Houserule: Adopting/Adapting Blades in the Dark's Engagement Roll

[darkbard]

I've never been fully satisfied by 4E's loose (or, at the other extreme, extremely prescribed) framework for the combat scene, with regard to grid position and also surprise elements, and so I think a scene-framing iteration of the game might benefit from Blades in the Dark's Engagement roll, but I haven't worked out all the details yet.

Essentially, I am vexed by how best to start initial encounter distance (and also, to a lesser extent, awareness between the parties) for situations where PC action declarations don't make this abundantly clear, like random encounters, failures after skill challenges leading to additional encounters, and so on. For example, the party travels along a road between villages; goblin marauders have set an ambush for unwary travelers; how to set the "pieces" on the combat grid and determine awareness between the parties in a way that doesn't rely upon DM fiat only but rather considers player investment and preparation for the scenario?

Briefly, BitD's Engagement roll is a dice pool of unmodified d6s, where the result(s) of only the highest die is considered and 1-3 = poor result, 4/5 = mixed result, 6 = good result, and a critical (more than one 6) = exceptional result. The group rolls a single d6 for luck, modified by situational factors, adding or subtracting as many dice as is appropriate to the situation.

For a 4E iteration, I was thinking that a single PC takes the lead and makes the roll, depending on the fictional situation. (The Elf Ranger might take the lead through the forest path, whereas the Drow Cleric trained in Dungeoneering and Stealth may do so whilst traversing the Underdark.) Said character can spend an AP for an additional die, and a single other character can spend a Healing Surge for an additional die. Additional situational modifiers could include the lead character's training in one or more of Dungeoneering, Nature, Perception, or Stealth as appropriate to the fiction. I haven't given much thought to negative modifiers yet, but they could include factors like enemy readiness, special senses, etc.

The Engagement roll result would set both position (on the combat grid) and status (surprised, etc.).

Something like:

Critical (more than one 6) = PCs gain surprise and choose position relative to closest enemy at their choice of 5 or 10 squares.

6 = PCs choose position relative to closest enemy at their choice of 5 or 10 squares.

4/5 = GM chooses position relative to closest enemy at their choice of 5 or 10 squares.

1-3 = PCs are surprised and GM chooses position relative to closest enemy at their choice of 5 or 10 squares.

Ex. A Ranger leads his group through the wilderness when they come upon a pack of gnolls devouring the remains of a lost hunter from a nearby village. The Ranger rolls 1d6 for sheer luck, takes +1d6 each for being trained in Nature, Perception, and Stealth (since this takes place in the forest), but takes -1d6 each for the gnolls' keen sense of smell and the party's Fighter's noisy approach in metal armor. The Ranger decides not to spend an AP, but the Fighter, guilty over his negative impact, decides to spend a Healing Surge for an additional die. So, in total 3d6 are rolled: 2, 1, 5. Result: neither group is surprised, and the GM places the PCs on the board at her discretion, either 5 or 10 squares from the gnolls.

Thoughts regarding implementing such a subsystem? Especially with regard to negative situational modifiers?

[Kurald Galain]

To make this more interesting, I think the distances involved should be bigger.

A 10-square distance means that the enemy is always within range of your move+charge (for melee characters) or move+any ranged power (for ranged characters). As you propose, you're going to roll between "the enemy is in close range" or "the enemy is still in close range". It would be more interesting tactically if sometimes enemies are not in easy range.

[darkbard]

To make this more interesting, I think the distances involved should be bigger.

A 10-square distance means that the enemy is always within range of your move+charge (for melee characters) or move+any ranged power (for ranged characters). As you propose, you're going to roll between "the enemy is in close range" or "the enemy is still in close range". It would be more interesting tactically if sometimes enemies are not in easy range.

Thanks for the feedback, KG! That was something I had thought about, but at ranges beyond immediate engagement, positioning is less crucial with regards to terrain features, the relative position of various enemies with regard to each other, etc. Plus, then surprise is, essentially, an nonfactor, meaning surprise round actions will not be used for attacks. Except for PCs or enemies who have Range 20 abilities, etc.

But I hear your critique and am still thinking this through!

[Yakk]

Positioning when there is surprise (on one side) is usually closer than when there isn't.

The surprising side gets to "ambush" the non-surprising side, closing distance (if they choose) prior to combat.

If you spot a foe before they spot you, there should be a "so what do you do about it?" One option is "we don't engage", another is "we watch, figure out where they are going, and ambush them", another is "we sneak up on them and jump them".

Your system seems to skip right over that.

[Excession]

Thanks for the feedback, KG! That was something I had thought about, but at ranges beyond immediate engagement, positioning is less crucial with regards to terrain features, the relative position of various enemies with regard to each other, etc. Plus, then surprise is, essentially, an nonfactor, meaning surprise round actions will not be used for attacks. Except for PCs or enemies who have Range 20 abilities, etc.

But I hear your critique and am still thinking this through!

Some of the more memorable fights I have run involved mixing up the starting engagement distance.

First example is pitting the PCs against a range 20 elite artillery enemy. The start of the encounter changed to a mad rush to get in range of the enemy before it tore them apart. Finding cover, preferably total cover, was suddenly important to everyone and not just something that the squishy archer needs to worry about. Terrain was more important, not less. There are also a number of feats and items that are useful for this situation; there is a feat somewhere to get +4 speed in the opening round of combat for example.

Second example is having the PCs attacked while sitting down for a meal, when the table and chairs they were sitting at animated and attacked. The chairs were minions with a grab attack (ghoul stats) and the table used the stats from an elite dragonoid. Almost everyone started adjacent to an enemy or two, and half started off grabbed right away in the surprise round. They were also backed against the walls of the dining room giving them even less room to move.

Neither of these memorable starting positions seems possible with your proposed system, which I think is a big loss.

[darkbard]

This is useful feedback, folks, and for that I am grateful. But let me ask: in your games, how do you determine initial positioning? Is it GM fiat? Does it require players (not PCs) presenting convincing action declarations, approved by the GM?

Who decides the PCs are 20 (or more) squares from the artillery? Or already sitting on chairs that become monsters? And do the players feel that they were unable to leverage any of their character's build choices, etc. at the outset of these encounters?

I realize every system has tradeoffs, and I'm looking for a way to make such opening positioning less subject to GM whim and more the output of player agency. But maybe this system I'm toying around with is not the answer. I'm certainly open to hearing more.

And, again, you have my thanks for the feedback provided already! Food for thought.

[Excession]

Who decides the PCs are 20 (or more) squares from the artillery? Or already sitting on chairs that become monsters? And do the players feel that they were unable to leverage any of their character's build choices, etc. at the outset of these encounters?

I'm not sure now, but I think terrain basically dictated the engagement range of the artillery enemy. The enemy was alert, guarding an entrance, so stealth couldn't get them too far, as they would have needed to cross open ground. I guess in part that was my decision, but in-universe the people that built this place weren't stupid either, so there was no convenient waist high wall leading to the perfect spot behind the apparently deaf as a post guard. Player choices did factor in though. IIRC the Paladin was able to summon his celestial stead and cross the ground much faster. The ranger, who chose to play a class with long range, could engage earlier than the rest. The drow sorcerer was able to hide in his cloud of darkness for a round to avoid taking damage.

In the case of the dinner ambush, the players' choice to not have a decent insight check on anyone was very important, for that and another ambush earlier in the campaign. The sorcerer making sure he had at least one close range option paid off too. This didn't have the be magical enemies either; social situations can turn deadly really fast, with no guarantee that anyone is nicely spaced out and positioned when they do. Having a good insight, high initiative, a bit of luck, and a close range power option helps in those situations.

I can see what you're trying to do, but I feel that your proposed system takes some of those fun tactical decisions and turns them into a minor statistical advantage. I play 4e for the tactics, to a large degree, and wouldn't wanted to lose that. OTOH for the surprisingly rules heavy but narrative based game Fate this would make much more sense.

[darkbard]

I can see what you're trying to do, but I feel that your proposed system takes some of those fun tactical decisions and turns them into a minor statistical advantage.

Thanks for your detailed response! And you very well may be correct. My aim, however, is to increase player-facing mechanics in those situations where there is no clear tactical decision making involved (essentially, random encounters or establishing position in scenarios where there is no reason for tactical action declaration (e.g., I move stealthily, I keep a sharp eye out for ambush, etc.)). But this system may not achieve my desired result.

[Theodoxus]

For unstructured encounters, I like it. As your example points out, the PCs stumble upon a pack of gnolls. The PCs didn't know they existed - the gnolls didn't know the PCs existed (unless they had a spotter - I like the imagery of gnolls behaving like groundhogs...) so, how do you determine where everyone is? Your system works well for that.

I suspect the first time you roll out this system, the PCs grumble a bit - especially if they didn't communicate a marching order... but that would be quickly rectified as soon as the encounter was over and they were on the march again!

In my games, typically for random encounters, I'll let the players know they've been ambushed, or a pack of something comes upon them while they're camping, or whatever. Then I'll just toss tokens out willy-nilly onto the board (with a little after the fact adjudication so things make sense (no one's standing in the river, or up a tree or down a cliff...)). And let combat start...

Your system would be more precise, if a lot slower - so trade-off's, if that's what you're looking for. I loathe running random encounters in general, so adding an extra layer to get them started wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I'd happily play in a game someone else ran that used this concept. Seems fun from a player perspective.

[darkbard]

I loathe running random encounters in general, so adding an extra layer to get them started wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I'd happily play in a game someone else ran that used this concept. Seems fun from a player perspective.

Thanks for the feedback! I, too, am no big fan of random encounters per se. I run a very player-facing, scene-framing sort of game, and I'm thinking of utilizing something like this for Skill Challenge failures that lead to combat scenes or just noting positioning when it otherwise isn't signalled by previously established fiction, as noted above.

[darkbard]

In my games, typically for random encounters, I'll let the players know they've been ambushed, or a pack of something comes upon them while they're camping, or whatever. Then I'll just toss tokens out willy-nilly onto the board (with a little after the fact adjudication so things make sense (no one's standing in the river, or up a tree or down a cliff...)). And let combat start...

Y'know, this isn't a half-bad "system" at all!