizes the conflict.

 

[Imaculata]

My 3e experience is pretty much all in the 1-10 range, which probably skews my perceptions a bit.

That is probably where most people's experience with 3e would be, so probably not entirely unfair.

It is one of the reasons I'm strongly in favor of party wide experience. I don't think there should ever be a level gap between pc's. It is highly undesirable for a 3e DM and it makes balancing encounters a nightmare. This is also why I houserule the creation of magic items in 3e as not costing experience points.

 

[tetrasodium]

No kidding. I think it's pretty clear that "sport" is used almost derogatorily in this context both in the post that spawned this phrase and in the OSR community that adopted it. The former diminishes the nature of the conflict while the latter of which aggrandizes the conflict.

I don't think so. Both Re valid styles of gameplay and T least a few posts seem to suggest that the poster doesn't run 100% either way.

 

[Imaculata]

No kidding. I think it's pretty clear that "sport" is used almost derogatorily in this context both in the post that spawned this phrase and in the OSR community that adopted it. The former diminishes the nature of the conflict while the latter of which aggrandizes the conflict.

I think a better way to describe it would be simple and strategic.

Simple is just straight forward D&D as we know it, where as strategic requires that both the players and their adversaries plan ahead. A strategic game (CAW) means the battles are more involved, but also other aspects of the game, such as roleplaying and exploration. A strategic game is all about making important choices, both in and outside combat, and reacting to what the enemy is planning.

I have found that a sandbox works really well for this approach, as it allows the opposition to be active off screen. The players can seek them out and try to twart their strategic efforts, or they can pursue their own strategic goals. By having a lot of distance between the players and their foes, intel also becomes less reliable. If the enemy attacks a village, the players might not even hear of it until the fight is already over.

As a DM you are not only thinking about how to challenge and entertain your players, but also about what the goals and motivations of the villains are. How can they best achieve their goals?