House Rule: Faster minor battles

[Primitive Screwhead]

This is a good option, but with two weaknesses:
a) I have yet to run a skill challenge that is as exciting as a real fight.
b) Often, the only real effect of a failed skill challenge can be lost surges. However, if the fight at hand is the only fight of the day, that loss is meaningless.

True, but skill challenges are different than combat. IME a skill challenge brings out more discussion and debate over the right way to handle things.

Regarding the effect of failed skill challenges.. yes, losing healing surges is the easiest penalty, and should only be used when there will be more combat in the adventuring day or they become pointless. Other effects you can use include, off the top of my head; an enemy escapes to alert others of the PCs intent and location; the PCs are delayed and arrive with a severe time-crunch in which they need to save the day; an enemy escapes and informs his boss of the capabilities of the PCs which means the next fight is tailored to their now known tactics;...

Alternatively, using a HR that allows the use of a daily to grant +10 to the skill check means the PCs might burn other resources than hit points.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

True, but skill challenges are different than combat. IME a skill challenge brings out more discussion and debate over the right way to handle things.

Skill challenges are a very tricky part of 4e. They don't sit on the shelf very well next to tactical combat -- they're vague and indistinct where tactical combat is concrete and specific and very well nailed down.

IMO, skill challenges are one of the best innovations in 4e (although they actually predate 4e -- similar mechanics appeared in Spycraft and Alternity, and perhaps other places I never saw them), but their flexibility makes they very difficult to cover in a quick chapter and a few DDI articles.

So, Harlekin says this:

This is a good option, but with two weaknesses:
a) I have yet to run a skill challenge that is as exciting as a real fight.

Expecting skill challenges to be as exciting as a real fight is missing the point -- like expecting the halftime show to be as exciting as a real nailbiter of a superbowl. They're different, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth watching the halftime show. (okay, maybe that's an awful analogy -- there's usually no reason to watch the halftime show).

A good Skill Challenge engages the players in the story that connects the "real fights". It should allow the players to make meaningful choices and reward them for paying attention to the "fluff".

Also, as you look at skill challenges, keep a very open mind about how to structure them. One of the key ideas that I don't think they stress often enough is that everything about skill challenges is flexible/mutable.

You may need to think a bit about what sort of "currencies" the PCs can spend in their skill challenges, other than healing surges. Anything you can think of is fair game, but the real kicker is to think long and hard about what it is that the SC is trying to represent, and make sure the mechanics you dream up help create the right feel for that SC.

So, if you're going to create a skill challenge to cover overland travel, you could do a ton of different things. I regularly:

1. Don't allow extended rests until the PCs complete the travel challenge
2. Define multiple skill checks required to earn each "success" without penalty
3. Apply "permanent" conditions, similar to diseases, as consequences for failure
4. Create flowcharts for the travel challenge, with choices that the PCs can make about the terrain they'll travel through and what strategy the wish to use as they move through it. Let them pick one path or another, decide to stay on the main roads or travel cross country, and make sure that the consequences of those choices are different.

And so on. Really, though, when it comes to good Skill Challenges, anything goes. The only essential is that you make sure the PCs can make interestign choices.

-rg

 

[Tony Vargas]

It seems to be pretty well accepted that 4ed rules allow for gripping and balanced fights at the price of extending combat length. I consider this a fair trade for major battles that have a serious chance of killing the group or that significantly advance the parties goals.

It's not really a price. A climactic battle that ended in the first round would be, well, anti-climactic. An interesting tactical engagement or a major battle for high stakes, in order to be dramatic, needs to take a little longer. That's not a price, it's part of the point.

However, this does not describe all fights; in many situations, the PCs may face inferior foes.

So in this thread I am trying to brainstorm how to modify easy fights (encounters at the level of the group or lower) to make them faster while also making them more exciting.

For trivial fights, use minions. A good example is the 'sound the alarm' scenario. There are a small number of minions but they can summon much more dangerous foes if they aren't all taken down very quickly. Combine the minions with a skill challenge to sneak up on them or keep them from sounding the alarm long enough to kill them - or a more difficult one to bluff your way out of or evade the re-enforcement if you don't kill 'em quick enough.

Here are some suggestions that i would like some feedback on:

1. Double Damage: Monsters deal double damage while having half the hit points.

Sort of a 'bloodied rage?' Works fine, actually. It'll encourage the players to really pull out the stops and finish a monster once it's bloodied.

2. Loose the map.

Not particularly helpful unless you want to mostly hand-wave the combat. You'll lose more time in explaining and re-explaining and correcting mistakes in positioning and settling arguments over who can attack whom and who was in what AE than you'll save in setting up and striking a map and minis.

What could I do to reduce the disadvantages of loosing the map?

It's really a matter of talent. If you're one of those DMs who can keep a complicated fight 'in his head,' or, like me, convincingly fake it, you can ditch the map for less significant combats and 'story mode' through movement and positioning, using mechanics to resolve attacks and damage and the like. You might also not keep track of exact hps and other stats for monsters, just have the monsters start dropping when you've gotten what you want out of the fight.

Am I overlooking any other simplification?

Keep the monsters simple. At-level fights vs only standard monsters can go pretty quickly, especially if you don't fall into the standard focus-fire tactic, but instead use AEs and multiple attacks and save the 'finishing moves' for the last round of combat. Otherwise, the usual burn 'em down one at a time tactic can leave the last couple of enemies feeling clearly over-matched, but fresh enough to survive making a run for it.

Avoid Solos, Elites, monsters with many different powers, recharging powers, and the like. Definitely avoid monsters with weaken, stun, insubstantial and other tricks that'll slow the party down. They're great for 'tough' fights but merely frustrating for at-level or underleveled ones.