Speeding up combat with Skirmishes & Set-Pieces

[Truename]

I've been trying a new house-rule for improving 4e combat, inspired by @Rechan (I think) and 5e, and it's working really well. I call it "Skirmishes & Set-Pieces." It's a new "combat module" that's meant to supplement standard 4e combat.

The great thing about 4e combat is the tactical depth and complexity. For the first time in D&D, I actually feel like combat is fun in its own right. 4e does set-piece battles really well.

But that fun comes at a cost. 4e combats take a long time, and strong tactical play requires a lot of concentration on the grid, squares of movement, powers, and so on. For my players, this comes at the cost of immersion. (An example from my game last night: "I do 23 thunder damage and push him two squares, and then on the start of his next turn, he'll take 5 lightning damage if he's not adjacent to me." Me: "Why? What just happened in-game?" Him: "Umm... I'm not sure.") Sometimes I don't want a big set-piece battle. Sometimes I just want a wandering monster or a small skirmish to provide flavor and create immersion.

So the idea behind "Skirmishes & Set-Pieces" is to keep using the standard 4e combat engine for big "set-piece" battles. For the other, more ordinary, battles, I use a "skirmish" combat module. In this module, there's no battle grid, minis, or initiative, and a lot more DM fiat. It's tons faster and more immersive than the set-piece module, but not as tactically engaging. Here's how it works:

• Positioning: No battle grid or minis. The DM describes the environment and the monsters, and players describe where their characters move. The DM decides where everybody is and how far apart people are, with a generous amount of "slop." Opportunity attacks, shifting, cover, and so forth are still used through DM fiat.

• Initiative: No initiative. The DM decides who acts next and makes sure that everyone has a chance to go. Sometimes the DM might decide that two creatures act simultaneously.

• Conditions: All the normal 4e conditions (prone, dazed, etc.) are available and used as normal.

• Durations: There's no tracking of rounds. Powers that only operate once per round (including immediate actions) recharge when the player starts his turn. Durations last according to DM fiat; generally, a condition affects a creature once, unless it needs to save. There's no tracking of "end of my next turn" versus "end of creature's next turn" versus "start of my next turn"--instead, it's a common sense ruling of "did this condition do its thing yet?"

• Actions: The normal 4e action economy is used (standard, move, minor, immediate, opportunity, free, no action). Players and monsters use all their normal 4e powers (including encounter and daily powers) but describe them using in-game terms rather than tactical terms. If a player can't figure out how to describe a power in a way that makes sense to the DM, then it can't be used. All the normal 4e combat actions (bull rush, charge, crawl, etc.) are available. Players are encouraged to come up with "stunts" that build on their existing powers, and the DM takes a generous interpretation of stunts. They always work at least as well as the power they're based on. (For example, a player with Burning Hands says, "I extend my hands in front of me and bathe the three monsters in flame, and ignite the rotting floor beneath them." DM: "Okay, the floor catches fire and gives way. Roll your attacks; the ones that you hit fall into the basement for 1d10 extra damage, and the ones you miss dodge to the side." Player: "There's a miss effect, so the ones that I miss are singed for (roll) three damage.")

• Trust: This system requires a lot of trust between the DM and players. The DM has to trust that the players are using their powers legally (and not constantly stop the action to double-check power card text), and the players have to trust the DM's fiat. It helps if the DM uses interpretations that are biased in favor of the Rule of Cool and generous to the players.

• Encounter Balancing: I suggest using below-level encounters and equal-or-below-level monsters to prevent the fight from grinding. It's probably a good idea to avoid elites and solos. So far, my skirmishes have all been below-level standard monsters, or minions, and less than half of an equal-level encounter XP budget.

• Mixing with Set-Pieces: You can use a skirmish as a lead-in to a set-piece fight. I did this last night, with my players running through town battling rampaging soldiers using the skirmish rules, before coming up against the main body of the enemy forces and switching to the set-piece rules, rolling initiative, and getting out the battlemat. I'd suggest letting the players recharge their encounter powers when switching to the set-piece rules to keep it from grinding.

I've used this approach for the last two sessions, and it's worked really well. Combat goes about 5x faster. We resolved a combat of three 13-level PCs vs. three 9th-level soldiers in less than ten minutes. Immersion is improved, too. There's no pause between roleplay/exploration and combat, and actions are described in terms of the game world rather than the grid or powers.

On the downside, combat is more static and repetitive. Players are more likely to get into static melee "clenches" with their foes and just wail on each other with at-will actions. Although I ask the players to be creative with their descriptions and actions, it's hard for them to do that on the fly, especially since their turns come around so quickly.

Has anyone else tried using this sort of approach? How has it worked for you?

 

[Quickleaf]

I've been trying a new house-rule for improving 4e combat, inspired by [MENTION=54846]Rechan[/MENTION] (I think) and 5e, and it's working really well. I call it "Skirmishes & Set-Pieces." It's a new "combat module" that's meant to supplement standard 4e combat.

Yeah good stuff, I use "random encounters" and I do something similar. Youre right that trust and DM fiat are necessary. The big challenge for me is getting players to break out of the power mold of having a rigidly defined set of options with marginal (at best) narrative. A trick I use to encourage exciting out-of-the-box thinking is automatic criticals and instant minion-ization, encouraging one shot kills. I'll throw in fun stuff like a "daze" which causes a monster to become susceptible to another monster's incoming area spell, or "push" effects which toss monsters off castle walls.

Players are encouraged to come up with "stunts" that build on their existing powers, and the DM takes a generous interpretation of stunts. They always work at least as well as the power they're based on. (For example, a player with Burning Hands says, "I extend my hands in front of me and bathe the three monsters in flame, and ignite the rotting floor beneath them." DM: "Okay, the floor catches fire and gives way. Roll your attacks; the ones that you hit fall into the basement for 1d10 extra damage, and the ones you miss dodge to the side." Player: "There's a miss effect, so the ones that I miss are singed for (roll) three damage.")

I don't know how many times I've seen this same scenario, and every time it makes me think I'm playing a different game from those kinds of players.

I used equal-or-below-level monsters to prevent the fight from grinding. It's probably a good idea to avoid elites and solos. So far, my skirmishes have all been below-level standard monsters, or minions, and less than half of an equal-level encounter XP budget.

Yeah I do the same thing, in addition to halving standard monster HP outright. I tend to avoid soldiers, or if I am using them to use soldiers a couple levels below PCs. I also like to include "combat outs" for alternative methods to resolving the fight.

Mixing with Set-Pieces: You can use a skirmish as a lead-in to a set-piece fight. I did this last night, with my players running through town battling rampaging soldiers using the skirmish rules, before coming up against the main body of the enemy forces and switching to the set-piece rules, rolling initiative, and getting out the battlemat. I'd suggest letting the players recharge their encounter powers when switching to the set-piece rules to keep it from grinding.

Cool!

On the downside, combat is more static and repetitive. Players are more likely to get into static melee "clenches" with their foes and just wail on each other with at-will actions. Although I ask the players to be creative with their descriptions and actions, it's hard for them to do that on the fly, especially since their turns come around so quickly.

Yep, that's the same issue I notice. 4e's power system locks up the creativity of some players. This more old school approach tries to unlock it. But just because the fights are off the grid and go by fast doesn't mean there can't be developments changing the course of the fight. When a pack of murderous orcs charge the party's rear it doesn't matter much if they are playing the miniatures mini-game or not - the rear line now needs defending.

Has anyone else tried using this sort of approach? How has it worked for you?

I notice that with quick skirmishes there rarely is lethal challenge to the PCs so they can be seen as "throwaway fights" meant only to tax the PCs' resources. So what I like to do is give every skirmish a strong secondary goal, such as protecting villagers during the raid, beating the enemy quickly within X rounds, avoiding detection, taking one enemy captive, killing the leader with minimum casualties, making a bumbling NPC wannabe hero look good, etc.

 

[Keenberg]

I

On the downside, combat is more static and repetitive. Players are more likely to get into static melee "clenches" with their foes and just wail on each other with at-will actions. Although I ask the players to be creative with their descriptions and actions, it's hard for them to do that on the fly, especially since their turns come around so quickly.

Has anyone else tried using this sort of approach? How has it worked for you?

I've used this approach befire as well. For me, it harkens back to earlier editions, which can be a lot of fun. I'd say, as a suggestion to avoid the "clinches," make the combatants you control as DM dynamic. Give them a sling or a javelin or two so they can shift, jump, tumble, or scramble out of the melee lockdown. Keep them on their toes so they stay immersed, but not so much that the skirmish ends up taking as long as a full-fledged encounter.

Good luck and have fun!

 

[Randomthoughts]

I've been trying a new house-rule for improving 4e combat, inspired by @Rechan (I think) and 5e, and it's working really well. I call it "Skirmishes & Set-Pieces." It's a new "combat module" that's meant to supplement standard 4e combat.

<snip>

Has anyone else tried using this sort of approach? How has it worked for you?

I haven't tried it in the same manner as you described, but yeah, I've tried a more streamlined approach to combat that both my players and I have immensely enjoyed.

I call my version, "Combat Challenges" since it is more like a tweaked version of Skill Challenges, but where powers could (and should) be used. The hallmarks of Combat Challenges are pretty much the same as yours:

* Fights are "filler" but more than a cakewalk (which I would resolve purely by narration) but less than a "fair fight" where either party could win (in which case I'd use 4e tactical rules).
* Heavy emphasis on creative description and use of PC/monster powers and actions.
* Player trust and GM fiat.

My group found that using this "mode" of combat, and mixing it up with other modes, really spices up play.

But we've only used it a couple of times so I'll be tweaking it even more.

 

[Rune]

• Positioning: No battle grid or minis. The DM describes the environment and the monsters, and players describe where their characters move. The DM decides where everybody is and how far apart people are, with a generous amount of "slop." Opportunity attacks, shifting, cover, and so forth are still used through DM fiat.

I do this in my games. I'm generally pretty good at succinctly describing battlefield positions. I do generalize when I can.

• Initiative: No initiative. The DM decides who acts next and makes sure that everyone has a chance to go. Sometimes the DM might decide that two creatures act simultaneously.

I'm not sure how this would make any significant difference in combat length, but I do see how it would add an element of (perceived) chaos into the skirmish.

• Durations: There's no tracking of rounds. Powers that only operate once per round (including immediate actions) recharge when the player starts his turn. Durations last according to DM fiat; generally, a condition affects a creature once, unless it needs to save. There's no tracking of "end of my next turn" versus "end of creature's next turn" versus "start of my next turn"--instead, it's a common sense ruling of "did this condition do its thing yet?"

Now I see why you've dropped initiative. I pretty much do the same thing with durations, but I haven't dropped the round/initiative structure. All in all, I don't find cyclical initiative to take that long.

• Actions: The normal 4e action economy is used (standard, move, minor, immediate, opportunity, free, no action). Players and monsters use all their normal 4e powers (including encounter and daily powers) but describe them using in-game terms rather than tactical terms. If a player can't figure out how to describe a power in a way that makes sense to the DM, then it can't be used. All the normal 4e combat actions (bull rush, charge, crawl, etc.) are available. Players are encouraged to come up with "stunts" that build on their existing powers, and the DM takes a generous interpretation of stunts. They always work at least as well as the power they're based on. (For example, a player with Burning Hands says, "I extend my hands in front of me and bathe the three monsters in flame, and ignite the rotting floor beneath them." DM: "Okay, the floor catches fire and gives way. Roll your attacks; the ones that you hit fall into the basement for 1d10 extra damage, and the ones you miss dodge to the side." Player: "There's a miss effect, so the ones that I miss are singed for (roll) three damage.")

I like these ideas a lot, even though I don't think they directly do anything to streamline combat--they still have players looking at their powers and actually add a step to using them. That said, immersion would certainly help invest players (and DM) in the skirmish.

I've decided to incorporate a simple incentive into my combats to help promote improvised options and, hopefully, encourage players to keep their eyes off their character sheets a little more during combat. The players will still have the option of using any of their powers (certainly, some situations will beg for them), but, should they choose to improvise an option based on the circumstances, they'll get a +2 to any relevant die roll to succeed.

• Trust: This system requires a lot of trust between the DM and players. The DM has to trust that the players are using their powers legally (and not constantly stop the action to double-check power card text), and the players have to trust the DM's fiat. It helps if the DM uses interpretations that are biased in favor of the Rule of Cool and generous to the players.

Absolutely! It's also worth noting that Trust starts with the DM, who must foster the atmosphere. However, a disruptive player who forces the DM to take an adversarial position to keep him in check can easily ruin all such attempts.

• Encounter Balancing: I suggest using below-level encounters and equal-or-below-level monsters to prevent the fight from grinding. It's probably a good idea to avoid elites and solos. So far, my skirmishes have all been below-level standard monsters, or minions, and less than half of an equal-level encounter XP budget.

Yes, and generous helpings of minions, as well. Halving hit points (and increasing damage by 50%) has worked well for me, as well. Also, if your players want to make detailed preparations to stack the odds heavily in their favor, don't shut them down! It's a good thing!

There's no pause between roleplay/exploration and combat, and actions are described in terms of the game world rather than the grid or powers.

That's definitely an ideal for me.

On the downside, combat is more static and repetitive. Players are more likely to get into static melee "clenches" with their foes and just wail on each other with at-will actions.

Frankly, I've noticed that, even at the most war-gamer, tactics-lovin', D&D-as-boardgame tables I've played at, that can easily happen (once the encounters are out of the way), if the DM lets it, but, as Quickleaf mentioned, that's when the DM should throw in a tactical twist to change things up.

Although I ask the players to be creative with their descriptions and actions, it's hard for them to do that on the fly, especially since their turns come around so quickly.

That does seem to happen, even to seasoned players. I'm hoping that the +2 chance to succeed incentive that I mentioned earlier will help this somewhat. Ultimately, though, I don't think the problem will entirely go away while powers exist in their current form--that is, highly specific game effects that are largely independent from actual in-game circumstances (except for positioning).

Has anyone else tried using this sort of approach? How has it worked for you?

Yes, I have. It is but one part of a comprehensive approach to streamlining the game at all levels--campaign-building, session-preparation, and game-play.[/quote] It has helped us feel more is accomplished in the game, helped recapture a feel of something we've been missing, and, basically, helped reinvigorate the game.

A trick I use to encourage exciting out-of-the-box thinking is automatic criticals and instant minion-ization, encouraging one shot kills. I'll throw in fun stuff like a "daze" which causes a monster to become susceptible to another monster's incoming area spell, or "push" effects which toss monsters off castle walls.

I would like to hear more about these.

I notice that with quick skirmishes there rarely is lethal challenge to the PCs so they can be seen as "throwaway fights" meant only to tax the PCs' resources. So what I like to do is give every skirmish a strong secondary goal, such as protecting villagers during the raid, beating the enemy quickly within X rounds, avoiding detection, taking one enemy captive, killing the leader with minimum casualties, making a bumbling NPC wannabe hero look good, etc.

I try to do this informally, but rarely spell it out. It's really the same way I handle skill challenges (which is, pretty much, structureless--just like the good ol' days).

I call my version, "Combat Challenges" since it is more like a tweaked version of Skill Challenges, but where powers could (and should) be used. The hallmarks of Combat Challenges are pretty much the same as yours:

* Fights are "filler" but more than a cakewalk (which I would resolve purely by narration) but less than a "fair fight" where either party could win (in which case I'd use 4e tactical rules).
* Heavy emphasis on creative description and use of PC/monster powers and actions.
* Player trust and GM fiat.

My group found that using this "mode" of combat, and mixing it up with other modes, really spices up play.

But we've only used it a couple of times so I'll be tweaking it even more.

I'd like to hear more about this, as well. Specifically, how does your method emulate skill challenges?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I've been considering doing this as well. Great write up!

I have experimented in the past with another similar concept that I call "story kill," for use when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I simply hand the narrative over to the players and ask them how this fight goes. They are often harsher on themselves than the dice and rules would be, and it leads to a lot of great description and fun. I'd probably use Story Kill about as often as a set piece.

 

[Quickleaf]

A trick I use to encourage exciting out-of-the-box thinking is automatic criticals and instant minion-ization, encouraging one shot kills. I'll throw in fun stuff like a "daze" which causes a monster to become susceptible to another monster's incoming area spell, or "push" effects which toss monsters off castle walls.

I would like to hear more about these.

Just like [MENTION=6681248]Randomthoughts[/MENTION] said these kind of skirmishes can be seen as filler, basically guaranteed wins where the challenge doesn't come from the difficulty of combat but from other narrative elements. My approach is to run with that.

When a player comes up with a really creative idea, I sometimes give them an auto-critical or let them auto-kill a monster on the fly, or some other cool thing appropriate to the moment. Ive had players use Intimidate as dominate, and other "game breaking" stuff, but anything that gets them out of that awful example the OP posted of disjoint between mechanics and narrative, and opens up their creativity is good IMO.

 

[LostSoul]

I use a similar approach.

On the downside, combat is more static and repetitive. Players are more likely to get into static melee "clenches" with their foes and just wail on each other with at-will actions. Although I ask the players to be creative with their descriptions and actions, it's hard for them to do that on the fly, especially since their turns come around so quickly.

I tend not to get into melee "clenches" for a few reasons.

1. I require Martial Encounter powers to have some sort of fictional trigger. The upside is that they can be used whenever that trigger is met. Monsters also follow this behaviour, though I have to ad-lib the trigger on the fly.

This means that you're always rewarded if you try to work the melee to your specific advantage. You don't get locked down into wailing on each other, you're always trying to manipulate your opponent.

The problem is that some of my players don't understand the concept of setting up an attack and have trouble coming up with a trigger. Players who have martial arts experience didn't have this problem.

This doesn't speed up combat but it does bring it to life.

2. I allow skill checks in replace of attack rolls if you're not trying to do damage. This means that if you're trying to grapple someone, you can make a skill check. You don't do damage, though, but locking up someone is often pretty awesome.

3. I allow attacks to permanently maim targets if the following conditions are met: the target is bloodied before or after the attack and cannot defend themselves from attack. An example: A giant ant queen grabbed a PC in her mandibles. She was bloodied and the PC hacked off one of her mandibles.

2 and 3 can work together nicely; if you put an arm lock on someone, an ally can hack his hand off.

 

[Randomthoughts]

I'd like to hear more about this, as well. Specifically, how does your method emulate skill challenges?

Sure but be careful what you ask for (kinda long).

The Story: To set the scene, the PCs infiltrated a slaver base to uncover the location of the larger slaver operation. A massive battle wagon emerges from a sandstorm at the same time an “old friend” reveals himself a traitor, unwinding the PC’s charade. This Combat Challenge starts at the moment they confronted and eventually killed their “old friend”.

The purpose of this Combat Challenge, story-wise, was to move the story forward – which involved a lot of combat – within a short(er) period of time, get our creative juices flowing and warmed up for the boss fight and frankly, give PCs the opportunity to feel like bad asses. They’ve been harried by (and successfully overcame) a range of slavers and their ilk, and rose to level 5. So, this was their chance to finally “bring some” to the slavers and attempt to end their operation once and for all.

As a fitting end to this story arc, I wanted a pitched day-long battle, as the PCs fight hordes of slavers, attempt to free legions of captured slaves as potential allies and assault the battle wagon (climaxing in a set-piece boss fight on its upper platform). Think of the “battle scene” montages that you see in the movies. That’s what this scene was for.

Initially, I had planned on dedicating one whole session to this but it ended up only being ½ (the other half involving the PCs actually getting to the slaver camp). Hence, I developed my first Combat Challenge to cram all this stuff in. Hope you like it!

The Mechanics: The main purpose of the Combat Challenge, from a mechanical perspective, was to drain healing surges and (less likely) daily powers in preparation for the boss fight. At this point, PCs would almost always win any pitched battle against a dozen slavers (which I kept at the same level except for special units); so it was just a matter of how long it would take and what resources they would consume. Since encounter powers recharge each fight, I assumed that PCs would use all of them with impunity. Consequently, it was the use of daily powers that really mattered here.

I use Skill Challenges a lot in my adventures, and favor the Rules Compendium version (pp. 157-163) combined with the DM Guide 2 (pp. 78-89). Both sources provide fantastic guidance and inspiration on SC! I’ve also run “combats” simply as skill challenges (as described in Dungeon Magazine issues 166-167). But I had found those sometimes unsatisfying because, well, you don’t even use your combat abilities! So Combat Challenges were meant to fill in that “gap.”

You’ll see that Combat Challenges look a lot like Skill Challenges. The main differences are the mini-combats called “Combat Encounters”. I wrapped a story around each Combat Encounter. I adlibbed at the time; in future ones, I’ll probably randomly roll a scene type (e.g. a slaver counter-offensive).

Combat Encounters were meant to be resolved in 1-3 die rolls. I did not track hit points; opponents were considered minions although a battle with a few lieutenants would last longer. Conditions weren’t formally tracked either; we “applied” them in our narrative (e.g., your Thunderwave ripped through the burlap tents, hurling slavers willy nilly). I rewarded creative power use (e.g., your Thunderwave smashed through the bone fence circling the slave pen creating a wide breach for slaves to escape).

Skills or Powers were used to make rolls. Rolls were only made when I requested them, usually after a bout of back-and-forth narrative by GM/PCs. DCs were the same as the AC of the monsters, but tended to hover near easy or moderate DCs. Monsters were chosen/designed to be straightforward and not complicated. So I wouldn’t choose monsters that had tricky powers or conditions.

A failed die roll by the PC usually resulted in a loss of a healing surge (but no more than one per Combat Encounter). Use of a daily power (and a few players actually did that) resulted in automatic success (sometimes two for cool descriptions), a +2 or +5 bonus for the next roll, potentially an Advantage and a dramatically positive change in the battle story (e.g., they managed to quell a focused counter attack).

Unlike full 4e combat where I encourage all PCs to stay on the same “map”, many of the PCs split up to handle battle “hot spots”. I just went around to the table and handled each in turn. BTW, I goaded players to use dailies by describing these hot spots, which became the stories wrapped around each Combat Encounter.

Finally, you’ll notice the “levels of success” chart at the end. At the end of the battle (the Combat Challenge), I tally up the number of failures and consult the chart. Note that 0 – 2 failures requires that all 12 successes were made (otherwise, it would be 3 failures). Sometimes, I’ve adjusted the level of success based on the number of successes achieved before reaching 3 failures. In this case, I didn’t.

Below is a copy of the Combat Challenge. Afterward, I have a few closing thoughts.

The Combat Challenge

Level: 5 (easy 10, moderate 15, hard 22)
Complexity: 5 (12 successes before 3 failures)
DC: 8 moderate, 4 hard
Advantages: 6


Primary Skills: Intimidation, Diplomacy, Perception, Nature, Stealth, Combat Encounter
Individual Intimidation/Diplomacy (DC 15; standard; 1 success, 6 maximum). You command the troops.
rrIndividual Intimidation/Diplomacy (DC 22; standard; 1 success, no maximum). During a downturn of the battle, leadership is needed.
Individual Perception (DC 15; standard; 1 success, 6 maximum). You notice weaknesses and opportunities in the enemy’s line.
r Individual Perception (DC 22; standard; 1 success). Enemy ambushes/counterattacks.
Individual Nature (DC 15; standard; 1 success, 3 maximum). You notice advantageous use of terrain.
Individual Stealth (DC 15; standard; 1 success, 3 maximum). You notice opportunities to ambush the enemy.
r Individual Stealth (DC 22; standard; 1 success). Enemy is on the alert. You meet up with increased resistance.
rrrrr Individual Combat Encounter (DC 15/13 (slaver/crossbow slaver), 1 success, 1 per PC maximum). Determine Combat Encounter story. Daily power use: 2 successes, +2/+5 next roll, may provide Advantage (see below).

Secondary Skills: History, Athletics, Acrobatics, Insight, Thievery
Individual History (DC 15; standard action; 0 success, no limit). Your knowledge of warfare serves you well. Add +2 to next roll.
Individual Athletics/Acrobatics (DC 15, standard action, 0 success, no limit): You race through the battlefield, add +2 to next intimidation, perception or stealth rolls.
Individual Insight (DC 15, standard action, max 1 success): You inspire courage in a weakening line.
Individual Thievery (DC 15, standard action, max 1 success): You open a locked door (applicable only to the assault). +5 to next roll in the assault.

Advantages (Max 6):
r CALVARY ARRIVES: This round, all DC are now Easy (DC 10).
r SLAVES REVOLT: First round, successes moderate DC count as 2 successes.
rrr COOL RESULTS OF COMBAT ENCOUNTERS: One roll moderate DC counts as 2 successes or reduce a failure.
r Individual Intimidation/Diplomacy (DC 22; standard; 1 success, 1 maximum). 2 successes at critical time or reduce a failure.
r Individual Perception/Nature/Stealth (DC 22; standard; 1 success, 1 maximum). 2 successes at critical time.
r Individual Heal (DC 15; standard; 1 success, 2 maximum). You treat battle wounds of your allies. Reduce a failure.

There were four outcomes as a result of the Battle. PCs had the option to choose a worse outcome (and in fact, they did - b/c they found being enslaved more interesting as a story).

Result: Level of Success

No failures: PC win a decisive victory with ¼ ally casualties. VICTORIOUS. Jorasco unhurt. All slavers dead/captured. The Ravenous completely unscathed.
1 failure: PC win a solid victory. Major casualties on both sides. The Ravenous is damaged. Slavers scatter but ¾ dead. Jorasco hurt. VICTORIOUS. The Ravenous damaged but functional.
2 failures: PCs win a pyrrhic victory. Most allies dead or enslaved. ½ slavers alive. Jorasco is dead. PCs ESCAPE, The Ravenous is in ruins.
3 failures: PCs are ENSLAVED. All slaves and friendly troops dead or enslaved. Slavers continue as a dominant power in the area. Kalak's plans are unimpeded. Jorasco dead.

Closing Thoughts: In relation to Truename’s “Skirmishes & Set-Pieces”, Combat Challenges are a step closer to narrative combat. GM fiat and player narrative play enormous roles; rules do not. Personally, I like using a variety of modes to change the pacing of the adventure, by allowing to zoom in or out of the level of combat detail and complexity. Those modes I’ve used (except #4) are:

(from least structured/more free form to more structured/less free form)

• Free form, narrative combat (e.g., “the two guards at the entrance are no match for your party. How do you handle them?”)
• Skill Challenges
• Combat Challenges
• Gridless 4e combat (this is where I place Skirmishes & Set-Pieces and a few other gridless 4e combat modes I’ve seen).
• Full-blown tactical 4e combat