D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)

I have no clue how I could actually use this idea - and what could be made of it, but I don't want to loose it, so I'm throwing it here:

attacks always hit (no to-hit roll)
defenses serve as DR
good DR is about 1/2 of average dmg hit
riders have a "dmg" rating - if they overcome the appropriate DR, they take hold
the defenses also serve as bonuses to appropriate saves (perhaps, instead of saves, the "ongoing effect attack" repeats)

there are limited use resources to up DR and whatnot to inject more agency

the tricky part is not falling into a "weak but still slightly relevant foe does nothing" situation common with DR

Example (quite, quite rough)
an attack - poisoned blade: 2d6 dmg vs AC, ongoing 6 poison (1d6 vs Fort)
the defenses (~paladin) - AC 4, Fort 3, Reflex 2, Will 3

Ending it here before it turns into nonsense - I'm already just seeing holes everywhere in this idea...

MoutonRustique said:

I have no clue how I could actually use this idea - and what could be made of it, but I don't want to loose it, so I'm throwing it here:

attacks always hit (no to-hit roll)
defenses serve as DR
good DR is about 1/2 of average dmg hit
riders have a "dmg" rating - if they overcome the appropriate DR, they take hold
the defenses also serve as bonuses to appropriate saves (perhaps, instead of saves, the "ongoing effect attack" repeats)

there are limited use resources to up DR and whatnot to inject more agency

the tricky part is not falling into a "weak but still slightly relevant foe does nothing" situation common with DR

Example (quite, quite rough)
an attack - poisoned blade: 2d6 dmg vs AC, ongoing 6 poison (1d6 vs Fort)
the defenses (~paladin) - AC 4, Fort 3, Reflex 2, Will 3

Ending it here before it turns into nonsense - I'm already just seeing holes everywhere in this idea...

Click to expand...

Well, I can tell you what I did in HoML... I kept FORT REF and WILL, but I got rid of AC. Every attack targets one of the 'NADS', and then DR is applied based on the armor you are wearing (and yes, it applies to ALL damage, the guy clad head to toe in plate armor is just psychologically as well as physically a tank). The only way to avoid the problem you pose is to have DR be a pretty low number, like I top it out at 5 points basically (that allows for 6 grades of armor, none, cloth, leather, reinforced leather, mail, piece metal, and plate, plus you can add a shield or buckler to the non-plate armors for another point). Obviously magical armors and such can drive that up somewhat, but at that point you're dealing with foes who can do substantial damage. Truthfully it may still create problems with the really heavily armored guys, especially at lower levels, but I think the main effect would be for a plate clad tank to pretty much laugh at most heroic tier minions, which probably isn't so bad.

Anyway, in our playing so far there hasn't been a real problem, but its just been basically some simple battles I've set up and run. Certainly if you tried to add this kind of thing to vanilla 4e it would create a lot of oddities. Given that I have devised powers and whatnot with this idea in mind, it isn't so bad.

I hadn't really seriously considered doing away with attack rolls, though it sounds like they would basically still exist, but only determine effects. That might work. It would certainly reduce the old problem where the fighter winds up to unleash his daily and it goes whiff.

What would happen to the [Warlock] if... ...the [curse] mechanic was turned into :

- once per turn, on your turn, whenever you make an attack, you can curse a target of your attack
- once per round, as a minor action, deal your [curse] damage to all creatures subject to your [curse] within range (10?)

Why? What does this do or change?
It changes [warlock's curse] from an attack booster that encourages targeting foes already cursed to an encouragement to target previously un-cursed targets.

It also changes the [curse] mechanic from a fairly passive ability to something more active (I think). Also, the fluff implications change from "more vulnerable to" to more "now afflicted by".

- because [curse] can only be applied to the nearest target, this change could reduce an incentive to move around (in the sense that the warlock was incentivised to move so as to curse a desired target) - [bad]
- encourages the warlock to spread attacks around - [good]
- can also serve as a "consolation prize" with regards to minions - [good]
- probably increases "white-room" dpr, but this damage is spread over multiple foes - [good]
- potentially increases the mental load to track which target is cursed - [bad] (but probably a wash with before)
- potentially increases the DMs work load by having to record another damage instance - [bad] (but probably pretty minor)
- ... something else I'm not seeing...

The problem is that "encourages...spread attacks around" isn't good on a striker. If you also change mechanics so that enemies lose abilities as they lose HP, that changes things...but ultimately, additional damage against one enemy that might kill it (and thus remove it from combat) is better than a little damage against a lot of enemies who all keep on kicking. Also, from a purely Warlock perspective, you end up losing the advantage of getting your Boon more regularly.

As for minions- that's what area attacks are for.

masteraleph said:

The problem is that "encourages...spread attacks around" isn't good on a striker. If you also change mechanics so that enemies lose abilities as they lose HP, that changes things...but ultimately, additional damage against one enemy that might kill it (and thus remove it from combat) is better than a little damage against a lot of enemies who all keep on kicking. Also, from a purely Warlock perspective, you end up losing the advantage of getting your Boon more regularly.

As for minions- that's what area attacks are for.

Click to expand...

Doesn't mean its bad DESIGN. It just means that the class has some aspect to it that doesn't cater to maximum on-target DPR. In other words it would simply encourage different build choices and different tactics. For example it would certainly encourage the warlock to find ways to pump up that curse damage (not that they don't have any such incentive now, but its not that strong). Obviously such means would then have to be provided (IE implements, feats, damage type modifications, etc.).

masteraleph said:

The problem is that "encourages...spread attacks around" isn't good on a striker. If you also change mechanics so that enemies lose abilities as they lose HP, that changes things...but ultimately, additional damage against one enemy that might kill it (and thus remove it from combat) is better than a little damage against a lot of enemies who all keep on kicking. Also, from a purely Warlock perspective, you end up losing the advantage of getting your Boon more regularly.

As for minions- that's what area attacks are for.

Click to expand...

I understand the principal "idea" of striker as "deal concentrated damage to one target". On the other hand, I tend to see the game from the DM-side of the screen so that changes a bit what I consider to be to "good".

For instance, I much prefer something that brings three creatures down to 1/4 hp than that kills one creature. The guiding principals for me are more along these lines :
- combats are more interesting when both groups have multiple options, tactics and "tricks" available
- when one side is down to 50% or fewer actors, we enter clean-up-slog territory (usually not fun)
- dealing large amounts of damage is satisfying, even when spread out
- nova-supremacy is something to be resisted (never at the table, only by design)
- it's more interesting when powerful/impactful foes have a chance to do their big thing twice (as players can have agency in trying to mitigate its impact)
- area / multiple foe damage decreases the length of "clean-up" time

MoutonRustique said:

I understand the principal "idea" of striker as "deal concentrated damage to one target". On the other hand, I tend to see the game from the DM-side of the screen so that changes a bit what I consider to be to "good".

For instance, I much prefer something that brings three creatures down to 1/4 hp than that kills one creature. The guiding principals for me are more along these lines :
- combats are more interesting when both groups have multiple options, tactics and "tricks" available
- when one side is down to 50% or fewer actors, we enter clean-up-slog territory (usually not fun)
- dealing large amounts of damage is satisfying, even when spread out
- nova-supremacy is something to be resisted (never at the table, only by design)
- it's more interesting when powerful/impactful foes have a chance to do their big thing twice (as players can have agency in trying to mitigate its impact)
- area / multiple foe damage decreases the length of "clean-up" time

Click to expand...

Well, options are a good thing. So maybe the best way to go would be to allow a certain amount of curse damage on a SINGLE target (IE you only have one guy cursed) vs being able to do a somewhat smaller amount (but more total in the aggregate) to a number of targets. Now you have a choice, and a given warlock could leverage feats and whatever to make one or the other of these choices (or both, or neither) more effective in some way.

I'd also favor ways for a warlock (this can apply to other strikers of course) to improve their strike under specific conditions too. These could include when the opponents are surprised, when attacking someone who's under cover/concealment, when attacking FROM cover/concealment, against prone opponents, the obvious one of making an area attack, etc. These would reward logical tactical play vs 4e's current tendency to reward "sequencing tricks" and such (not all bad by any means, but tends to overshadow good solid real-world tactical play to a high degree).

AbdulAlhazred said:

... I'd also favor ways for a warlock (this can apply to other strikers of course) to improve their strike under specific conditions too. These could include when the opponents are surprised, when attacking someone who's under cover/concealment, when attacking FROM cover/concealment, against prone opponents, the obvious one of making an area attack, etc. These would reward logical tactical play vs 4e's current tendency to reward "sequencing tricks" and such (not all bad by any means, but tends to overshadow good solid real-world tactical play to a high degree).

Click to expand...

Situational performance is something that's fairly slim in 4e - as I think that most of it tends to be boiled down to "have CA" or "clumped together".

Potential "states" to take advantage of (which could refer to the target, the caster, or both!) :
- has taken type X damage in the previous round
- in dim/bright/no light
- in at least a foot of water
- adjacent (or just close to) a fire
- adjacent to a wall
- adjacent to allies (I could see a [psychic] attack dealing 3 extra for each adjacent creature to the target)

At this point, it's pretty much a matter of where you draw the line as to what is "too much load"

MoutonRustique said:

Situational performance is something that's fairly slim in 4e - as I think that most of it tends to be boiled down to "have CA" or "clumped together".

Potential "states" to take advantage of (which could refer to the target, the caster, or both!) :
- has taken type X damage in the previous round
- in dim/bright/no light
- in at least a foot of water
- adjacent (or just close to) a fire
- adjacent to a wall
- adjacent to allies (I could see a [psychic] attack dealing 3 extra for each adjacent creature to the target)

At this point, it's pretty much a matter of where you draw the line as to what is "too much load"

Click to expand...

I like this to be clear the idea is to add these situationals to powers? OR perhaps page 42 them in.

Adjacent to a wall any power with an option to move the target if it moves them adjacent to a solid vertical surface can deliver X bonus damage for every square further you could have moved it.

Garthanos said:

I like this to be clear the idea is to add these situationals to powers? OR perhaps page 42 them in.

Adjacent to a wall any power with an option to move the target if it moves them adjacent to a solid vertical surface can deliver X bonus damage for every square further you could have moved it.

Click to expand...

The original idea was for powers to include them - this approach both reduces the amount of rules mastery required (and/or look-up times) and jives better with the general 4e ethos of not spreading required information all over the place.