Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Indeed love to hear more...
D&D 4E 4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain
Indeed love to hear more...
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
If I were the Fighter I would so want to grab the Tank... It would be a blast to Bull Rush/Tide of Iron or actually some higher level analog to it too...
Manbearcat
Legend
I could see this being done with a Complexity 1, Level 22 (its basically a Contest so against this tank and its crew) SC. Move Action (equivalent) for the action economy of the challenge for the Fighter.
I could see:
1) Mighty Sprint Encounter Power Athletics vs Medium to run > leap > climb to the top.
2) Improvised Attack (to wedge his greatsword in there to leverage the top off, so no sword characteristics/bonuses apply) vs Fort or Athletics vs High (already used it) to just rip it off like Hulk and toss it. This would be the tough one. The Fighter would have anywhere from a +25 to a +32 Athletics (depending if any magic items are +Athletics and if any Theme/Race/Feat/Path bonuses).
3) Once in, I'd make the Tank be Dazed (the pilot puts it on auto to help the infantry deal with the threat or maybe he's just unnerved...this would offset the action economy issues of the Fighter not being in play, encouraging the action). Combat for next success in SC. The commander they parleyed with prior and 3 pilot + infantry. All Minions.
4) Probably Dungeoneering to figure out the alien tech (maybe its like our modern tech where you scroll through virtual interfaces or you put on a helmet that taps directly into your neural network). Maybe Perception to see what he recalled the pilot doing once he hopped down into the cockpit.
5) Once done, it would be off Dazed. Move Action to shut the aura out that is aiding the enemy and then standard action economy.
Potential complications on failure would be:
* Countermeasures deployed in the way of electrification of the exterior.
* A stray Immediate Action laser attack from on of the hoverpods.
* Activation of some kind of countermeasures while inside like a Psychic attack while the helmet is on or maybe activation of a swarm of flying nanobots.
Manbearcat
Legend
First off, I would HIGHLY recommend purchasing the game for both 4e advocates and non-advocates. Its an incredibly well put together game and the creators should be rewarded for their hard, excellent work.
Broadly:
Non-combat does have a few scene resolution frameworks. However, its primary engine is PBtA-esque:
1) Declare action and pick up d6
2) If (Dis)Advantage, take 2d6 and take worst/best result.
3) If Skilled:
6: Success with a Bonus
4-5: Success
3: Success with a Cost
2: Twist (complication)
1: Twist with a Cost
4) If Unskilled:
6: Success and Learn Skill or with a Bonus
5: Success
4: Success with a Cost
2-3: Twist
1: Twist with a Cost
The Tactical Combat section (there is a basic combat section that follows the above, just like PBtA) has its own chart for Attack Rolls et al.
There are other mechanics that interface with everything (such as its namesake; Strikes).
The GMing section is bloody fantastic and I'd condone getting the book merely for that alone. Its clear, concise, advocates exactly what a 4e game should advocate for in terms of ethos and in handling minutiae (such as not keeping important metagame information from your players that is essential for their decision-making...make it player-facing).
Well worth the cost.
darkbard
Legend
Thanks for this. The more I read about the PbtA mechanics, the more I grow enamored with them. I've read through Blades (and parts of BW and DW), though I've not had the opportunity to play or GM either.
Is this so different from 4E, though, ultimately? One could parallel HP ablation in combat to the staged progress of SCs. How does a "success" in combat check (successful combination of d20 roll plus modifiers, inflicting damage or status effect; now it's the enemy's turn to strike back, i.e., GM introduces a complication in the form of HP ablation, status effect, etc.), all as stages toward determining the outcome of the combat, differ from "success" in a SC check (successful combination of d20 roll plus modifiers; GM introduces a new complication)? In short, aren't the mechanics of combats vs. skill challenges basically symmetrical (some number of d20 rolls plus modifiers until a target number of total successes is reached)?
While in theory I like the tightness of the d6 (or 2d6) mechanic as compared with the d20, both systems seem to me to share a rough symmetry in how mechanics work for both combat and noncombat resolution, particularly as DCs in SCs scale to fit the changing fiction, just as Defense scores, HPs, damage, etc. scale with the same.
darkbard
Legend
Perhaps my statements and questions above speak more to my nature as a lumper rather than a splitter, generally speaking.
EDIT: I called my FLGS to see if they stock Strike!, but, sadly, they do not. I may check it out through Drivethrurpg, though I much prefer supporting local commerce.
EDIT: I called my FLGS to see if they stock Strike!, but, sadly, they do not. I may check it out through Drivethrurpg, though I much prefer supporting local commerce.
Last edited:
Joshua Randall
Legend
I'm way out synch, but: on Skill Challenges. They were always a mess. 4e takes the Gamism up to 11 (and *likes* it)... except for Skill Challenges where it falls back into a weird Narrativism / Gamism mess that doesn't serve either master well. "Tell me a story about how you justify using the highest number on your skill list" is pretty lame design. Equally, "DM imposes narrow list of skills on PCs based on what 'makes sense' in the world" violently clashes with 4e's other design tenets.
Also, I strongly disagree that 4e has any "fail forward" mechanics.
Also, I strongly disagree that 4e has any "fail forward" mechanics.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
You could make that comparison. But at that level of "parallel", is there any system that couldn't be seen as symmetrical? That is, any system that is going to have the property of taking steps towards conclusion/resolution of the conflict. (or a clock, as PbtA would have it). If two systems are going to be symmetrical, then the methods of taking those steps (and perhaps framing and creating the conflicts in the first place) are going to be identical or nearly so.
In this case, I would point to things like movement, conditions, and HP ablation (which creates a degree of success rather binary result) as things that give the combat resolution system much more "volume" than the mechanics for SCs without homologous mechanics on the SC side. I contrast that with Fate. With Fate, in any kind of scene, players have the option of Creating an Advantage, Attacking, Defending, or Overcoming Obstacles; and even the "damage" mechanics from Fate make use of (and can be utilized by players with) the same framework of Aspects that the rest of the game relies upon. Fate does give a bit of a miss to a unified framing mechanic for conflicts and challenges, but that seems an intentional choice to facilitate play more in concert with traditional rpgs. However, its trivial (at least mechanically) for a Fate GM to frame complex challenges as "adversaries" using the bronze rule*, but the rules don't demand it.
*The Bronze rule in Fate basically allows you to construct and use anything as a character.
Manbearcat
Legend
Agreed. This is completely true. My take on this was they just had to formulate stuff in books for adventure design. Later books and Dungeon Magazine spoke out against this.
I'm sorry, but all of this is utterly untrue. Utterly so.
Again, if the fictional situation doesn't support an action declaration or a genre trope by way of action declaration...its simple. Its not doable. And (I already addressed this above but apparently you didn't read it?) much of the problem's reported on this issue is completely GM timidity or inexperience in scene framing or evolving a scenario/changing a situation aggressively and dynamically. GMs have to do a good job at running interesting noncombat challenges and evolving them dynamically post-resolution. If they don't...that is on them.
As far as Fail Forward goes:
1) Its not a mechanic. Its a GM technique.
2) Its bloody everywhere in 4e!
Not to mention the fact that the man who primarily conceived 4e (Rob Heinsoo) created 13th Age with Jonathon Tweet once he had to exit stage left from WotC...and that game specifically prescribes Fail Forward as the exclusive method for noncombat resolution.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Classic badassery... I like the balance out the economy of action loss with the Dazed.
Similar Threads
