Legends & Lore: Combat and Other Forms of Violence

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sight unseen: yes.

You can have optional rules and tinker at the margins. D&D has done that in the past (combat and tactics, which he references, is probably the most extreme case) and so have many other games.

But two radically different systems to be used in the same game or campaign...hmm...

4E combat can be a little long and predictable. This is the grind. You avoid the latter by things that may amplify the first. Recent changes have reduced this a bit, but not 100%...One implication is that "easy" combats can still take too long and be sort of boring.

It would be nice if you could do smaller combats with basically the same system, not have them take too long, but still have a cost, or at least possible cost, for the PCs. Notable attrition, or at least a threat of a devasting crit or some other impact. I do think some simple steps in this direction include:

*Fewer hp/more damage, and maybe less regular healing.
*More risk through critical hits or other mechanics.
*More strategic resources that could be tapped for the big, long, fights.

One metagame difference might be set up:

*Running by the same rules, but without minis.

I'm thinking one solution would actually be another monster type, the "mook". This would be specifically intended to be a fairly trivial monster to defeat but would have some characteristics designed to make it a credible threat for a round or two.

Maybe something like a standard but with less hit points (say 1/3 of a standard), rather simple powers that might be just marginally more complex than a minion's are. I'd say give them one encounter power that is fairly high damage and then a low damage output MBA/RBA, and maybe a trait in some cases. They'll go down quite fast and reliably, but if they get lucky they can put a ding in your character big enough to notice. They'd fill in the gulf between minions and standards and they could be used (with minions perhaps) as the main monster type for 'quick' encounters. They'd be worth a bit less XP than standards but the basic idea would be 5 mooks would stand up to 2-3 rounds or so, get in a couple good hits, and then die hard. Yet they would be substantial enough that the wizard can't just clear them with Beguiling Strands.

 

[Mengu]

It would be interesting to be able to strip the combat engine down to basics, and add to the complexity of the skill system for a different kind of game.

Something like a 1/1/1 system where you have 1 at-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily power could be fairly simple and elegant. I could see it in an alternate 4e. Hit points and damage rolls might go away. Instead monsters would usually have 4 hits (elites have 8, solos have 16, minions have 1). PC's might have 6-8 hits. Strikers might have mechanics to deliver 2 hits. Leaders could heal 1 or 2 hits. Ultimately it would be enough similarities to current rules, but with simpler and faster mechanics.

Skill system could be expanded, probably not to the level of Rolemaster, but some skills could be branched into multiple skills, and a skill point system could be introduced for customization, and what tasks can be done with what skills could be elaborated upon.

What do we get in the end? A different system. Isn't this why there are various RPG systems out there? You want to a different feel for your game, pick a different system, it's not like there is a shortage of systems out there. I'm not sure if D&D developers need to devote time for people who are really just looking for a different system. Having said that, I don't mind such discussion as it's always intriguing.

 

[shmoo2]

Ideally, I would like to see a ruleset that allows players to have some very simple, 10-15 minute fights when the conflict isn't too crucial to the plot, then break out the serious tactical options for the 2-hour back and forth epic battle with the BBEG.

RPG's have done this for decades.

GURPS included a basic, fast combat system and an advanced system with many optional tactical choices 20 years ago in the same book.

D&D used to publish Basic D&D with simpler combat than the AD&D rules with weapon speeds (and weapon minimum space requirements) and flanking (different effects for side and rear flanks) etc.
The Basic D&D combat system was often used with the AD&D classes, spells, and magic items. Mearls mentioned that he did it himself

When we played AD&D, we kept using the Basic D&D combat rules.

Why can't WoTC do that again- publish a Basic D&D with simpler combat (and character building)?
It would not be a new edition, but rather a separate game line.

 

[TerraDave]

I'm thinking one solution would actually be another monster type, the "mook". This would be specifically intended to be a fairly trivial monster to defeat but would have some characteristics designed to make it a credible threat for a round or two.

Maybe something like a standard but with less hit points (say 1/3 of a standard), rather simple powers that might be just marginally more complex than a minion's are. I'd say give them one encounter power that is fairly high damage and then a low damage output MBA/RBA, and maybe a trait in some cases. They'll go down quite fast and reliably, but if they get lucky they can put a ding in your character big enough to notice. They'd fill in the gulf between minions and standards and they could be used (with minions perhaps) as the main monster type for 'quick' encounters. They'd be worth a bit less XP than standards but the basic idea would be 5 mooks would stand up to 2-3 rounds or so, get in a couple good hits, and then die hard. Yet they would be substantial enough that the wizard can't just clear them with Beguiling Strands.

This is good in that you can bring it right into an existing 4E game. But, maybe the more straightforward option is to just make minions better?

 

[Quickleaf]

I agree with delericho's proposal for nested complexity. I see three ways this sort of tactical complexity could be built in:

(1) DM's encounter design: Guidance for DMs to design encounters with an eye toward how long the encounter is supposed to last.

E.g. Simple terrain coupled with terrain powers dealing extreme damage speed up short combats. Big boss fights might have particularly complicated terrain though terrain powers deal less damage. Lower level skirmishers and lots of minions also speed up combat. As well as time limits, trigger changes, and unusual tactics.

(2) Player's character choices: Players could choose between a simplified version of their class (a la the martial essentials classes) and a more advanced version with greater tactical options.

E.g. An "easy-mode" wizard build might have no powers which inflict conditions you need to track.

(3) Rules differentiating between 'modes' of complexity: The rules could have nested layers of combat complexity as delericho mentioned. So the basic combat rules would always work, and then the tactical combat rules would get activated by the DM or players during major fights.

E.g. The basic combat rules would work fine without miniatures, meaning speed and range are reinterpreted through this lens.

Regardless I think more robust "improvised actions" rules are in order, maybe taking a cue from Mark Monack's Terrain Powers article. That's something that could be used no matter the tactical complexity of the fight, and could either shorten fights or lengthen them depending on how it's used.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is good in that you can bring it right into an existing 4E game. But, maybe the more straightforward option is to just make minions better?

That's why I like it, it is 'homebrew' but very mild homebrew and you can use it right along with CB, MB, etc. Technically the mooks are just monsters that don't conform to the DMG1 monster development guidelines.

In terms of 'better minions' I think it is sort of a semantic argument, you can call these 'improved minions' if you want. You can just not use real minions and use them instead. The XP cost/award for them is actually the only thing that is sort of not a real rule, and I'm not 100% sure what XP value a 'mook' should have, but somewhere north of 25% of a standard and probably less than 75% (so half sounds good, but I'm guessing).

Of course I also don't know how much this will make combat go faster. It probably will to SOME extent, and might work well for some groups in some cases. It might not do a lot in other cases.

 

[RangerWickett]

Who here has seen the Old School Hack? Old School Hack

You don't use maps. Instead, there are different areas of a combat, and you can spend your one action per round to attack, use a power, or move to an adjacent area. Different weapons get bonuses in different types of areas.

For instance, a house might have a ground level, an attic, a wide-open front yard, and a back yard with a cliff. Normal weapons are best in the main room, light weapons best in the cramped attic, ranged weapons in the front yard, and reach weapons in the back yard (since you can force enemies into bad terrain).

It's hard to find a quicker and easier game.

 

[TerraDave]

re. old school hack...traveler had a system like that back in the day (this is the game where your space farers would carry daggers, swords and shotguns). So I guess that is old school!

 

[Keldryn]

Length of combat is my #1 issue with 4e. I don't buy into the "you can't roleplay in 4e" argument, but I cannot tell the stories I want to tell using the system - length of combat causes the pace of storytelling to collapse to near-Lost rates.

I have many issues with 4e, but the length of combat is one of the biggest and perhaps the most insurmountable.

We play for 4 or 5 hours every other week (in theory; it seems to end up being once every 3 to 4 weeks). There are usually three combat encounters each session, and the typical encounter takes 45 minutes to an hour or more to play out. So the immediately obvious issue is that 2/3 to 3/4 of each game session is consumed by combat encounters. True, I could run only one or two battles per game, but they need to be tougher (and thus probably longer) encounters or else the PCs daily resources are never tapped out. Also, my players like combat and find it exciting... for the first 15 minutes or so.

In TSR-era D&D, exploration could be slow-paced and combat encounters would often be used to liven things up. In 4e, a combat encounter absolutely kills the pacing of my games as we take a break from the story for a good hour to play out the combat. After a combat wraps up, it's not uncommon for one of my players to say "so... what were we doing again?"

In my opinion, the default game should play without miniatures and the 'standard' combat length should be about 10 minutes (longer for 'showpiece' and boss fights, of course).

I agree completely, on both counts. 10 to 15 minutes for a typical encounter sounds about right to me, with 30 minutes as an upper limit for an important set-piece battle. A very rare climactic encounter at the end of a long story arc could even take up to an hour.

After over half a dozen 4e game sessions, even the trivial encounters in Reavers of Harkenwold were still taking us 40 minutes to play out. Only one of my players actually enjoys these tactical encounters; the rest of my players wish that the rules were simpler and that the battles were over in about 1/3 of the time.

 

[Aegeri]

Length of combat is my #1 issue with 4e. I don't buy into the "you can't roleplay in 4e" argument, but I cannot tell the stories I want to tell using the system - length of combat causes the pace of storytelling to collapse to near-Lost rates.

Personally I avoid this by making quite a few combats important to the story in some way. So a battle is advancing the plot at the same time. I don't really like to throw incidental combat encounters at PCs for the sake of having them. I want them to add something to the game either tactically: Because they would be fun, or because it advances the plot/story in some way (due to rescuing an NPC, finding important lore or whatever else).