Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[MichaelSomething]

In other words, roll the BBEG's save behind the screen, and instead of announcing to everyone the number and declare the fight over, tell the group that although the casting of the spell felt right, something has gone wrong--the villain isn't dead/unconscious/incapacitated as expected, just severely injured/weakened/slowed...and angry! Fight on!

That spits in the eye of the "let the dice fall where they may" types as well as the more neutral/lawful aligned DMs of the world.

One hit kills work well in an "anyone can die" type game but can be painful when you want characters to have a strong chance of surviving in order to have character development.

 

[MrGrenadine]

That spits in the eye of the "let the dice fall where they may" types as well as the more neutral/lawful aligned DMs of the world.

One hit kills work well in an "anyone can die" type game but can be painful when you want characters to have a strong chance of surviving in order to have character development.

Agreed! But I think in the context of someone feeling pissed off about a 1-2 rnd fight, favoring story over the dice is a valid solution.

Also, even if done, it should be done extremely rarely.

 

[MerricB]

I did read your post. I disputed the point of no battlemap with 4e style choices generally means no interesting mechanic options for a swordsman like guy. I believe I was clear in this, no?

Except I didn't say that: I said that dialling back the complexity too far leads to this, not that there wasn't a middle ground.

 

[billd91]

How?

If you're running multiple combatants and you need to know where person X is, do you actually keep track of all people in your head?

Person X is always moving around the battlefield trying to get out of being flanked, avoiding opportunity attacks and positioning themselves to flank an enemy.

I can see this being done with say one NPC versus 4 PCs as that is really only 5 combatants to track and given that two of the PCs are probably spell slingers who aren't in melee range...but 10 combatants?

(unless nobody actually MOVES from where they start, then yea,I could see how that would be done...)

How? Same way you keep track of multiple combatants and movement in mini-less 2e (by the way, we did keep track of facing in 1e and 2e without using minis and we did have a limited set of opportunity attacks). You use a lot more communication and a lot more "fuzzy" movement.

For example: Rather than having the player plot the movement on the grid, using their knowledge of the rules to avoid an AoO, the player tells the DM "I want to get around so that I'm flanking with the fighter". Using the image the DM has in his head and has described, the DM can respond with "Well, you could do that this round but suffer an AoO or get about halfway without risking the attack." The player then chooses which he wants to do.

That sort of method requires a fair amount of trust because you don't have the impartial standard of the grid and rules. But then, the DM is supposed to be an impartial referee anyway. So this shouldn't be a problem because of lack of trustworthiness. Though it might be an issue with being a poor communicator...

 

[xechnao]

Except I didn't say that: I said that dialling back the complexity too far leads to this, not that there wasn't a middle ground.

Again I want to rise an objection. Complexity levels and having battleboard options is something different. Having battleboard options means that there is some certain level, some certain standard of complexity. Not having battleboard options does not mean that the complexity has to be of a lower standard. Complexity can be as high as you want it to be -it is rather easier to design something highly complex or highly simple without a board because you have fewer limiting guidelines and thus you are more flexible in design(ing). Not having a board simply means that you do not have a board. It means nothing to the complexity level potential of a designed game.

 

[MerricB]

Again I want to rise an objection. Complexity levels and having battleboard options is something different. Having battleboard options means that there is some certain level, some certain standard of complexity. Not having battleboard options does not mean that the complexity has to be of a lower standard. Complexity can be as high as you want it to be -it is rather easier to design something highly complex or highly simple without a board because you have fewer limiting guidelines and thus you are more flexible in design(ing). Not having a board simply means that you do not have a board. It means nothing to the complexity level potential of a designed game.

I agree with that... (well, mostly).

Here's a question: Can you increase complexity of combat (past "swing and damage") without increasing the problem of tracking what's going on?

Cheers!

 

[xechnao]

I agree with that... (well, mostly).

Here's a question: Can you increase complexity of combat (past "swing and damage") without increasing the problem of tracking what's going on?

Cheers!

For me, to understand your question and be able to answer it, you have to better define what you mean when you say "swing and damage".
For example it seems you do not want to be tracking attacking skill and/or defensive skill. But you know that D&D tracks BAB or THACO, AC and hps. So I am not sure what you want to ask here.

 

[Votan]

How?

If you're running multiple combatants and you need to know where person X is, do you actually keep track of all people in your head?

Person X is always moving around the battlefield trying to get out of being flanked, avoiding opportunity attacks and positioning themselves to flank an enemy.

I can see this being done with say one NPC versus 4 PCs as that is really only 5 combatants to track and given that two of the PCs are probably spell slingers who aren't in melee range...but 10 combatants?

(unless nobody actually MOVES from where they start, then yea,I could see how that would be done...)

I had a DM who seemed to have this uncanny ability. Or he faked it awful well. I certainly could not have done it myself!

 

[xechnao]

I had a DM who seemed to have this uncanny ability. Or he faked it awful well. I certainly could not have done it myself!

What you are saying is that you need some game rules that guide you how to do it. And I certainly agree with your take, as neither could I pull this off without any rules.

 

[Stalker0]

I agree with that... (well, mostly).

Here's a question: Can you increase complexity of combat (past "swing and damage") without increasing the problem of tracking what's going on?

Cheers!

You can to a point.

I'll give a good 4e example, one powers does 10 damage, slide 5. The other does 10 damage, -4 to attacks (save ends).


In the first power, I attack and do damage. I then immediately use my slide effect, and then resolve any situations that reside from that (such as getting thrown into a fire or something).

This either requires some good imagination or a battle board if you want the power to be effective, however, there is no ongoing tracking to worry about. You resolve the power and never think about it again.


The 2nd power requires ongoing thinking. The -4 to attack rolls has to factored in to the attacks (including OAs). The saving throw has to be remembered, and any saving throw bonuses/penalties applied. And if the saving throw fails, the power is tracked over several rounds.



If you use a battle board (which I would guess most 4e players do) then the first power gives you more than just a swing and damage but the amount of tracking required is very small. The 2nd one however requires a much larger investment in tracking.


That to me is a key division in tracking mechanics. Even you have effects that are instantaneous they can provide diversity without largely increasing the brainpower required to implement them into the game. Its the ongoing effects that generally increase tracking.