Would you use different combat rules in the same adventure?

[Li Shenron]

This is something that never crossed my mind until this thread below

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/318059-heart-matter.html

Normally when we talk about modularity for combat rules, the purpose is to cater different groups/DM: those we always want it rules-light, and those who always want it rules-heavy. But how about using both?

Would you like to have more than one way to skin a dragon? I mean, more than one ruleset for running combats (also against foes other than dragons) in the same campaign or adventure, i.e. a light ruleset for lesser combats and a heavy ruleset for more important fights?

Would you be interested in two combat ruleset that would allow you to even switch between the two during the same encounter?

Starting from my post in the thread above (http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/318059-heart-matter.html#post5812527), I have started wondering if there would be a smooth way to make the two coexist:

- an AD&D-inspired ruleset where combat is broken down into long periods ("turns"), each of which is only summarized in terms of results, after the players declare what they generally want to do (including which spells to use), no battlemat is needed because movement and positions are not tracked carefully, and some dice is rolled to evaluate the outcome (damage taken, special injuries/conditions gained, number of foes eliminated)

- a 3ed/4ed-inspired ruleset using short periods ("rounds") and very detailed, with full use of distances and positioning, everybody personally declaring and handling each action one by one

With a good design, a turn could be made quite well equivalent to N rounds in terms of outcome and probability.

----

I am wondering whether such a setup could help me solve a typical problem I see with adventure structure: most of the adventures are designed to have an escalation of difficulties in the encounters, e.g. you are assaulting the dragon's lair, but first you fight some easy minions, then better minions, then the dragon's personal guards or second-in-command, and finally the BBEG. If you want the BBEG to be really better than his own minions, there are three cases:

a) early combats are trivial (bad), last combat is challenging (good)
b) early combats are challenging (good), last combat is impossible (bad)
c) early combats are challenging (good), last combat is challenging (good), because the PCs gain XP and level up between the early and last combats

Case c) is assumed in many printed adventures, but carries a consequence that I do not like: that the PCs must level up at a rate that is too fast for my tastes, sometimes repeatedly during the same dungeon crawl which takes place maybe in 1-2 days only (yikes!).

So maybe it would not be too bad to go back to case a), if trivial fights can be made very fast (a few minutes) to run using a turn-based combat ruleset, where you still have to make some tactical choice but coarse-grained instead of fine-grained. All that matters is maybe to know the significant bits of the outcome: perhaps after the first lesser encounter the Rogue is poisoned and the Cleric lost his weapon, during the second lesser encounter the Fighter's had to soak a lot more damage and needs healing while the Wizard had to blow one of his best spells, and so on...

 

[Li Shenron]

And also, in this post [MENTION=6675228]Hassassin[/MENTION] suggests to even switch between the two ruleset in the same combat, in case some fight that starts as seemingly trivial becomes tricky instead.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/318059-heart-matter.html#post5813429

 

[Hassassin]

I already use two styles of combat resolution: with and without a battle grid. The former is used in at least two thirds of combats.

Without grid I use more ad hoc tracking of actions and positions, often lump the hp of like enemies into one total, never track negative hit points for them, and have NPCs take 10 in any opposed rolls. Compatible rules for light weight combat resolution would be very welcome.

 

[Minigiant]

My home game uses different rules depending on who the party is fighting.

Versus Lycantropes and Fey: Lycantropes and Fae are too fast and resilient to avoid and constantly interrupt actions. When fighting these speedsters, there is no need for a battlemap as everyone can hit anyone with anything. Range doesn't matter any everyone is adjacent to everyone else unless they take an action to make space.

Versus Humaniod and Undead factions: Gang leaders and Necromancer value space and tactics. And they like to fight in tight spaces to protect the squishy mages in the rear. Battles with them are like standard 4e.

Versus Dragons: Dragons are too selfish and vain to ever ask for or offer help. Their usually send in their kobolds, lizardfolk, and dragonborn servants into battle for normal 4e style combat. But against the dragons themselves, the party gets 3 actions and the dragon gets 3 actions. Then the action resolve in initiative order. Every character who doesn't take an action performs an Aid Another.

 

[Kingreaper]

I voted for "in different combats", but thinking about it, if a combat changes significantly part-way through, I'd happily switch it to a different mechanic. But only if it's a big, surprise, change. I don't want to always have to switch from grid-> narrative for mopping up. (Although in 4e I occassionally do, because 4e is lacking in "Finisher" powers

 

[KidSnide]

It's definitely useful for the game to provide for both fast combats and detailed tactically-interesting battles in the same module.

However, I should note that the two different combat systems shouldn't really be separate. It should really be a single combat system where the tactically-interesting battles simply use more rules. For example, the PCs and monsters should have access to the same set of abilities, it's just that (for example) -- in a fast combat -- you don't bother drawing a map, tracking position or initiative exactly or worry about things like range or forced movement. I don't want to deal with completely different procedures for the two combat systems or characters with two different sets of stats.

-KS

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't want to deal with completely different procedures for the two combat systems or characters with two different sets of stats.

I agree, definitely not, it would be then more complicated than using always the heavy version...

I meant something that could be resolved with the same stats, e.g. the light combat requiring one attack roll per turn (instead of 1 per round), and the result could be how many lesser foes you've dropped (instead of how much damage), but it could be the same rolls but with different meanings.

 

[Tortoise]

In my current Labyrinth Lord campaign and in previous campaigns in different editions, I have always switched between grid/mini and theatre of the mind combat styles depending on how important it was to have details.

The most recent session had a dangerous encounter in which the party was almost entirely surprised by some gnolls that had tracked them into the section of a ruin they thought they had safely cleared. They had just left that room, walked down a hall and came back within a short span of time.

No minis or markers were used, it was all description and a random determination of who the gnolls could reach to attack. It simulated the casual meandering about of a relaxed group getting into unexpected trouble. They nearly lost their wizard in a very short, brutal combat.

Had the situation called for more detail and had the group been expecting a fight then the grid/minis would have come into play.

Note: no change to stats of characters was needed for any of it to work.

 

[Greg K]

I put no, I like heavy details. I don't mean in the use of a battle grid or the 4e sense of lots of individul fiddly powers. I like detailed in the sense of Savage Worlds (called shots, Tricks, Tests of Wills, disarm and other maneuvers, the incapacitation table) and Malhavoc's Book of Iron Might combat maneuvers (inflict ability damage, inflict penalty, disable natural attack, disable supernatural ability etc.) . Neither, really, takes up much space, but players can describe what they are doing and the game rules give the tools to, mechanically, support it in terms of the "fiction".

A 1e or 2e (pre Fighter's Handbook or PO: Combat and Tactics) DM hand wavy approach and 1 minute rounds need not apply at my table when I DM. I also don't want it as a player.

 

[Serendipity]

Wow. I look at the present poll results and have to scratch my head ("Yes, it sounds useful for different combats" leads by a CLEAR margin.) I can see changing specifics of rules between different campaigns so that each have a different feel or whatnot but in the same session? Why? Would/will characters even be built in such a way to be compatible that way? Understand, I'm not slagging on those who have responded that way, I just don't get it*.

*Edit of course if I hadn't taken FOREVER to finish writing this I'd have seen a bunch of other responses which pretty much answer my question. /sheepish