D&D 4E 4E combat and powers: How to keep the baby and not the bathwater?

[Minigiant]

At this stage, Im going to stop using the word "Fiat". Its too strong in terms of lingo.

Im just going to refer to it as "decision". Isnt that why we have the DM, for making decisions? If we dont let them DM make decisions...why play? If I didnt want a DM making a decision, I would play a computer RPG. But I choose this form of gaming because it can do more.

Referring to the problems of 100% fiat. Yes, these things would you pointed out would be problems if the DM's had no rules to guide their decision process or they ignored the rules they have. You have gone directly to the extreme of what can go wrong when DM's have total control...I would never advocate such a situation.

That a decision is a MIX of DM and rules is not in dispute (It isnt in my mind at least). What is in dispute is how the rules should guide the DM decisions. I just dont want a situation where we have a loose system of improvisation sitting beside an arbitrary "usage based" power system and I certainly do not want a situation where the DM is utterly powerless to make change and adapt as he sees fit.

He is the DM for a reason. If he does a bad job of it, go find a new DM, but to strip DM's of ability to make decisions to compensate for bad DM's? Thats just not a solution in my eyes.

It's the old player entitlement to make the character they want versus the DMs entitlement to make the world they want.

Now I like the DM having power but the players and DMs interact with the system differently. Players are limited to the rules the DM allows. The DM is only limited to what the players are willing to tolerate.

Personally I hope 5e comes out with 3 or 4 different advanced combat variants. This way the player has something to work from depending on which one, if any, the DM decides to use.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When the combat maneuvers are in the combat chapter, the DM and players need to know the mechanics for all of them.

Well, if they want to be expert combatants, then yes, they need to learn the whole combat chapter (which needs to be manageable). But if they don't want to be expert combatants or manage resources, they aren't forced into that level of complexity by a system that requires everyone to choose a roster of powers. It's surprising how many players are not interested in tactical combat. Or even in rules in general. I've had quite a few.

This limits the amount of maneuvers pretty severely.

Yep.

When it's a collection of powers on the character sheet, the DM only needs to know the mechanics of the ones you have.

Well, the ones that every PC, NPC, and monster has. Plus he needs to be familiar with anything the PCs want to take so he can make a decision on whether to allow it. And he needs to understand all the possible combinations of abilities that could lead to imbalance or confusion. Believe me, I know how much a DM needs to know.

This allows there to be hundreds of maneuvers in the game.

It certainly does; at which point you most likely have widespread redundancy (unless there are really hundreds of meaningful and meaningfully different combat actions that are worth discretizing for an abstract game like D&D with only a mild focus on combat), beginner-unfriendly option bloat with the potential for each new power to be gamebreaking and create a general power creep, and (assuming that each individual character does not have hundreds of powers) a vast rulebook full of hundreds of things that won't see use and that your particular PC can't do, but which someone spent time developing and you have to pay for. In other words, same old, same old.

I'd rather see them pick a finite number of things and do them right. Have we ever seen grapple done really well? How about parrying?

I actually experienced 3 DM giving 3 different resolution for the same action. One with a HIGH chance of failure. One which was no different than a normal attack in resolution but weak in result. And the last said "You can't do that at level 3."

If you go to three different doctors, you'll likely get three different diagnoses. If you go to three different auto body shops, you'll get three different estimates. And you expect better from a roleplaying game? The implicit standard of consistency you're setting is to me completely inconceivable for a game with the scope of D&D.

 

[SteveC]

I have to say I like the lists of possible maneuvers better than powers. To me, the powers are too limiting (the contrary of what another post said).

More times in my 4e games I have players who want to do interesting maneuvers, but because we have powers (and some powers that the PCs don't have cover some of the maneuvers), I'm forced as DM to say "no." I don't want to do that. I want to say, try it.

Here's the thing: there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the game that requires you to say no. Page 42 is your guide, and you can rely on the other power as the basis for what the characters want to attempt.

I see this kind of thing all the time (and saw it back in the 3X days as well) and I really wonder where it comes from: a power you don't have is not something you can't try to attempt, it's just something that you don't know you can do with absolute certainty.

In one of my games, the characters were pinned behind a wall. Two archers about 80' away were firing arrows at them, as other monsters were moving up to engage in combat. My players wanted to peak around the corner, fire at the approaching monsters and then duck back behind cover. Dang, 4e rules make it impossible because only some powers grant this maneuver.

I made a house rule to allow move10', attack (-2 to attack), move10' to all creatures. Now we can have combats that seem more like the ones in movies. Why hold this type of maneuver for just a rogue, etc. It makes no sense.

And you were quite within your rights to do so, and the game was better all around for that decision. The thing is: nowhere in any D&D edition's rules was there something telling you that you can't do this.

All the power system does is tell you the things your character knows they can do absolutely. Anything else they can still try, and as a GM you have to adjudicate it. For me, I like to encourage these sorts of things so I think I probably would have done just as you did. I doubt there would have been any objection.

 

[Minigiant]

If you go to three different doctors, you'll likely get three different diagnoses. If you go to three different auto body shops, you'll get three different estimates. And you expect better from a roleplaying game? The implicit standard of consistency you're setting is to me completely inconceivable for a game with the scope of D&D.

There should be some sort of consistency.

Players need consistency. They should know what characters they can make before they start dreaming up ideas.

DMs need consistency. They should know what they are in for before they start dreaming up the details to their world.

 

[BobTheNob]

Here's the thing: there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the game that requires you to say no. Page 42 is your guide, and you can rely on the other power as the basis for what the characters want to attempt.

Given. But why, in a game that players can basically attempt anything they like, have powers at all? (Well, for martial pursuits at least)

Sure they give structure, and they give clear delineation of what is and isnt possible, and give guidelines for determining probability. Great. But why have that in a "power" structure? Why not just give it to the players in the first place? Yes, let them grow and get "better" at certain maneuvers, but why does this have to be powers and why do we need some semi-vancian wrapper on it?

Why do I need a power called "Wolf Strike" that allows me a shift when I hit and a different power called "Bladed step" which does exactly the same thing (presumably different classes) when I can just have rules dictating how to combine shifting with striking? Then if a player (fighter) wants to get better at this, he invests in something which improves its base capability. For instance (spitballing ideas) shift and strike could draw AOP from targets other than the one you are shifting past, but with investment it becomes a true shift and therefore doesnt draw AOP at all.

In this way we say that there is a base list of maneuvers that anyone can try, but the truely great just do the same maneuvers better. In this way, we reward the martialist, whilst keeping him distinct from spell casters, as we are not dumping them into caster power structures. We allow everyone tp attempt things they are not necessarily trained in, not because as DM's we can make the exception for them (Forcing rule deviation) but because its the norm that anyone jis just allowed to try.

I just dont think its a good thing that we need a disclosure allowing DM's to make exceptions when we could just make the rule encompassing enough that the exceptions are not required in the first place.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There should be some sort of consistency.

Players need consistency. They should know what characters they can make before they start dreaming up ideas.

DMs need consistency. They should know what they are in for before they start dreaming up the details to their world.

In one game with an individual DM, I expect consistency, but between DMs? I expect inconsistency. If one DM bases his game on his Lord of the Rings reading as a child, I expect very different rulings from one who bases his game on what happened on this week's The Walking Dead. Or Game of Thrones. Or Dragonball Z. Or The Wire. Attempting any particular action can and should be interpreted with the context of the style of the game; this is a fictional world after all.

Certainly, it's possible for the players to feel as if the DM hasn't created a consistent world, or that he is treating them unfairly, or that he is not on the same page with the players, but none of those things are attributable to the rules.

 

[Hussar]

Im not sure I understood this bit. Are you saying you want a power system AND an improvisation system to work side by side?

e.g. there exists a power which trips an enemy, but if I dont have said power that the system allows that I can "improvise" tripping him (DM allowing).

Certainly. This is exactly what you do have in 4e. You actually *CAN* trip someone. Granted, tripping doesn't actually do a whole lot, but, sheesh, it's not like you even need to make anything up to do it. Bull Rush mechanics work pretty well and certainly the advice in the DMG will cover it. I mean,

Trip - Melee basic. Damage: None. Hit: Target is knocked prone.

There, done. Good grief, is it really that difficult? It's just that when you use a power to knock someone prone, you're also going to do damage.

I have to say I like the lists of possible maneuvers better than powers. To me, the powers are too limiting (the contrary of what another post said).

More times in my 4e games I have players who want to do interesting maneuvers, but because we have powers (and some powers that the PCs don't have cover some of the maneuvers), I'm forced as DM to say "no." I don't want to do that. I want to say, try it.

In one of my games, the characters were pinned behind a wall. Two archers about 80' away were firing arrows at them, as other monsters were moving up to engage in combat. My players wanted to peak around the corner, fire at the approaching monsters and then duck back behind cover. Dang, 4e rules make it impossible because only some powers grant this maneuver.

I made a house rule to allow move10', attack (-2 to attack), move10' to all creatures. Now we can have combats that seem more like the ones in movies. Why hold this type of maneuver for just a rogue, etc. It makes no sense.

Umm... why?

Peek around the corner is a minor action, at best. Fire is standard, and you could argue a move action to pull back. And, since LOS is based on the corners of your mini, not the center, you actually don't need to move to shoot. Standing at the corner will allow you to see the target and fire. It might get cover, but, I'd buy that since you're firing from a fairly awkward position (presuming a bow or even crossbow - certainly any thrown weapon would be even more difficult).

/snip
If you go to three different doctors, you'll likely get three different diagnoses. If you go to three different auto body shops, you'll get three different estimates. And you expect better from a roleplaying game? The implicit standard of consistency you're setting is to me completely inconceivable for a game with the scope of D&D.

Dude, if you go to 3 doctors and get three completely different diagnoses, you need a better HMO. And while your auto body shops may quote you different prices, they bloody well not give you three completely different ideas of what your car needs.

Typical actions should get a typical response most of the time. Powers allow me to say, "Yes, these actions are typical for my character" and I should not have to play "Mother May I" when I attempt any of them.

 

[Minigiant]

In one game with an individual DM, I expect consistency, but between DMs? I expect inconsistency. If one DM bases his game on his Lord of the Rings reading as a child, I expect very different rulings from one who bases his game on what happened on this week's The Walking Dead. Or Game of Thrones. Or Dragonball Z. Or The Wire. Attempting any particular action can and should be interpreted with the context of the style of the game; this is a fictional world after all.

Certainly, it's possible for the players to feel as if the DM hasn't created a consistent world, or that he is treating them unfairly, or that he is not on the same page with the players, but none of those things are attributable to the rules.

If the every DM uses different rules then how are they playing the same game?

Player need to know the rules before they make their characters since, unlike the DM, they can't change the rules. Rules create a foundation for characters to be made from. DMs are allowed to change the rules but they should change them base of the same foundation.


This is the problem created when the early editions didn't have clear rules for things and the later editions created bad rules for things.

 

[Connorsrpg]

My preference is to move away from the idea of 'powers' completely, but ingrain some of their uses in other ways.

So push backs, knocking prone, doing extra [W] damage, adding conditions can all be there, but they aren't a function of power.

Instead, give fighters a range of options and manuevers to perform (as mentioned early in the thread).

THEN a lot of these modifers/extras come in depending upon other choices. Some egs.

Weapon Chosen: hit with a certain type of weapon and this can also happen.

The actual roll: Certain effects take place on a crit. I would also like to see "raises" (like Savage Worlds) where you are rewarded for hitting with a higher number.

Magic Items could also be more interesting if they can add some of these effects.

HOW one gains access to these may be open to debate. Does everyone wielding a hammer get 'Knock Back' or just Fighters, or just Fighters that have taken Hammer Expertise, or only on a crit etc. (I don't have that answer right now, BUT I would rather see the many 'power effects' dispersed into other areas of the game).

 

[MoxieFu]

The problem that I have is that during the bathing someone switched babies on me. What I want in 5e is my original baby back.