When Combat Isn't Always *About* Combat

[Himbo_Jones]

I saw a video this morning where a dungeon master put forth a scenario wherein his players were ambushed right as they grabbed this important artifact (a macguffin for their broader campaign). But rather than have the enemies try and kill the players outright, he made their goal to simply steal the artifact. This led to him creating very basic and straightforward "hot-potato" rules that allowed for players to throw the artifact to one another on a bonus action (this was D&D5e) and for the receiving player to catch it using their reaction.

Overall, this led to a really engaging and dynamic fight where the PCs were sort of incentivized to stay far apart to throw the object to one another, and were using their reactions to catch it so they had to be careful about their action economy. Enemies would also run around like mad, trying to knock the characters over, trip them up, steal the item, or using spells like command to get the tanker character to drop the artifact. If at any point the player thought to put this in a bag of holding, then the bag became the new thing to steal.

This, obviously, got me thinking about combat scenarios where there is a little something extra layered on top to make it more interesting. Maybe the goal is still combat, but there is an extra twist that forces the PCs to reposition often, changes the battlefield around them, or introduces hazards that can be used by either party with a few simple additional rules.

So, I figured I'd start a running list. If you guys have any ideas or have experienced any combat scenarios that made things interesting/dynamic/different/just plain fun, let me know and I'll add them to a greater list below so that other GMs can snag them as needed!

---

Battlefield Hazards

• Fighting occurs next to or over top of a deep body of water (like a river, a bay, or a murky sewer channel) and there is something lurking in the water. Anyone, enemies or PCs, who is thrown in is attacked/killed/eaten by the creature.
• Everyone is in a tall chamber when battle breaks out. The chamber is filling up with something (water, sand, acid, etc.), forcing combatants to constantly seek higher ground while simultaneously trying to throw others into the steadily rising tide.
• There is a swinging pendulum (or multiple swinging pendulums) in the room (perhaps over a bridge). The pendulum passes by on certain initiative counts and anyone standing in the path of the pendulum takes damage and/or is knocked over.

Alternate Goals

• Hot Potato: PCs must try and keep something away from the enemies that are trying to steal it.
• Hands on the Wheel: PCs must balance fighting off enemies while keeping their vessel (a ship, an out of control wagon, etc.) from running off course and killing them all.

 

[Theory of Games]

Fighting on horseback.

Fighting in tight spaces like a closet.

Deprived of weaponry & fighting unarmed.

Underwater knife-fight.

 

[DragonLancer]

Back in 2nd edition AD&D there was a Ravenloft scenario that I ran (I don't remember the name) where the characters had to go back into time to recover some magical Faberge egg type thing to stop something happening (again I forget what). They snuck into ancient Castle Ravenloft and recovered the egg but where spotted by guards, and after a short chase down corridors they burst into a ball room with party in full swing. In order to get the egg out of the castle the scene ended up like the American football scene in Ming's throne room from Flash Gorden. Eventually one character got across the ball room and threw themselves through the window, clutching the egg, and diving into the moat below.

We had to make up the thowing things, grapples and dodging guards and party guests, but it was a grand memorable adventure session.

 

[DragonLancer]

But in answer to your question, I've run fights on swinging ropes/logs, on rope bridges over cliffs and the like where balance was just as important as martial skill. One Pathfinder game a few years back, had the party fighting the final villain on the back of his colossal dragon mount. That was a fun fight with the party needing all their oft-unused spells and abilities to hang on or keep up.

 

[payn]

I've found this very group dependent. Some folks love mini games as a way to change up the usual play. Others find it a bit "gotcha" and get annoyed if their chosen character abilities or spells are negated or limited in any fashion. I went through this for some years in the PF1 AP era where Paizo published numerous sub-systems to do exactly this.

That said for the thread ill put forth some of those systems here.
Haunts Undead/supernatural traps with particular stories tied to them and a series of events required to put them to final rest.(Detailed heavily in Carrior Crown AP, but also in several Paizo GM facing products)
Chase Scene: Paizo highlighted this in Curse of the Crimson Throne AP but also detailed it in later GM facing products. Also, they made card decks to facilitate running a chase scene at the table.

 

[Himbo_Jones]

I've found this very group dependent. Some folks love mini games as a way to change up the usual play. Others find it a bit "gotcha" and get annoyed if their chosen character abilities or spells are negated or limited in any fashion.

I think this is a good point to raise. In my opinion, a really good added layer to combat won't negate or limit abilities (a fireball will still explode) but will instead make oft-overlooked abilities shine more.

So using command to make an enemy drop a needed object. Or maybe requiring some sort of gust of wind spell to disperse an ever-growing cloud of poisonous gas that, when hit by fire of any sort, will combust and deal tons of damage to anyone caught in it.

Or it gives them something additional to think about (like a runaway wagon or slowly ticking clock of some sort). Adding mechanics is the import here, I think. Doing so without taking anything away is the key.

 

[payn]

I think this is a good point to raise. In my opinion, a really good added layer to combat won't negate or limit abilities (a fireball will still explode) but will instead make oft-overlooked abilities shine more.

So using command to make an enemy drop a needed object. Or maybe requiring some sort of gust of wind spell to disperse an ever-growing cloud of poisonous gas that, when hit by fire of any sort, will combust and deal tons of damage to anyone caught in it.

Or it gives them something additional to think about (like a runaway wagon or slowly ticking clock of some sort). Adding mechanics is the import here, I think. Doing so without taking anything away is the key.

I hear ya, but lets look at the hot potato example. I could see a player saying, "why cant I just stuff the thing in handysack by using multiple actions?" Or, "why cant I just use telekinesis to grab hold of the statue and end this hot potato nonsense?" For some players they want to hard engage the rules as written and dont appreciate their ability "solutions" to be limited or stopped just becasue it would make a cool scene.

Im not saying there is a right and wrong way to do this, I dig what you are laying down. Just mentioning i've crossed some players that do not appreciate it at all.

 

[Theory of Games]

I forgot taking hostages.

"Drop your weapons or the halfling gets it!"

 

[Himbo_Jones]

I hear ya, but lets look at the hot potato example. I could see a player saying, "why cant I just stuff the thing in handysack by using multiple actions?" Or, "why cant I just use telekinesis to grab hold of the statue and end this hot potato nonsense?" For some players they want to hard engage the rules as written and dont appreciate their ability "solutions" to be limited or stopped just becasue it would make a cool scene.

Im not saying there is a right and wrong way to do this, I dig what you are laying down. Just mentioning i've crossed some players that do not appreciate it at all.

Oh wow, that's really interesting that players might do that. I'm not saying you're wrong at all. I'm sure there are some players who are strongly rulebook-based in that way. I, fortunately, have not come across them in any of my games .

As for the examples laid out, and maybe this is my misunderstanding of that type of player and what they feel might be "limiting" to their powers/abilities, is that I would allow the player to stuff the artifact in the handysack for sure! But then the handysack becomes the new thing to steal, right? I'd also let them use telekinesis, but then I'd have enemies who could jump/fly/shoot stuff at the artifact to try and knock it out of their grasp.

(Minor Edit: Also, I just double checked and telekinesis is a concentration spell, so what's stopping the enemies from just attacking them to break their concentration?)

None of these things feel DM fiat, to me. But I could absolutely be wrong. It just feels like the enemies being prepared and if a player gets frustrated about that then they maybe are just wanting to play a video game?

If that sounds too mean, please let me know! I do agree with you that there isn't necessarily a right or wrong way to go about it. It's all about setting expectations in session 0, and I am always clear about how I like tactical combat as well as combat where the players have something else to worry about, so I tend to get players who expect/enjoy those things and, therefore, I might be a little biased against the alternative.

 

[payn]

Oh wow, that's really interesting that players might do that. I'm not saying you're wrong at all. I'm sure there are some players who are strongly rulebook-based in that way. I, fortunately, have not come across them in any of my games .

As for the examples laid out, and maybe this is my misunderstanding of that type of player and what they feel might be "limiting" to their powers/abilities, is that I would allow the player to stuff the artifact in the handysack for sure! But then the handysack becomes the new thing to steal, right? I'd also let them use telekinesis, but then I'd have enemies who could jump/fly/shoot stuff at the artifact to try and knock it out of their grasp.

I think then, they will look at what it takes to actually steal a handysack from a person and expect those rules followed to a T and then expect them followed to a T after the sack is taken and needs to be retaken. (Im just playing devil's advocate here becasue I have gone down exactly these kinds of rabbit holes with players before).

None of these things feel DM fiat, to me. But I could absolutely be wrong. It just feels like the enemies being prepared and if a player gets frustrated about that then they maybe are just wanting to play a video game?

I think thats a bit extreme, I think the player might be rules hardwired and want them to be expected. More of a rules over rulings type that wants things fairly adjudicated by the GM, but also wants to know exactly how things will play out for their own player agency.

What I have found is going over exactly what the sub-system is aiming to do, and more importantly how it works, before engaging usually gets sign on by the players. If someone is still stink eye about it, then it might just be a playstyle they dont like.

If that sounds too mean, please let me know! I do agree with you that there isn't necessarily a right or wrong way to go about it. It's all about setting expectations in session 0, and I am always clear about how I like tactical combat as well as combat where the players have something else to worry about, so I tend to get players who expect/enjoy those things and, therefore, I might be a little biased against the alternative.

I dont think so, there is so much opportunity for sub-systems like this. I think setting the expectations is right on the money. I also know, sometimes you dont know until you know, so even the best laid expectations can sometimes drift from sesh zero. Its all in how you roll with the punches.

I now return us to our regularly scheduled thread.

One time I had combat in a sea cave. The tide would come crashing back and everyone, players and enemies alike, had to make reflex not to fall over. That was a cool addition to the scene that made it feel really cinematic. This one worked well because it was a simple reflex or fall so it didnt impact things in any unusual way other than making footing not sure during the combat.