D&D 4E More reflections on 4e and 5e.

pemerton said:

Ah, that's what I missed (though I did get the elf cleric's bow).

Yes. But then I want to know, why was the fighter readying to throw a hammer rather than (say) charge with his/her real weapon?

A 7th level draon vs 4 6th level characters is on the cusp between an 8th and 9th level encounter - ie reasonably challenging. Having the fighter and the cleric spend actions on pretty weak ranged attacks seems like a recipe for increasing the challenge!

Click to expand...

Dragons fly...6th level melee fighters and melee clerics don't (unless thrown). So...when you have an enemy that is likely to fly and you want to damage it you will ready a ranged attack, no?

They could have readied charges (especially the fighter) and banked on the wizard forcing it down I suppose....but they did what came naturally....Hide behind a rock and scan the sky for the big flying lizard...bow and throwing hammer at the ready...

I don't think the MBA vs. At-Wills is a question of intelligence or even complexity. I think it's a question of thought process and presentation. Studies have shown time and time again that getting hung up and using sub-optimal decision processes knows no intelligence level.

There are two factors with MBA vs AW decision making. One is heuristic: people will generally assume that any benefit comes with a cost. In this case, At-Wills can be confusing because they ostensibly offer advantages over a MBA, but no extra-cost for taking them. In general, most folks default to the most conservative option when presented with a decision, even if it is sub-optimal from a objective point of view. I don't think it farfetched for a newbie without a complete grasp of the rules to assume that the MBA is, well, the most basic, conservative option, and that at-wills have some cost, even if not immediately obvious. Or, alternatively, to believe that at-wills are situational, and if they don't immediately perceive a situation maximizing their use, to forego them in favor of MBA. This is not a particularly difficult misconception to overcome, with experienced players to offer guidance, but in a totally newbie situation, I can see confusion.

Related to the above -- 4e works best when you focus on the effect of a power, and create a narrative to explain its effect. In other words, on this round Sly Flourish represents some spinning of the blade before striking. On another round it represents a confusing feint and follow-up. It may not, in fact, represent a "Sly Flourish" at all, in certain situations. If you're a newbie, though, that might not be so intuitive. They may then hew very closely to the flavor text included in the power. In that case, repeated use of the At-Will may seem strange, uninteresting, or not fitting their imagining of the scene. The Rogue player may be imagining their character as weaving Sly Flourishes in among MBAs, like a crafty baseball pitcher mixing up their pitches. They may think at a particular moment, "I wanna just haul off and murderize this guy!" At first level, if you're using at at-will, the one to use is Sly Flourish, because it is the most damaging At-Will. The experienced 4e player says, "I pop him as hard as I can (Sly Flourish)," and imagines the resulting attack as that, regardless of what the flavor text says. The newbie says, "I want to hit him as hard as I can. Sly Flourish is a colorful distracting move, so that's not what I want," and they go with MBA. This is a mind-frame problem, not a system problem, per se, but it requires either some guidance, or an epiphany, for a newbie to overcome.

Over on RPG.net there's a thread about initial rules misunderstandings when first starting to play D&D. Some of it is from starting to play at 11 years old, some of it is from dense Gygaxian prose, but some of it is just from not seeing the big picture when learning from the rulebook. A lot of the time, it's easier to learn by actually playing with an experienced player. That was true of Basic D&D back in the day, and it's still true of 4e, as well.

Iosue said:

Related to the above -- 4e works best when you focus on the effect of a power, and create a narrative to explain its effect.

Click to expand...

Although to some extent this has always been true (of anything that does hit points damage), 4E does take this a lot further, especially with martial exploits designed to keep non-magical characters up-to-par with their spell-lobbing team mates.

One important dissonance I find, with my own group who have plenty intelligence to hand, is that Powers are assumed to be inherently something the PC does, and is aware of as their own ability. That is, they are effectors, attached to the character in the game world (by virtue of training or talent), and consciously directed by the character in the same way one would take a simple swing with a sword or point-and-shoot with a gun. However a lot of 4E powers are not directly tied to character effort and knowledge in this way, or become difficult to force into a narrative (randomly, according the the actual result) when the expectation is that they should work like that.

@Iosue

That is an excellent post. Thorough analysis and I would say that it comports with some of my experience with certain gamers as well. I would say that (i) overcoming preconceived mental framework and (i) intellectual apathy/laziness (ii) are entirely likely causal mechanisms rather than built-in mental limitations. Great stuff.

slobo777 said:

<snip>

One important dissonance I find, with my own group who have plenty intelligence to hand, is that Powers are assumed to be inherently something the PC does, and is aware of as their own ability. That is, they are effectors, attached to the character in the game world (by virtue of training or talent), and consciously directed by the character in the same way one would take a simple swing with a sword or point-and-shoot with a gun. However a lot of 4E powers are not directly tied to character effort and knowledge in this way, or become difficult to force into a narrative (randomly, according the the actual result) when the expectation is that they should work like that.

Click to expand...

Bold and italicized is my own. I agree there is this dissonance. You see it primarily (exclusively?) amongst folks who solely have a process-simulation, actor-stance driven agenda and can't (won't?) "overcome their preconceived mental framework" (to use Iosue's terminology above - which seems applicable). Many-a powers (Many of them martial) are outcome-based simulation and are narrative control devices whereby players are expected to assume author or outright director stance. They get to say "things come together within the fiction to make this awesome, archetype-centered action/event/maneuver, etc manifest in the fiction NOW...and here is what happens!" The PC is unaware of this implied metagame capacity. They are aware that they have extensive training/experience in whatever martial form that they are proficient in (and all of its relevant applicatons...which are contingent upon the battlefield dynamics/opponents defenses agreeing with their usage). When these things occur, to the PC they are just aware that the stars align (the battlefield dynamics shape up) or their efforts have dictated that their opponent's defenses have relented or opened (if within their internal locus of control) such that this (otherwise unavailable) opportunity occurs NOW and they seize the moment.

Again, there are a lot of D&D players (it seems many cut their RPG teeth on 3e and perhaps some grew up on Traveller...or perhaps they've been drifting D&D toward a simulationist agenda due to its built-in incoherency) that have these expectations and this agenda. Introducing elements that are antagonistic towards it is clearly jarring or dissonant...and they don't care to change their mental framework, their expectations, their agenda. And that is certainly their prerogative (and more than fair as it is a perfectly legitimate expectation and agenda and accompanying playstyle...just not my cup of tea anymore).

Manbearcat said:

@Iosue
I agree there is this dissonance. You see it primarily (exclusively?) amongst folks who solely have a process-simulation, actor-stance driven agenda and can't (won't?) "overcome their preconceived mental framework" (to use Iosue's terminology above - which seems applicable).

Click to expand...

Has there been any attempt (by anyone) to relate this preference to Actor vs Storyteller play style preferences (which I believe WotC suggesetd as archetypes that mirrored more acedemic research into MMO play style preferences). Or maybe others . . . just those two from the names scream "actor-stance" and "director-stance" at me . . .

I think "preference" may apply to at least some players rather than "overcome their preconceived mental framework". Besides which, this is a game, not a self-improvement workshop for creative writers, so a preference based on not liking the idea of something isn't especially egregious.

The D&D Essentials Fighter sub-classes (Knight and Slayer) and the Skald from Heroes of the Feywild show much better templates for what "at-will powers" need to be for characters that use the "Making Sharp Things Go Through Soft Things That Scream and Bleed" skill to attack than anything in the 4th Edition PHB or PHB2. Their Encounter Powers fit the bill well too.

Even if it just comes down to a presentation issue, it works.

"What do you want to do?"
"Hit him."
"OK, roll to hit."
"Does a 19 do it for you?"
"Sure, you hit. What does the hit do?"
"1d10+4 damage and ..."
A.) "I'll add 1d0 from Power Strike."
or
B.) "My ally gets +2 to all defenses until my next turn."
or
C.) "I use Lesser Flash of Distraction to daze him."

This dialogue is so much better than:
"What do you want to do?"
"Hit him."
"OK, what power do you use?"
"Um ... er ... Tide of Iron ... no um, did Dave miss with a 13 last round? This guy has high AC. What was the attack that damages on a miss?"
"Um ... Reaping Strike, yeah, it's over there."
"What, only 4 damage? I'm not sure it's worth it. If I hit I push him off the bridge."
"Well, he does get to save against falling on a 10 or better."
"Hm ..."
or
"OK, a rolled 10 damage."
"Did you move this turn?"
"No, I forgot."
"You've got to use your Movement Trick powers to add the bonus to your attack."
"Can we back up and say I used Unbalancing Trick to shift these two squares?"
"Sure."

Sometimes front-loading the options before you even roll dice is a pain you don't need for seemingly simple actions. It involves a bunch of extra calculating to make the optimal play. Also, being forced to make set-up choices every round leads to people screwing up order (like with the Movement Tricks for Essentials Rogues). Stances and Skald's Aura options were great because you set them once and don't have to reset unless you want to change your strategy or you get knocked unconscious (at which point you've got to regain consciousness, retrieve your weapon, stand up, and generally pay the "I just got my butt kicked" tax with your turn so it really doesn't add much proportionately to the pile).

Some character classes and builds thrive on picking the right rabbit out of your hat every round. Traditionally the ones with the largest variety of bunnies in said hat are Magicians - go figure!

- Marty Lund

slobo777 said:

Has there been any attempt (by anyone) to relate this preference to Actor vs Storyteller play style preferences (which I believe WotC suggesetd as archetypes that mirrored more acedemic research into MMO play style preferences). Or maybe others . . . just those two from the names scream "actor-stance" and "director-stance" at me . . .

I think "preference" may apply to at least some players rather than "overcome their preconceived mental framework". Besides which, this is a game, not a self-improvement workshop for creative writers, so a preference based on not liking the idea of something isn't especially egregious.

Click to expand...

I agree. Its not egregious at all. It logically follows from the mental framework and its accompanying expectations.

When I say "overcome their preconceived mental framework" I merely mean having an expectation of process-simulation, of linear coupling of cause and effect from any mechanical resolution tool and its corresponding mapping to fiction (lest world physics internal consistency be compromised) and therefore any deviation from that paradigm becomes inherently "jarring" or "dissonant" (with respect to immersion - there's a thousand and one "dissociated mechanics" threads and posts). It pretty much demands actor-stance exclusively and the marriage of PC perspective with player perspective. It is a mental framework. Because the nuance of the situation does not create an inherent, objective "jarring" or "dissonant" response...but rather it stems from the mental framework that presupposes it and therefore has that subjective expectation of certain things (while being more accepting of other things).

mlund said:

The D&D Essentials Fighter sub-classes (Knight and Slayer) and the Skald from Heroes of the Feywild show much better templates for what "at-will powers" need to be for characters that use the "Making Sharp Things Go Through Soft Things That Scream and Bleed" skill to attack than anything in the 4th Edition PHB or PHB2. Their Encounter Powers fit the bill well too.

Even if it just comes down to a presentation issue, it works.

Click to expand...

A part of it is decision points IMO. There's a rule of thumb in psychology of seven plus or minus two as the number of things a human can hold in their head at the same time.

Let's assume there is one PC and three monsters. In the blue corner we have a level 1 PHB fighter with two at will powers and an encounter power. And in the red corner we have a level 1 essentials Knight with two stances and Power Strike.

How many options are on the table for each?

• For the PHB fighter it's three monsters times three powers, or nine

• For the Knight it's three monsters times two stances times two for power strike (yes/no), or twelve.

The knight looks worse, right? On this analysis, yes. But then we get into chunking. Breaking down the decision into smaller options, to get it below that threshold.

For someone who knows 4e well and has a tactical mind, this isn't a problem. You chunk automatically. But for the newbie, nine or twelve distinct choices is analysis paralysis time. But let's look at how the two are chunked by the rules system.

The fighter player chooses who to hit and at the same time chooses which power to use. Nine options with no obvious chunking for a beginner.

The knight's process on the other hand goes more like this.

• Are you in the right stance? (yes/no) - two options, minor action
• Who do you hit? (Monster 1, 2, or 3) - three options, standard action
• Do you use power strike? (yes/no) - two options, free action

Note that for the knight, although they theoretically have twelve options on the table, their choices come pre-chunked. At the time they make the choice there are no more than three options on the table. Literally the most complex choice they have to make is who to hit. Not that they have fewer options, merely that the options come pre-organised.

Some character classes and builds thrive on picking the right rabbit out of your hat every round. Traditionally the ones with the largest variety of bunnies in said hat are Magicians - go figure!

Click to expand...

Some players do. I'm one of them And the thief is another such class, which IMO is the way it should be. Rogues should be looking for rabbits in hats every bit as much as magicians. And the thief is one of my favourite classes, but I consider WoTC barking mad when they mark the thief as a simple class for Encounters. Unless you're going to autopilot on Tactical Trick (which works, don't get me wrong - and I'm very glad this easy mode is there) it's probably one of the hardest classes in the game.

I think that the using the 5e innovation of expertise dice to replace at-will powers and stances would actually make the decision-making process simpler for new players. A slayer's decision tree would then boil down to:

1. Who do you attack?
2a. If you hit, do you use Deadly Strike to increase the damage you deal or save it to Parry?
2b. In addition, if you still have uses of power strike remaining, do you want to use it?

I don't think it would be too difficult to port it into a 4e game.

Yeah, I can see expertise dice, or similar mechanics, being ported over to a lot of classes.

And, really, varying it up isn't hard. Different die sizes to start off, different effects, it's a pretty wide open field. And, on the plus side, it doesn't seem to raise the hackles the way AEDU do.