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

[Minigiant]

Because I can bully my family into whatever rule changes I feel, I am going to toy with a fatigue system. Essentially encounter powers cost a stamina point. Dailies cost a stamina point and a healing surge.


See I ever had a problem with martial daily attack really. I just thought they should come at some sort of physical peril. The focus to do Villains Menace gives you a headache that lasts all day. That choking maneuver strains your arms and gives you a penalty to Strength. But I am not going through the work of placing an appropriate penalty to each daily. So a simple HP or healing surge cost will suffice.

As for encounter martial attacks. These are just upgraded version of normal atwills. In Street Fighter terms, they are EX attacks. For one reason or another they only come out so many times a fight. In my 4e games, I already let players trade their stronger encountered powers for another use of a weaker one.

I am just so surprised that "Cast from HP" has never been tried as a core feature for weapon users.

 

[Li Shenron]

You know what breaks my suspension of belief. A system which allows you to use any trick you know at any time, no matter how situational that trick might be. Now I'm fine with requiring some sort of circumstance to come up at the table to allow me to use the more powerful powers. Whether that's derived from high dice rolls or from positioning is something I can compromise over. I will not compromise with a system that allows me to keep doing the same trick over and over again, regardless of how often the situation it might be useful in would come up in reality.

Maybe "having already used trick #3 once today" is a perfectly valid circumstance for you, but for me it's just self-defining, so I don't understand how dailies can support SoD better than at-wills.

And perhaps 4e has more situational stuff than 3e, I don't know... some stuff in 3e was situational: Sneak Attack, Cleave, anything that works with AoO... there are plenty of ways to make powers situational both reactive than proactive (the latter when you can work yourself towards creating such situation) without putting an arbitrary limit on how many times you can use them.

Then eventually the game needs to be careful not to create a minimum unavoidable complexity that is simply too high for average gamers, but this can be kept under control if most situational powers are chosen rather than automatically granted.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

How hard is it to make a nice list of combat actions that are not extremely complex, viable at all levels, and interesting.
Bullrush, distract, disarm, grapple, trip, throw, overrun, manyshot, two weapon attack, push, grab, power attack, cleave, shield bash, low blow..

Extremely hard. I know a lot of people like to think it's easy. But I can tell you that nearly every one of these actions in 3e was a waste of time. Because the problem with combat maneuvers like this is that you want to make each a valid option without making it the ONLY option.

I can tell you that I've seen many such systems where the creator said they were interesting and viable. Until I pointed out the math involved was horrible.

As an example: A monster had 50 hitpoints. You do 1d8+22 damage with an attack. You could do any of the above listed actions...however, the vast majority of them didn't do damage. You can defeat the monster in 2 rounds of "I attack" on average. Each round spent doing something that doesn't do damage is another round the combat lasts for and another round the enemy could be doing damage to you. I attack is a better option in 95% of situations.

The couple of the options that do damage are issues because it's hard to balance the fact that they give you extra damage. Power Attack, for instance, there is always a perfect number where the damage it gives you is worth the penalty you take to attacks. Any more or less than that and it's useless.

The same sort of thing applies to many other "take a penalty to attacks to do more damage" abilities. Depending on the AC of the target it is either a really bad idea to use them or a much better idea than using "I attack".

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

Not everyone is playing the same game. It is abundantly clear to me from reading these boards and from meeting other players that everyone who plays D&D is playing a different game than everyone else who is playing D&D. That's the nature of the business. Why pretend otherwise?

If the players don't correctly guess how the game is going to be played, there should be some opportunity for respec-ing, because that certainly does happen.

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.

Obviously it depends on the situation, but for any complaint that is primarily subjective (pain, nausea, etc.) I would absolutely expect different diagnoses from different doctors (especially if they are different specialties). If you try the same case in three different courts you'll get three different rulings. Objectivity is something of an illusion, regardless of what domain you're in. That's especially true in a fantasy roleplaying game.

Typical actions should get a typical response most of the time.

Really? I don't expect a typical response for even the most basic action. If I'm playing zombie horror, I expect that I can shoot and nail a zombie in the head reliably. If I'm playing CoC, I expect that I'll rarely if ever inflict harm on anything, even if I'm making an attack with the same bonus against a walking corpse. If I try to convince a guard to let me into a prison, his response depends very much on whether the game I'm playing is high adventure or hard realism. It all depends on style, on what kind of story you're telling.

 

[steeldragons]

My head swims with the array of positions, suggestions, questions, examples, et al. being presented here. Not saying, necessarily any of them are bad/wrong or good/right necessarily...but I am wondering if the "do it this edition's way or that edition's way...or this edition X with that edition's Y" vs. "I prefer that edition's X with this edition's Y and, thus, that's 'better'..." is really the way to try and approach this.

Taking a step back, and a deep breath, something occurred to me...

Could it, actually, be as simple as a "spell chart" of combat maneuvers?

Not really in a 4e sense/flavor of "powers" but...well...just here me out, and understanding this is all very much figments that are kinda coming and going, mulling over as I type....but here's what I'm thinking...

[numbers are all just purely speculative/for the purposes of example. We can start a new thread for what numbers are "right/good/fun" some other time. ]

Mages/Wizards have spells. They get their various spell slots in various spell levels. The effects/damage/duration/etc. of various spells increase over time as the mage increases in level. Magic missile does more damage and gains additional missiles, Invisibility lasts longer (unless interrupted) and/or, perhaps, covers a larger radius, etc. etc.

The 1st level Mage has: 3 0lvl "cantrips" & 1 1st level spell. At 3rd level, the Mage has 4 0lvl, 2 1st lvl, 1 2nd.

Same goes for Clerics and other spellcasting classes. Now, for Non-casters...these are not "one and done" things, like a spell would be, but a number of choices that the non-caster could have at their disposal, in their repertoire.

Thieves/Rogues have their Skills/Tricks/whatever you want to call them. They have their chart and their lists of choices...broken into varying levels of difficulty.

The 1st level Thief begins play with: 2 0 lvl "Tricks" and, maybe 2 1st lvl "Skills." Say, at 3rd level, the Thief has 3 0 lvl tricks, 3 1sts lvl Skills and 1 2nd level Skill.

Something like: 0 Level tricks: Pick Pockets/Sleight of Hand, Move Silently, "Word on the Street" (or some such for gathering info). 1st level Skills incorporate: Finding/Removing Traps, Hiding in Shadows, Sneak Attack, etc. 2nd level Skills might include things like Disguise, Forgery, "Spying", "Knife Fighter" or "Grenadier", etc.

These skills and tricks have their own chances for success, effects, bonuses to attacks, whatever it is the skill does, that scale with level as the Thief increases in XP. The number of skills available, similarly go up and achieve separate "levels"...just as a Mage's spell use.

But, as stated, in the case of the non-casters these aren't one-and-done as the supernatural magical stuff is, these are skills/tricks/moves the characters know and can use as appropriate.

So, for a Fighter...I dunno, call 'em "Maneuvers" or "Stances" or even just straight out "Attacks". As the Fighter increases level, the effects, duration, area/distance, movement, bonuses to hit and/or damage all go up as the Fighter increases level.

You'd start with, say, 4 0 lvl "Stances" and 1 or 2 1st lvl "Maneuvers". Gaining the tiers would probably go up faster than spell use, but you get the idea.

ALSO, for the non-casters, the slots would be able to be repeated/taken more than once to increase your bonuses/effect/whatever it is the maneuver done. So some might have the effect that "this skill provides a +1 to hit and increases +1 every other level of the Fighter." Others could be defined as "this skill allows a +1 to all melee attacks. This skill may be repeated as the Fighter trains to a maximum bonus of +4 (i.e. take this skill 4 times/use up to 4 slots on it)"

So a 3rd level fighter with, say 4 1st level maneuvers might have "been trained to" (i.e. "Player decided to take") Shield Bash, Trip Strike, and "Power Attack" twice -so their damage bonus goes up by 2 and the hit penalty decreases by 2 instead of the +/-1 that taking Power Attack as 1 slot allows you (or, basically, double however/whatever it is Power Attack gets defined)

A different "archer" fighter-type character might have taken "Running Shot" (to be able to fire and move at the same time), "Immobilizing-shot" and "Quick Change" (to stash their bow and draw their short sword, or vice versa, without loosing an attack, just purely as an example since I have no real understanding of how rounds/time is going to work at the moment).

Again, total spit balling...and I'm sure its full of holes and "bad/wrong/unfunness" for some...but it just seemed to be, particularly for the 'Balance-meisters" out there...if non-casters and casters have a similar gradual increase of power..with a similarly limited list of options (which can them be expanded to infinity and beyond with splat books, optional addition modules, Unearthed Arcana's, Complete Fighter-guy, and the like).

For starting play, I'd say you could even get away with as few as 10 per "level" of Spells/Skills/Stances.

But yeah, that's about all I have here. Carry on.
--SD

 

[Minigiant]

Extremely hard. I know a lot of people like to think it's easy. But I can tell you that nearly every one of these actions in 3e was a waste of time. Because the problem with combat maneuvers like this is that you want to make each a valid option without making it the ONLY option.

I can tell you that I've seen many such systems where the creator said they were interesting and viable. Until I pointed out the math involved was horrible.

As an example: A monster had 50 hitpoints. You do 1d8+22 damage with an attack. You could do any of the above listed actions...however, the vast majority of them didn't do damage. You can defeat the monster in 2 rounds of "I attack" on average. Each round spent doing something that doesn't do damage is another round the combat lasts for and another round the enemy could be doing damage to you. I attack is a better option in 95% of situations.

The couple of the options that do damage are issues because it's hard to balance the fact that they give you extra damage. Power Attack, for instance, there is always a perfect number where the damage it gives you is worth the penalty you take to attacks. Any more or less than that and it's useless.

The same sort of thing applies to many other "take a penalty to attacks to do more damage" abilities. Depending on the AC of the target it is either a really bad idea to use them or a much better idea than using "I attack".

That's a math issue. If you make damage and raw accuracy too powerful, that is all that will be used. Back damage dealing too weak and no one will go that route.

The problem with most designers and howebrewers is that they don't make the design goal and create the math at the same time. 3E is a quiick win game so anything that didnt win quickly or prevent a quick defeat was not optimal in combat. 4E was the opposite and favored "debuff, heal, destroy" (at least they had an idea how the game would be played and was sorta close). Poor playtesting and bad math ruins a lot of good ideas.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Extremely hard. I know a lot of people like to think it's easy. But I can tell you that nearly every one of these actions in 3e was a waste of time. Because the problem with combat maneuvers like this is that you want to make each a valid option without making it the ONLY option.

I can tell you that I've seen many such systems where the creator said they were interesting and viable. Until I pointed out the math involved was horrible.

As an example: A monster had 50 hitpoints. You do 1d8+22 damage with an attack. You could do any of the above listed actions...however, the vast majority of them didn't do damage. You can defeat the monster in 2 rounds of "I attack" on average. Each round spent doing something that doesn't do damage is another round the combat lasts for and another round the enemy could be doing damage to you. I attack is a better option in 95% of situations.

The couple of the options that do damage are issues because it's hard to balance the fact that they give you extra damage. Power Attack, for instance, there is always a perfect number where the damage it gives you is worth the penalty you take to attacks. Any more or less than that and it's useless.

The same sort of thing applies to many other "take a penalty to attacks to do more damage" abilities. Depending on the AC of the target it is either a really bad idea to use them or a much better idea than using "I attack".

How is this different? If the goal is to win, the wizard should be saying "I cast a spell", "I cast a spell", etc

A wizard spamming magic missiles at a monster with 50 hps, is not different (except in flavor and the fact that the wizard eventually can't anymore) from the fighter saying "I attack with my great sword"

 

[Hassassin]

But I can tell you that nearly every one of these actions in 3e was a waste of time.

At least trip and grapple are options that even with no feats are very useful in certain encounters. The former due to attacks of opportunity and loss of full action for the target. The latter because the target can't use many special attacks in grapple.

Additionally, trip and sunder allow you to attack against something else than the target's AC, which means they are sometimes useful as a last iterative attack or when you otherwise have a penalty to attack (e.g. tower shield, combat expertise or a condition).

The couple of the options that do damage are issues because it's hard to balance the fact that they give you extra damage. Power Attack, for instance, there is always a perfect number where the damage it gives you is worth the penalty you take to attacks. Any more or less than that and it's useless.

The same sort of thing applies to many other "take a penalty to attacks to do more damage" abilities. Depending on the AC of the target it is either a really bad idea to use them or a much better idea than using "I attack".

Theoretically, there's always a perfect action to take. However, even in the case of just power attack it isn't simple to know which it is. You don't always want to maximize your average damage. Against kobolds any damage is enough, so you just want to hit as often as possible. Against a strong enemy you may find yourself in an all-or-nothing situation, where you have to kill it this turn or you lose (and you don't know its hp).

(Of course, the same is true for any choices that don't affect your later choices. TWF vs. attack with main weapon only. This At-Will vs. that At-Will.)

 

[Hassassin]

Could it, actually, be as simple as a "spell chart" of combat maneuvers?

You left open the question of when those fighter maneuvers would be usable. Every one you pick can be used whenever? Once a day or encounter? That's the most critical question IMO.

 

[steeldragons]

You left open the question of when those fighter maneuvers would be usable. Every one you pick can be used whenever? Once a day or encounter? That's the most critical question IMO.

It seems to me they would/should be things are are able to be used whenever they want. Like a thief/rogue (the other half on the "non-caster" side of the scales) can use their skills whenever they want.
And even clerics and mages can use their non-spellcasting abilities as wanted...so, sure, let the fighters use what they have however they like.

If that's a problem, "balance wise" for people, then maybe they scale/gain new ones slower than spells...but I don't think that's what people really want.

But (in an attempt to waylay some expected position) because some powergamer might use that to say "I use my +3 Power Attack" all of the time/every attack they make isn't really an argument against it. That's great for them. Would be incredibly boring, after a while, I would think. But that's [fun for] them.

We can't/shouldn't be trying to make rules that "can't be broken." There's no such thing. There will always be loopholes and there will always be those types of players trying to find/take advantage of them.

Again, just throwing it all out there. I have very rarely played strictly "martial" noncaster characters myself. So what people "want" out of them in a 3e or 4e sense, despite all of the posts here, is something of a mystery to me.