Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8624938" data-attributes="member: 6790260">That said, I think 4e could have been significantly improved by including what I have called &quot;Skirmish&quot; rules. Specifically, I completely agree that 4e is built around set-piece battles. But set pieces aren't the only sort of thing that matters, and there's a number of places where being able to handle short, brisk, lower-risk, lower-fanfare experiences.But just as we have rules for Skill Challenges, which are meant to give structure and set-piece-ness to non-combat challenges, shouldn't we be able to generate the &quot;just a couple skill rolls, not a Skill Challenge&quot; equivalent for combat things? Removing the set-piece-ness from some combat challenges. The hope being that these Skirmish Rules would model the attrition and costs of smaller combats that can add up to a lot, even though they're (ideally) over in just a few minutes' time.You could even look to building longer-term consequences into skirmishes or sequences thereof: if the party is rocking out and barely losing anything (e.g. they all roll very well repeatedly, so there's no lost surges and the like), this could have knock-on consequences for later encounters, e.g. enemy morale is low because they know someone or something has been chewing through the ranks, or they've taken extra precautions so they're a bit better-prepared than they would've been. Likewise, doing poorly might lead enemies to let their guard down in a proper set-piece battle, or it might have allowed reinforcements to gather together.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8624938, member: 6790260"] That said, I think 4e could have been [I]significantly improved[/I] by including what I have called "Skirmish" rules. Specifically, I completely agree that 4e is built around set-piece battles. But set pieces aren't the only sort of thing that matters, and there's a number of places where being able to handle short, brisk, lower-risk, lower-fanfare experiences. But just as we have rules for Skill Challenges, which are meant to give structure and set-piece-ness to non-combat challenges, shouldn't we be able to generate the "just a couple skill rolls, not a Skill Challenge" equivalent for combat things? [I]Removing[/I] the set-piece-ness from some combat challenges. The hope being that these Skirmish Rules would model the attrition and costs of smaller combats that can add up to a lot, even though they're (ideally) over in just a few minutes' time. You could even look to building longer-term consequences into skirmishes or sequences thereof: if the party is rocking out and barely losing anything (e.g. they all roll very well repeatedly, so there's no lost surges and the like), this could have knock-on consequences for later encounters, e.g. enemy morale is low because they know someone or something has been chewing through the ranks, or they've taken extra precautions so they're a bit better-prepared than they would've been. Likewise, doing poorly might lead enemies to let their guard down in a proper set-piece battle, or it might have allowed reinforcements to gather together. [/QUOTE]

Verification