Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shadow" data-source="post: 4091972" data-attributes="member: 16760">I think what's needed here is a bit of a paradigm shift.The OP explicitly said he thinks the existing combat system as we know it works fine for equal or more powerful foes.If you're dealing with someone who is vastly less powerful (the possessed mayor) and has no real chance of hurting you, why bother pulling out the combat system?  Just treat it like a noncombat encounter.Perhaps the GM decides that subduing the mayor safely will take 5 successes before 3 failures, or whatever.  The fighter says, "I try to pin him to the ground with Athletics," and rolls, perhaps getting a success.  If he fails, the GM might say, "Filled with unnatural strength, he throws you off, visibly straining himself beyond human limits," and so on.The more failures before the successes are racked up, the worse condition the mayor will be in.  And if the group fails outright, the mayor either dies or escapes, or whatever.P.S.  I could imagine a more freeform version of 4e that eschews the battlemat entirely, just by treating even full-blown combat encounters using the "noncombat" system.  I'm not advocating this necessarily, it's just an interesting thought.  I like what we've seen of the noncombat system very much.Having certain powers would simply determine how easy a check (against Arcana for spells, say) you have to make, and would also naturally affect how you would describe what you're trying to do.  Daily powers would probably give a hefty bonus, while at-will power might have a penalty.</blockquote>

Verification