Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Novas and Workdays, Big Fights and Little Fights
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 6001492" data-attributes="member: 6685694"><p>"Non-important" is not necessarily meant to mean 'non-threatening'- just balanced around a different standard of power and level of detail. Dying in a 'trivial' fight is perfectly fine, and even particularly appropriate for a certain style of play <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> You would also still be free to build 'high threat' or 'low threat' fights in either mode; it's just that the expectations about what types of abilities would come into play in each situation is different. You could still do something showy in a 'Little Fight' to freak out the locals- this is still D&D, and you can still have mages shooting magic bolts, warlocks blasting, fighters maneuvering, etc., just using ad-hoc adjudication rather than a tightly defined system of powers.</p><p></p><p>For example, you are almost certainly going to want to build out a major, adventure-ending fight in a very detailed way (if you're the type that plans adventures). On the other hand, if combat with a particular set of NPCs is neither central to the adventure nor a particularly likely scenario, you might prefer just to have simple stats and say 'if a fight happens, it happens'. The dragon at the end of the dungeon gets a Big Fight; the tavern brawl the night before you set off for the dragon's lair, instigated by a player deciding at random to start throwing mugs at fellow patrons, is a Little Fight. On the other hand, a level 3 player randomly challenging a Storm Giant mercenary to a dual might also be a Little Fight, despite the high risk.</p><p></p><p>Alternatively if you and your players want a highly tactical barroom brawl, it can be a Big Fight- it will just be more time consuming to resolve.</p><p></p><p>In general, I would map Big Fight more to 'fight where the NPC has tactics substantially beyond 'hit them' and the PC's have a high chance of having prepped specifically for this fight'.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you saying these rules would need to be substantially different from the current set of 4e rules, or that you need rules for defining the abilities used in a Big Fight? I would certainly expect those powers to be defined completely in the rule set, rather than built out from it. Certainly there needs to be much more detailed rules to balance the two types of encounter- this is obviously more a sketch of an idea that seemed to have potential than anything. I can understand feeling that you would need to know more specifics to judge the merits of the idea, but I don't really have any for you, unfortunately.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>'always available' was maybe a poor choice of words; maybe 'have traditionally always been available prior to 4e' would maybe be better. I would certainly include in that single-use or limited use magic items or limited use gear (caltrops, etc.). The idea is that during the small fights you operate in a more traditional pre-4e mode; when you enter a big fight, all of your regular small fight resources (including toys like magic items, pets, etc.) are still available, you just also pick up your set of Big Fight resources. Balance on this front would certainly be tricky.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree it's a stylistic choice, and I was careful to word it as to make either case optional. However, in practice I think there are few people who are playing an AEDU-style game without some kind of grid, and the assumption of the grid being there makes it much easier to define effects and powers in a way that doesn't slow down play too much. Certainly playing using the 'Small Fight' toolkit with a battle grid wouldn't be at all out of the ordinary. Part of the point of the two styles of fight, referring back again to the thread that kicked off this idea, was that the level of tactical detail provided by the 4e abilities having the background assumption of gridy-ness is attractive to some people for high-importance encounters, even if they don't want it every time they roll initiative. The two styles of fight are not only to provide different schema for balance (or non-balance) and style, but also to provide different levels of detail. I can see wanting to separate those things out, but in practice I think that takes us into a realm where D&D hasn't really explored very well- whereas this is intended to be built on top of two familiar systems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ComradeGnull, post: 6001492, member: 6685694"] "Non-important" is not necessarily meant to mean 'non-threatening'- just balanced around a different standard of power and level of detail. Dying in a 'trivial' fight is perfectly fine, and even particularly appropriate for a certain style of play :p You would also still be free to build 'high threat' or 'low threat' fights in either mode; it's just that the expectations about what types of abilities would come into play in each situation is different. You could still do something showy in a 'Little Fight' to freak out the locals- this is still D&D, and you can still have mages shooting magic bolts, warlocks blasting, fighters maneuvering, etc., just using ad-hoc adjudication rather than a tightly defined system of powers. For example, you are almost certainly going to want to build out a major, adventure-ending fight in a very detailed way (if you're the type that plans adventures). On the other hand, if combat with a particular set of NPCs is neither central to the adventure nor a particularly likely scenario, you might prefer just to have simple stats and say 'if a fight happens, it happens'. The dragon at the end of the dungeon gets a Big Fight; the tavern brawl the night before you set off for the dragon's lair, instigated by a player deciding at random to start throwing mugs at fellow patrons, is a Little Fight. On the other hand, a level 3 player randomly challenging a Storm Giant mercenary to a dual might also be a Little Fight, despite the high risk. Alternatively if you and your players want a highly tactical barroom brawl, it can be a Big Fight- it will just be more time consuming to resolve. In general, I would map Big Fight more to 'fight where the NPC has tactics substantially beyond 'hit them' and the PC's have a high chance of having prepped specifically for this fight'. Are you saying these rules would need to be substantially different from the current set of 4e rules, or that you need rules for defining the abilities used in a Big Fight? I would certainly expect those powers to be defined completely in the rule set, rather than built out from it. Certainly there needs to be much more detailed rules to balance the two types of encounter- this is obviously more a sketch of an idea that seemed to have potential than anything. I can understand feeling that you would need to know more specifics to judge the merits of the idea, but I don't really have any for you, unfortunately. 'always available' was maybe a poor choice of words; maybe 'have traditionally always been available prior to 4e' would maybe be better. I would certainly include in that single-use or limited use magic items or limited use gear (caltrops, etc.). The idea is that during the small fights you operate in a more traditional pre-4e mode; when you enter a big fight, all of your regular small fight resources (including toys like magic items, pets, etc.) are still available, you just also pick up your set of Big Fight resources. Balance on this front would certainly be tricky. I agree it's a stylistic choice, and I was careful to word it as to make either case optional. However, in practice I think there are few people who are playing an AEDU-style game without some kind of grid, and the assumption of the grid being there makes it much easier to define effects and powers in a way that doesn't slow down play too much. Certainly playing using the 'Small Fight' toolkit with a battle grid wouldn't be at all out of the ordinary. Part of the point of the two styles of fight, referring back again to the thread that kicked off this idea, was that the level of tactical detail provided by the 4e abilities having the background assumption of gridy-ness is attractive to some people for high-importance encounters, even if they don't want it every time they roll initiative. The two styles of fight are not only to provide different schema for balance (or non-balance) and style, but also to provide different levels of detail. I can see wanting to separate those things out, but in practice I think that takes us into a realm where D&D hasn't really explored very well- whereas this is intended to be built on top of two familiar systems. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Novas and Workdays, Big Fights and Little Fights
Top