Placement of Terrain and Hazards for Combat

[Stoat]

I'm looking for suggestions about how to place terrain elements and hazards so as to create interesting combat areas -- particularly outdoors. I've read the advice in the 4E DMG and DMG2, and I'm not real impressed with it. In particular, I'm interested in the following:

1) What mix of blocking, hindering, damaging or other special terrain types have folks found produces an interesting combat?

2) What arrangement of the above types of terrain have folks found produces an interesting combat?

For example: Put blocking terrain in the center or edge of the battlemat? Scatter damaging terrain types around or clump them together? What about helpful terrain types? Hindering terrain?

 

[Ktulu]

I always strive for "natural dynamic", meaning it looks like it belongs there and it can and will have an effect on the outcome of the encounter, i.e:

Crumbling walls can be put in a dungeon to use as a blast effect (dmg 2), then you can add a cause/effect hazard that causes the ceiling above to begin collapsing (dmg 1).

If described ahead of time, the players get the feeling of an old dangerous dungeon, and the encounter backs that up.


Same with something like grabgrass, I place it through areas the players will go, not just on the edge or in the middle. If the map I'm using has a thick forest spot, I might slip the grabgrass in the underbrush, or along the edge of the dirt-path.


Also, the DMG2 mentions this a lot: USE the terrain. Have monsters push/pull players into it, or (when it's beneficial) they try to occupy the space themselves.

Hope that helps.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

1) What mix of blocking, hindering, damaging or other special terrain types have folks found produces an interesting combat?

2) What arrangement of the above types of terrain have folks found produces an interesting combat?

First off, terrain of any variety spices up the fight a lot more than a static battlemta, or a dungeon that's always level and flat with just some walls.

1) A mix that changes from fight to fight based upon the environment. Mud is a fun, lowlevel hazard. A pile of bodies also hamper movement and provide slight cover. Floating walls that the PCs can attempt to manuever to provide cover are fun. Having to hop across levitating blocks to get to the other side of a room are a challenge. (Particularly if the levitating blocks are actually traps, illusions and a few "enhanced" gelatinous cubes.)

Turn your imagination loose and describe a scene. Terrain will suggest itself. Example: You want the PCs to confront a clockwork golem with a "fire in it's belly". It's weakness is that if you open the boiler and douse it's fire, it goes out. Where do they find it? Inside of a massive clock? Well how about moving and malfunctioning clock parts that cover the area? Perhaps loose cogs the size of wagons and rotating/moving rods and pistons that PCs have to charge through?

2) Any combination of terrain is interesting. What you don't want is to hamper the players too much. If the enemy sits behind force walls while the PCs fall down an enormous, endless shaft, then it's a great visual with a sucky combat once the enemy fires arrows, ballistae and fireballs down upon their falling foe. However, a massive fight on a giant platform winching upwards in that same shaft? Interesting. What if the PCs or the enemy target the chains holding it up? Will it tilt? Can people climb the chains? There's so much you can do.

 

[Janx]

I haven't done 4e, but your question doesn't have to be edition centric.

For outdoor stuff, you can put in some pretty wild terrain on volcanoes or stuff, and you can also spice up "normal" terrain to take it beyond just a flat battlemat.

On an open field, prairie dog holes will make the ground treacherous for fighting, easy to step in one and fall (or worse).

In a forest, some brush is nigh-impenetrable (the vines that grow here in houston are so thick and spiny that you can't just shove your way through some bushes). You can build "walls" with this stuff.

Trees of course would take a square and act as cover. They probably won't grow closer that 10' to each other if they are bigger trees. I've got 2 pines in my front yard that I could get full cover from each). An arrow fight would be pretty cool in a forest.

River banks are bound to be muddy (unless they're the eroded through kind). I lost a shoe from mud suction, pulling a canoe out of the Mississipi. An ambush on a party just landing on the beach would be tough.

narrow ledge trails along a mountain or steep hillside make good ambush sites. Imagine the attackes mostly unseen above attacking the party who is walking the trail. They can't easily go up, so they'll have to run or find another solution.

Fights are likely to happen in the most open area (which may not be very open at all, just more open than the rest of the area). One side will try to use an entrance as a chokepoint or fallback position. It's the most vulnerable point of the battlefield. This means that in building your scene on the battlemat, put the open spot in the center. If you were to put a big "blocking" piece in the center, you'll find the battle center will be at one of the open spots, the real center. So you might as well center on that (unless you've got a bigger plan...).

 

[Stoat]

Fights are likely to happen in the most open area (which may not be very open at all, just more open than the rest of the area). One side will try to use an entrance as a chokepoint or fallback position. It's the most vulnerable point of the battlefield. This means that in building your scene on the battlemat, put the open spot in the center. If you were to put a big "blocking" piece in the center, you'll find the battle center will be at one of the open spots, the real center. So you might as well center on that (unless you've got a bigger plan...).

This is the sort of thing I was looking for. I'm planning a Delve-style encounter that will take place in an open, grassland. I've got a lot of good terrain type I could put on the map -- mud, grabgrass, damaging thornbushes, etc. etc. -- but when I got down to it, I'm having difficulting deciding how to place the terrain. I want to place interesting terrain pieces so that (a) they'll see action in combat, but (b) they won't bog things down too much.

In your example, combatants naturally move toward the open area. This matches my experience. Taking this account, what's a good way to ensure that other types of terrain factor into the fight?

For example, putting a patch of beneficial ground (like bloodstone, say) behind a patch of dangerous/hindering ground.

 

[Janx]

alrighty, here's some brainstorming at your specific questions.

First off, I assume a battlemat. if you don't have one, pretend you do and mentally adjust what I'm suggesting to fit your game (and the fact that I don't know 4e and aren't using their terrain terms)...

We know from game play, that the fight doesn't force scrolling of the map. Unlike a videogame like Baldur's Gate, Champions of Norath, Marvel Ultimate alliance. This means the center is "between where you say the PCs and the NPCs detect the other".

So, one side starts on the left, the other side starts on the right of the battlemat. If one side knows about the other, the unwitting side is going to proceed to the center, and the watching side is going hide somewhat and wait for them to get in range, or get into the open.

So build up a jumble of "relevant" terrain around the edges, making sure there's some cover and opening on both left and right side. Basically this is the terrain that prevented either side from seeing each other initially, and what then gives the first to notice side an advantage.

I'm assuming that both parties were walking toward each other on a woodsy trail (or waiting in ambush on the trail).

Now, in the center, the "open" spot is simply more open than the rest of the map. That might mean a full clearly, a bend in the trail that's a bit wider, less brush or trees. That doesn't mean it is empty, just more sparse, which is why it makes a good attack point.

In fact, by making it more open, but not empty, you're setting up cover and hiding positions in the center, forcing people to move around them, not just advancing in straight lines toward the enemy. Imagine what I'm describing as a dungeon room with 2 exits that aren't on the same wall. Now imagine the walls are not solid, but made of trees and brush. Now imagine the room has scattered natural terrain, instead of dungeon furnishings.

So with this in mind you put "lines" of the terrain types you want, a line or arc of bad terrain is between the PCs and the "blob" of good terrain.

Now bear in mind, what I'm describing is pretty vague and is not the only way to look at or arrange a combat scetting. You could model the PCs coming down a narrow trail from top to bottom, and the ambushes attacking from the right side, in the trees. Your center is "the trail near the enemy", and the PCs will get attacked when they reach it.

In this case, your interesting terrain is what's off the trail. There may be a high mound on the left side of the trail that the PCs could take cover from arrows, but it's blocked off by spikey brush, so they have to go around. Basically, they're going to retreat from the center, to get to this spot. This can create a rolling battle, so be prepared for a bigger map.

If you make your center such that the fighter can move in a nearly straight line, unimpeded to the enemy, then you're not using terrain to make the fight interesting. If the fighter has to slow down, or shoot because that's faster, now the terrain has affected the battle. And that's the core point of this discussion.


In all of this, remember all you can do as GM is layout the terrain to make it interesting or challenging for the PCs. You can guess what tactics they may employ, but you must realize they could do something completely different. You'll have to be ready to fairly abjudicate that. If they want to retreat, it might be wise to "let them".

 

[Wik]

I like the "bulls-eye" approach.

The outside of the map has a lot of cover, and perhaps some negative effects (so that people that try to take out the artillery have to go through bad terrain to get there!). There is a large open area in the middle, but with minor areas of cover (perhaps a ruined building, with multiple entrances, or some beneficial shrubbery and trees). In the centre of the map is a nice area. Control of the centre will help win the battlefield - there could be heal stones, power recharges, or whatever else. However, it's also open, meaning you're gonna get blasted while you're there.

 

[Janx]

I'd also suggest that the bigger your battlemat, the longer encounter distance you can start the players off at.

Additionally, on a small mat, the PCs tend to be at the edge for initial contact (or right in the center). On a bigger mat, you can put them away from each other, but still have some map behind them for them to back off and take cover.

 

[Wormwood]

I've found (through trial, error----and dealing with the often pedestrian Scales of War adventure path) that spreading out terrain effects is the best solution. Stochastic placement of trees/obstacles (cover), areas of darkness (concealment), or difficult terrain (everything from rubble, ice patches, or swarms of beetles) forces the PCs to think tactically and keep them on their toes.

This not only forces the defenders to choose their movement carefully, but strikers and controllers have to account for line of sight issues as well.

Essentially, the more I throw obstacles in the party's way, the more fun they have trying to overcome them.

 

[MortalPlague]

Pits. Open pits are always fun. Whether they're full of acid, have spikes at the bottom, or are simply a short drop, it's always fun and challenging to fight beside a pit. Especially with 4th edition's emphasis on movement powers... push, pull, slide effects work wonders with pits.

Besides, they also open up the option to jump them, leading to a nice tactical choice; try to jump the pit and risk a setback, or take the safe route to the foe?