Krust, What are your thoughts on...

...4E's disassociated mechanics?

By that, I mean:
• the arbitrary limits on Martial powers (daily, per encounter). It seems to me that while it's readily explainable why a magical (or even primal-powered) character can only pull off certain maneuvers a limited number of times in a given day, the logic falls apart when you get down to martial characters. A rogue, for instance, only being able to use Trick Strike once per day. How would you explain that?

• marks, especially they way they override each other or offer no direct "reason" as to why they function. Like, what actually happens when a war devil uses besieged foe on a target. Why does a paladin's challenge overwrite a fighter's mark?

I have a hard time with these abstractions, and it's what keeps me from really "feeling" 4E. I feel like I'm playing an upjumped tabletop strategy game, not a role-playing game. My characters cant rationalize what's happening half the time, and I lose the sense that I'm playing anything other than a set of attacks with a specific encounter role.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the subject.

I like Encounter and Daily powers, I see martial characters as simply focusing their inner resources to deliver a really deadly attack. It could be done with fiddly points counting a la Iron Heroes, but I think 4e does it better. I don't even find it that unrealistic; if you have been in a fight or boxing match* you may well have had the experience of focusing yourself to deliver a powerful punch, trick shot or whatever. Or think of the movies where the hero grits his teeth and delivers a mighty blow to the BBEG.

Marks, I have more trouble with, especially the way they override each other. If only Fighters marked it'd be ok, but I didn't like my group's Swordmage effects with his arcane marks.

*Encounter Powers: once per round. Daily powers: once per match!

I can see what you're saying on a lot of the Martial Encounter/Daily powers, but not all of them. Some are tactical maneuvers that should be repeatable ad infinitum, like Trick Strike - they're powers that you either know how to do or not. Instead, they're distilled down to purely cinematic mechanics with no feeling of a real integration into the PC as a character.

And what about stances? I see these and 99% of the time they're Daily powers, and I'm like "Whut? I can only stand this way once a day?" Try telling Miyamoto Musashi that he can only take a certain stance once a day and he'd laugh his way all the way back to Rolemaster...

And yeah... marks... I just can't get past this.
Frankly, I look at it this way: if you're trying to simulate WoW "aggro" mechanics, admit it and move on. The way it is now, 4E marking mechanics are utterly disassociated, many are designed to compel creatures to be "tanked" by Defender classes or monsters, and fall apart once another mark comes onto the scene.

Howdy Pssthpok matey!

Pssthpok said:

...4E's disassociated mechanics?

By that, I mean:
• the arbitrary limits on Martial powers (daily, per encounter). It seems to me that while it's readily explainable why a magical (or even primal-powered) character can only pull off certain maneuvers a limited number of times in a given day, the logic falls apart when you get down to martial characters. A rogue, for instance, only being able to use Trick Strike once per day. How would you explain that?

Click to expand...

Well, firstly, mechanically speaking it doesn't bother me at all, because its a fantastic mechanic.

Of course I get what you mean, and in a number of cases it certainly can be disassociating. However, even here, I think its often a case of the designer just not thinking it through.

As regards Martial powers specifically, I think theres certainly a case for powers that would only work once per encounter either in terms of the idea that you can only fool the enemy once with them, or that the action is so taxing it can only be undertaken once per encounter.

The greater flaw with Martial Powers is of course with Daily Powers. It does tend to stretch the verisimilitude somewhat. Though they do still make sense for the Warlord class.

I think if we were to redesign Martial powers I'd perhaps make Daily Powers work only in conjunction with Magic Weapons. But of course then you would have to redesign the Martial Daily powers.

On the other hand I think if you polled most 4E (Martial character) players and said do you want Daily powers or not, most would answer that they do indeed want them.

• marks, especially they way they override each other or offer no direct "reason" as to why they function. Like, what actually happens when a war devil uses besieged foe on a target. Why does a paladin's challenge overwrite a fighter's mark?

Click to expand...

I think the idea of 'Marking' is a solid one, the basic premise is that you ignore the Warrior at your peril.

Personally I am not sure why multiple 'markings' are not allowed. I presume its a balance thing?

I have a hard time with these abstractions, and it's what keeps me from really "feeling" 4E. I feel like I'm playing an upjumped tabletop strategy game, not a role-playing game. My characters cant rationalize what's happening half the time, and I lose the sense that I'm playing anything other than a set of attacks with a specific encounter role.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the subject.

Click to expand...

I can see how it would vary from player to player.

Personally I am a predominantly Tactical Gamer (and Power Gamer*), so I totally love the new tactical aspects of 4E.

*

I think if it bothered you too much, 4E is so flexible, that you could simply refit Daily's to Encounter Powers ie. lowering damage appropriately and so forth). Then perhaps give the character an additional Encounter Power for every Daily Power lost.

Nice to see you trying 4E though mate.

Hey hey, UK.

Well, firstly, mechanically speaking it doesn't bother me at all, because its a fantastic mechanic.

Click to expand...

It certainly resolves the resource management issue prevalent in 3E.

I think there's certainly a case for powers that would only work once per encounter either in terms of the idea that you can only fool the enemy once with them, or that the action is so taxing it can only be undertaken once per encounter.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. In cases like that, though, the limitation is usually obvious and reasonable. I gather from this that you don't mind a rogue power usable only once per day, as long as the damage/effect lines up with similar powers form other sources/classes?

To me, that seems a bit like cutting off your nose (verisimilitude) to spite your face (resource imbalance in older editions). Sure, it makes sense on paper... but so does communism.

I think the idea of 'Marking' is a solid one, the basic premise is that you ignore the Warrior at your peril.

Click to expand...

Well, it makes sense in a "threat management" way. It gives players the ability to "tank" monsters. Other than that, it exists as a hollow game mechanic with no reflection in the "reality" of the encounter other than a metagame constraint on the DM's tactics.

Multiple marks aren't allowed because then parties of paladins would run roughshod over enemies, dealing mark damage no matter what the targets do, since they can't attack 5 people each round to avoid all the marks. Likewise, the war devil's mark would lead to crushing infernal victories as multiple war devils grant cumulative +2 to attacks by marking the same target. Ad nauseum.

I think if it bothered you too much, 4E is so flexible, that you could simply refit Daily's to Encounter Powers ie. lowering damage appropriately and so forth). Then perhaps give the character an additional Encounter Power for every Daily Power lost.

Click to expand...

*sigh* houserules are no solution, really. I'm hoping for a philosophical angle to appreciating these design quirks. If all I have to do is houserule, I can keep playing my 3E/IHB hodgepodge and not have to retcon story, mechanics, cosmology, etc for my game.

I guess the main point of my post was to see how you dealt with these disconnections between what's happening at the table and what's being said/understood "in game." You seem pretty 4E happy, and you come from old D&D roots... I'm left wondering if gameplay ease is enough to placate any desire for verisimilitude at the table.

I want to like 4E, I'd like to design in it (super easy, intuitive and fun), but these issues stick in my craw and I don't know if I can get past them.

Pssthpok said:

You seem pretty 4E happy, and you come from old D&D roots...

Click to expand...

I find that 4e actually fits the premises of my primary gameworld Ea (the birthplace of U_K's Thrin) much more closely than does 3e, or even 1e AD&D. The only big problem I've seen so far is 4e's Arcana skill use Detect Magic, which doesn't tally with the premises of how magic works on Ea (everything has magic, like how everything has The Force), so I've houseruled that to fit.

For marks, I view "the fighter marks his target" as "The fighter focuses on disrupting the actions of this one guy." (Intercepting blows with parrys, shouting taunts/challenges, magical interdiction, etc) Whatever the mark does (class dependant) it does it well enough to annoy/disrupt the target to the point where the fighter needs to be dealt with.

The reasoning Marks overwrite others is both a balance and book-keeping one (as I see it).

If they didn't, the following can happen - A fighter, a paladin, and a swordmage mark the orc.
The following mechanical options present themselves:
1. (Stacking) If the orc attacks the fighter, he is at -4 (from the paladin and Sword mage marks which stack in this variant) and suffers the effects of both of their other mark effects (likely resulting in auto-death).
2. (Non-stacking) If the orc attacks the fighter, he is at -2 (The mark condition would not stack in this variant) but may suffer the 'bad stuff' effects of both of those marks.
3. (Expanding mark variant) If the orc attacks the fighter, he is at no penalty, because the orc would be at -2 for "attacking a target who did not mark him" In fact, The orc would take no penaty against the Sword Mage, Paladin, or fighter. In this variant, it is disadvantageous to put multiple marks on one target, with the exception that IF the target violates any special conditions of the marks, it may trigger all of those characters effects.

I have seen a Living Forgotten Realms game with 3 Defenders (Fighter, Swordmage, Paladin) plus a Ranger and Warlock, and the book keeping for having marks stack would be a little much.

The other classes that have 'mark like' effects that do "Blah" against a single target (Hunter's quarry, Avenger nonsense, Warlock's Curse) are allowed to stack because they don't affect that monsters turn. The only time it even matters is on the turn of the person who uses them, and thus, THEY can track it. Marks need to be tracked by the DM, since they impact the creatures rolls and actions AND by the players (since they may have power interactions, like Paladins and Swordmages notably get).

As for daily martial powers: As someone who practiced Judo for some time, I can say that if all I used was sionage (a shoulder throw; basic, but for someone of my build, effective) in a competition, I would fail miserably as my foes would adapt to my one good throw. (Plus, it isn't as good on someone shorter than myself) A smart choice would be for me to mix it up with some practiced maneuvers, (such as footsweeps and hip throws) and use my most advantageous techniques when it counts.

Pssthpok said:

Hey hey, UK.

Click to expand...

Howdy Pssthpok amigo!

It certainly resolves the resource management issue prevalent in 3E.

Click to expand...

Indeed it does...thank heavens.

Absolutely. In cases like that, though, the limitation is usually obvious and reasonable. I gather from this that you don't mind a rogue power usable only once per day, as long as the damage/effect lines up with similar powers form other sources/classes?

Click to expand...

There is certainly a difference between what I will happily accept at the gaming table and what I myself would design. But I'll prefer a balanced power thats to an extent disassociating over an unbalanced power that isn't.

To me, that seems a bit like cutting off your nose (verisimilitude) to spite your face (resource imbalance in older editions). Sure, it makes sense on paper... but so does communism.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, because the totality of your distress is a tiny fraction of powers for what is rapidly becoming an increasingly small fraction of the total classes. It just seems like you are looking for excuses.

Well, it makes sense in a "threat management" way. It gives players the ability to "tank" monsters. Other than that, it exists as a hollow game mechanic with no reflection in the "reality" of the encounter other than a metagame constraint on the DM's tactics.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I think marking makes sense, though I would concede the mechanics of individual marking powers probably don't always (though with arcane, divine, primal and presumably psionic marking they don't necessarily need to).

Multiple marks aren't allowed because then parties of paladins would run roughshod over enemies, dealing mark damage no matter what the targets do, since they can't attack 5 people each round to avoid all the marks. Likewise, the war devil's mark would lead to crushing infernal victories as multiple war devils grant cumulative +2 to attacks by marking the same target. Ad nauseum.

Click to expand...

So then its a game balance conceit...I can live with that.

*sigh* houserules are no solution, really.

Click to expand...

So you never houseruled any aspect of 3E...yes thats a rhetorical question.

I'm hoping for a philosophical angle to appreciating these design quirks. If all I have to do is houserule, I can keep playing my 3E/IHB hodgepodge and not have to retcon story, mechanics, cosmology, etc for my game.

Click to expand...

I think you might be looking at windmills and seeing giants here.

I guess the main point of my post was to see how you dealt with these disconnections between what's happening at the table and what's being said/understood "in game." You seem pretty 4E happy, and you come from old D&D roots... I'm left wondering if gameplay ease is enough to placate any desire for verisimilitude at the table.

Click to expand...

Fun > Ease of Use > Balance > Lots of other stuff > Verisimilitude.

Personally I have never been happier with any system more than 4E and I am of the opinion that anyone who gives it a fair chance would agree with me.

I want to like 4E, I'd like to design in it (super easy, intuitive and fun),

Click to expand...

...as opposed to almost impossibly difficult, long-winded, overtly time consuming.

I know which one I'd choose.

but these issues stick in my craw and I don't know if I can get past them.

Click to expand...

Fantasy games are about the suspension of disbelief. If you really wanted to (or needed to) you could justify any Martial Daily power. Regardless, in my eyes only a fool would rather play a 3E fighter compared to a 4E fighter. Fighters are relevant again, with cool stuff to do, they are once again the best Fighters (take that buffed 3E Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer etc.)

Personally I have never seen mechanics (good or bad) wreck the roleplaying aspect of the game. I've seen bad mechanics wreck everything else...and 3E has bad mechanics in spades.

Well put, though I wouldn't say I'm "looking for excuses", just wary about what seems to me to be the hardest change from 3rd to 4th: that sudden leap into universal and fully cinematic class abilities.

Hey there Pssthpok matey!

Pssthpok said:

Well put, though I wouldn't say I'm "looking for excuses", just wary about what seems to me to be the hardest change from 3rd to 4th: that sudden leap into universal and fully cinematic class abilities.

Click to expand...

...because in every other facet 4E trumps 3E, except in this tiny corner of the rules which the vast majority of people won't have a problem with and where arguably the pros outweigh the cons for most (I mean who the heck doesn't want fully cinematic class abilities!?).

By your own words its super easy, intuitive and fun. Not to mention balanced and tactical (read thought provoking rather than lazy - which is what 3E is).

Its like you are admitting to yourself its 99.9% better, but this 0.1% nitpick is some sort of hang-up.

I mean if this is your only stumbling block you are taking the matter way to seriously. Thnk about it for a second...are you saying you stoically won't play a (by your own admission) far superior game, simply because a handful of powers from a few classes cause you to suspend your disbelief (in a fantasy game).