PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Help with special combat rules



ewoods
2015-01-16, 01:52 PM
So last night my players found themselves in a unique situation. There are six of them, trapped inside this magical fog. Two of them carry special gems and can pass through the fog unhindered. However, the other four become instantly encased in ice (but not immediately dead) unless they remain in direct contact with one of the two characters who have the gems. Also, if they do happen to become encased in ice, they begin taking damage each round but can be instantly unfrozen with resumed contact with one of the two characters who have the gems.

Now, unbeknownst to them, there are monsters lurking in the fog that they will soon come across, and I feel like I'm going to need specific combat rules because of the way the fog works. Since four of them have to remain in constant contact with the other two, would I treat them as occupying the same square? (Everyone in the party is a medium-sized creature). If so, would I give them penalties to attack? Do you think the wizard would need concentration checks to cast spells since he either has to keep a hand on another character or another character has to keep a hand on him? I think I'm also going to need a mechanic for simultaneous initiatives, since the characters will have to move together in groups of three (or however they decide to arrange themselves). Do I allow them to move all at the same time and then take their attacks in whatever order they rolled initiative, or should the characters without gems have to hold their actions until the characters with gems take their moves? How would you work it? Anything else I haven't considered?

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 02:03 PM
How would you work it? Anything else I haven't considered? Have you considered just deciding exactly what complication you want this challenge to involve and doing that, instead of trying to extract the complication from a mish-mash of existing rules?

I would say something like:

At the end of a player's turn, if they are not holding a gem or adjacent to a character holding a gem, they are [unable to take actions - however your rules describe that]. If a character who is [unable to take actions due to the above] begins their turn adjacent to someone who is holding a gem, they are no longer [unable to take actions].

This, to me, is simple and it's plenty. Make sure the monsters are ones that either force movement or make characters pay for bunching up. Having to end ones' turn adjacent to someone else at all times is an interesting challenge, and doesn't need a lot of other stuff to keep track off.

Incidentally, not being able to attack during a combat situation is pretty boring. Combat can easily become boring even when one can attack, so taking that away sounds like a good way to get people to pick up their phones and ask to be notified when they can do something. Arguably, that's even good roleplaying, since they'd probably be disoriented after being unfrozen.

Red Fel
2015-01-16, 02:24 PM
Have you considered just deciding exactly what complication you want this challenge to involve and doing that, instead of trying to extract the complication from a mish-mash of existing rules?

Very much this. It sounds like you came up with what you thought would be an interesting concept (and I'm not saying it's not) without actually addressing how it would work mechanically. Coming up with a clever mechanical puzzle in a dungeon, for example, is all well and good, but requiring your players to master a unique new system just to bypass one encounter seems a bit excessive. Teachable moment here: Every new mechanical concept you implement should have a justification (i.e. what specifically you want to accomplish) and simple mechanics (i.e. can be explained and understood within three paragraphs).

Yeah. I said three paragraphs. If it takes several pages of text to explain how to operate in the new mechanic you're introduced for this one encounter, you've grossly overcomplicated things, and need to step back and revise.

Now, here's my question. How is visibility? Because, basically, the gem-holders have been turned into babysitters. If they lose track of a partymember, that partymember is dead. You've just told me there's a no-save freeze and they start taking damage, and that there are monsters in the mist. Now, if I were running this scenario, I'd play the monsters smartly and attack the most vulnerable targets - the ones frozen solid. So, yeah, anyone holding a gem is basically required to keep track of everyone else, or they'll die.

As for the rest of what you say, I'd say that anybody who has to be in close contact with a gem-holder is sharing their square, sure. (Note, however, that some systems, such as D&D (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#movingthroughaSqua re), make that an illegal move.) I'd also say that the need to do so constitutes a fairly minor distraction, likely not requiring a concentration check. (If you look at the Concentration DCs for D&D 3.5 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/concentration.htm), for example, you'll note that they're all things like taking injury or being buffeted by high winds. This isn't nearly that bad.) Rather, I would impose a penalty to anything requiring somatic gestures, since one of their hands is occupied.

I don't think you need a mechanic for simultaneous initiatives, because in many systems, that's precisely what initiative is meant to represent - the actions are occurring at roughly the same time, it's just a question of which ones connect first and cancel out the others.

Bottom line, this is the kind of stuff you really need to nail down before you implement a mechanic like this, not after.

ewoods
2015-01-16, 02:48 PM
Well that's why I'm asking for help now, in preparation for next weeks game. LOL I had a basic idea in mind for what complications they might face, but sometimes it helps to get outside perspectives before implementing something that seems good in my head but other people find overly complicated or even boring. I hadn't considered just making sure they end their turn adjacent to a character with a gem. I think that greatly simplifies things, although I'll probably still add a penalty to attacks for having to remain in close proximity.

Visibility is about 60 feet, so yes, the gem-holders sort of have to be babysitters and I think that's fine.

Red Fel
2015-01-16, 03:20 PM
Well that's why I'm asking for help now, in preparation for next weeks game. LOL I had a basic idea in mind for what complications they might face, but sometimes it helps to get outside perspectives before implementing something that seems good in my head but other people find overly complicated or even boring. I hadn't considered just making sure they end their turn adjacent to a character with a gem. I think that greatly simplifies things, although I'll probably still add a penalty to attacks for having to remain in close proximity.

Visibility is about 60 feet, so yes, the gem-holders sort of have to be babysitters and I think that's fine.

You could change it slightly. Instead of the gems being held to function, you could turn them into a sort of device that radiates a field - say 10 foot radius - that repels the fog and its ill effects. As a result, the gem holders have to use part of their action each turn to keep the gem active. But on the plus side, it means that the rest of the party doesn't have to be physically touching them to be protected; they just have to be within the radius. This inverts matters - instead of the gem-holders babysitting the party, the rest of the party has to guard the gem-holders. It also means that the rest of the party can have their hands free to fight and cast.

You could also add to the effect. For example, does the gem repel the effect of the mist, or the mist itself? If the latter, it's both a positive and a negative - with the mist held at bay, those within the gems' radii are fully visible.

This solves pretty much all of your problems. There is no check for Concentration or close fighting, because everyone is in his own space. There is no insta-death if the babysitter accidentally loses you - every PC is responsible for staying within the radius, and his gruesome death is on his own head if he wanders off. And instead of everyone having their actions hindered - two PCs by having to hold the gems and babysit, the rest by having to play grabby-hands with the gem-holders - only two are hindered, and yet everyone is important.

Knaight
2015-01-16, 03:47 PM
What system are you using here? If we have the specifics, it will be much easier to get the mechanical side ironed out.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 03:48 PM
Even more than a paragraph is too much for unusual combat rules. If nothing else, more rules are harder to keep track of. If realistic interaction with the rest of the ruleset is prioritized, then it's easy to get wrapped around the axle with things like opportunity attacks and concentration checks.

Keep things vague. I know the idea was "physical contact," but if you let yourself assume that the characters can find a simple, non-interfering way to keep physical contact as long as they're adjacent (which, if this problem is inconvenient enough, you can bet they would anyway) then all you have to do is put it in simple game terms, like "adjacent."

3.5 already did this when it game to facing. It's annoying to keep track of, and leads to detailed and boring explanations of where people are looking and how, so the game just abstracted it. You're facing however you want. How? Doesn't matter, because that's not the point. 4th Edition did even more things like this.

If they're adjacent, then they're "in contact" and if they are adjacent at the end of each turn that's "always." That is the most simulation you need in order to make an interesting challenge, and its just about all the simulation most people want to bother with.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 03:49 PM
What system are you using here? If we have the specifics, it will be much easier to get the mechanical side ironed out. It really seems like it's the specifics that are getting in his way. Whatever system it is, there probably aren't rules for it. He might as well make up a simple one for this presumably one-time situation.

Knaight
2015-01-16, 04:57 PM
It really seems like it's the specifics that are getting in his way. Whatever system it is, there probably aren't rules for it. He might as well make up a simple one for this presumably one-time situation.

The rules for the rest of the system matter though. For instance, take initiative. This sort of thing is going to be handled very differently in Fudge's simultaneous actions system, Burning Wheel's scripting system, and a classic turn based system. Take tactical movement. Theater of the mind, zones, and a grid are all going to handle differently. If we know the base system, we know what we're dealing with for these, and suggestions can be better tailored.

Beta Centauri
2015-01-16, 05:31 PM
The rules for the rest of the system matter though. For instance, take initiative. This sort of thing is going to be handled very differently in Fudge's simultaneous actions system, Burning Wheel's scripting system, and a classic turn based system. Take tactical movement. Theater of the mind, zones, and a grid are all going to handle differently. If we know the base system, we know what we're dealing with for these, and suggestions can be better tailored. Initiative, positioning and mapping were fairly clearly alluded to in original post, I thought. I can assume from that and a few other references which game is being played, but it's not necessary to the answer to the question. On the other hand, it's important not to let any other rules the system might have get in the way of or over-complicate an interesting idea.

LibraryOgre
2015-01-19, 11:38 AM
Depending on the system, I'd go with something like

1) Must remain adjacent to the person with the gem on the game map.
2) Take a penalty (-1 to -2 on a d20 system) to defense and attacks, due to your constricted movement.