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

[Libramarian]

Just a note. Most of the (non D&D) games that focus on "narrative awesome" are far less cumbersome than any D&D system, but hardly freeform. However, they often use mechanics which are a far cry from D&D (in rpg terms, anyway.) Although, strangely enough, I've seen a few of them used to "simulate" the D&D adventure "story". Weird, though.


P.S.
"Weak sauce" is far from a technical term, its (mildly) derogatory slang.
From the Urban Dictionary:
1) Paltry, insufficient, and laughable in effort
2) Something that is incredibly lame, weak, or uncool.
3) calling one "weak sauce" compares an individual to the "mild" sauce found at Taco Bell; weak, insignificant, attempting to be like the other hot sauces, but not living up to expectations.

A relatively brief search did not turn up any references to support your definition. I'd be interested to see how it evolved in this direction, since where I come from its somewhat insulting when used as you did above.

Apologies for sending you on a google goose chase. I was thinking of this Vincent Baker blog post that I believe LostSoul linked earlier in this forum.

anyway: Rules vs Vigorous Creative Agreement

 

[billd91]

So, any playstyle that doesn't match yours is badwrongfun? Just because you happen not to like it, doesn't make it "weaksauce".

Or, to use your term, "boring".

 

[Hussar]

Or, to use your term, "boring".

Hey, the proof is in the pudding. I asked how you managed to keep your 3e combats mobile several pages back, and no one responded. I can give pretty clear examples of how characters spam the same maneuver time after time after time.

Now, if you don't find spamming attacks to be boring, I guess that's a bit different. But, that doesn't change the fact that you're spamming attacks.

But, hey, I'm willing to be proven wrong here. In a ten round combat against a big dinosaur, how many different actions would your 3e character take? Or, was my idea of 5 rounds of full attack, 3 rounds of move and attack and 2 rounds of something else pretty accurate?

 

[Zustiur]

Hey, the proof is in the pudding. I asked how you managed to keep your 3e combats mobile several pages back, and no one responded. I can give pretty clear examples of how characters spam the same maneuver time after time after time.

Now, if you don't find spamming attacks to be boring, I guess that's a bit different. But, that doesn't change the fact that you're spamming attacks.

But, hey, I'm willing to be proven wrong here. In a ten round combat against a big dinosaur, how many different actions would your 3e character take? Or, was my idea of 5 rounds of full attack, 3 rounds of move and attack and 2 rounds of something else pretty accurate?

What you say is true, and there's really no denying it. The question boils down to whether we find it boring or not. I'd say for roughly half the participants in this thread, the answer is no.

On the flip side of that, in 4E, it doesn't really matter what you're up against, you use the same routine of 4-6 moves over and over again. The fact that encounter powers are 'always' better than basic attacks and at will attacks means that you'll use them up every encounter, whether their effects are appropriate to the situation or not.

In your Dino example; How many different actions would you take? 3 encounters, maybe a daily or 2, and then as many at-wills as it took to wear down its HP. Ok, so that's more varied than 9 rounds of 'full attack'. But what happens in the next battle? The same thing; 3 encounters, maybe a daily or 2, and then as many at-wills as it takes to finish everything off.

This of course is worst at low levels where you don't even have 3 encounter powers to keep it interesting. Fighting a solo at level 2 basically goes "Encounter, Daily, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will, At-Will".
I really don't see that being any better than 9 rounds of 'full attack'. It also takes longer to resolve in real time.
3E:
DM - Ok, fighter, your turn.
Fighter - I full attack, doing a total of 32 damage.
DM - Ok, got it. Next!
Then the next player has a turn,...
DM - Ok, my turn. The dino bites you each for 15 damage.


4E:
DM - Ok, fighter, your turn.
Fighter - I move over to there *points* using my 'move through threatened area utility power', then I attack with my encounter power. It does 32 damage and knocks the target prone.
DM - Ok, got it. record's prone in notes or tips over the miniature.. Next!
Then the next player has a turn,...
DM - Ok, my turn. The dino stands up and bites you each for 15 damage.

Even with players who know the rules and characters really well, the combats take longer. They're just more wordy. If cinematic combat is what you want; that's great. If cinematic combat isn't one of the things that draws you to the game, it's kind of frustrating.


There's another factor which hasn't really mean mentioned up to now;
In 3E, there's a very limited selection of things for martial characters to do, which makes balancing those attacks easy.
In 4E, there's a very long list of powers which differs for every martial class. This makes balancing those attacks difficult.
In all editions there's a long list of spells, and we know those have balance issues across the board.

I freely admit that I'm a power-gamer. In 4E I spend ages comparing my available powers at each level and picking the one that seems best. Usually I can rule out 1/3 of the powers from each level because they're blatantly underpowered by comparison with the power I end up picking. In 3E I don't behave the same way, and I don't find the same balance issues. I can't honestly see a 'powers for all classes' system working and not having those same balance issues.

 

[Hussar]

Even with players who know the rules and characters really well, the combats take longer. They're just more wordy. If cinematic combat is what you want; that's great. If cinematic combat isn't one of the things that draws you to the game, it's kind of frustrating.

Ahh, now there's a point I hadn't actually been considering to be honest. Food for thought.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Jameson Courage - nice fight scenes. I'd point out that the "multiple trips" is exactly what a close burst power by a martial character would look like. So, basically, this character has two close burst powers that allow him to trip/immobilize targets. Pretty easy peasy for a higher level martial character.

Yes, but how is having two encounter powers that do the same thing any less boring than using the same encounter power twice?

 

[billd91]

Hey, the proof is in the pudding. I asked how you managed to keep your 3e combats mobile several pages back, and no one responded. I can give pretty clear examples of how characters spam the same maneuver time after time after time.

Now, if you don't find spamming attacks to be boring, I guess that's a bit different. But, that doesn't change the fact that you're spamming attacks.

But, hey, I'm willing to be proven wrong here. In a ten round combat against a big dinosaur, how many different actions would your 3e character take? Or, was my idea of 5 rounds of full attack, 3 rounds of move and attack and 2 rounds of something else pretty accurate?

And to echo Zustiur, even if that breakdown is true, it doesn't matter if you don't find it boring. It can certainly be a question of style whether each of those similar attack breakdowns yield different descriptions and different reactions as well as different rolled results.

And Zustiur is right that there's definitely a lot of repetitiveness in 4e. There are plenty of complaints about spamming the at-wills once the encounters and dailies run out if the monster has got a lot of grind in him. So what's the difference? In games like D&D and PF, the use or non-use of special maneuvers, full attacks, etc isn't bound by an artificial structure rationing them out. The question of whether to spam or not to spam is a question of choice. I can spamalot... or not if I find doing so boring.

 

[TwoSix]

This narrative awesome of which you speak tastes distinctly like weak sauce*.

* A semi-technical term. Means stuff that could be achieved just as well if not better by freeform play.

Incorrect. This type of play tastes distinctively of aged brandy and caviar, while weaksauce carries a strong dose of chives.

 

[TwoSix]

This is an excellent goal.

I don't at all agree that the 4E power system achieves it.

First, if tripping someone is an encounter power, then you are saying that tripping becomes something that only happens as a climax. What about tripping someone in the middle of an encounter?

Second, this implies that you are back to "spamming" "at-wills" until that awesome moment.

Third, how can you use multiple encounter powers per encounter and have each one be an end of the book feeling?

Fourth, that "jump out of your chair" moment has been happening for me in games for decades. It worked in 1E and 2E, and Warhammer, and GURPS, and then in 3E and PF. I don't see how telling players their options are limited does anything to improve on what we already have.

It probably doesn't, because straight up 4e isn't really a narrative game. At least from my perspective.

I don't really see encounter powers as being anywhere close to a narrative climax. They're metagame constructs, pure and simple, designed to make non-magical combat more interesting. If you need a rationale, you're not getting one from me. I prefer Essentials styles martial classes myself.

As to tripping, tell me how you trip and I'll page 42 it. Seems straightforward enough.

Honestly, if I was house-ruling 4e, I'd simple make a power called "Special Attack" that everyone has, make it Str or Dex vs Ref, at-Will, with a Hit line that says you can either knock them prone, slow them, or have them grant CA till EONT.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It probably doesn't, because straight up 4e isn't really a narrative game. At least from my perspective.

I see 4E as essentially neutral on the question of a narrative game, with mild, active support for a certain slice of narrative combat. It won't do much to help you run such a game (or teach you how to do it), but it won't get in your way, either, if you already know how.

Last session, we had a minitaur fighter charge into some old, large doors to "bull rush" the doors onto some spider swarms. Then a couple of the other characters used their shields to roll around on the swarms. Meanwhile, the rogue was freaking out and stabbing, relatively ineffectively, because she is a precision character without much strength or option to hit a swarm. No doubt the drama was heightened by the fact that three of the players were ladies that are somewhat spider-adverse in real life. A simple description of thousands of spiders swarming all over the floors, ceilings, walls, pillars, etc. was enough to set the scene firmly in their minds. (If I ever had a swarm of cockroaches swarm my wife's character, she might have a heart attack. That's one place I've never gone. )

I could have run that scene in any version of D&D. There was nothing particular special about the build up that wouldn't have worked in Basic or AD&D or 3E well enough, though some of the assumptions in place from earlier sessions would have taken a bit more care. And of course the three players reactions to spiders was mainly them and prior build up from Fantasy Hero games. (Spiders and magical cats. Works every time. ) That part was, as I said, mildly easier in 4E.

Then in the combat, I could have adjudicated such actions in any version. What 4E brought to the table was p. 42 as a way to make such adjudication readily balanced (without much time or thought invested in it). More subtle, the serious competence of the characters in earlier scenes is what made this scene really click--and made the players desperately seek alternate means without any prompting from me. The only other time I've achieved that last part in D&D was when running "Killer D&D" in an early version. If I tried that in 3E, I'd probably kill the characters before they'd have time to feel so pressed (or have to fudge them out of being killed, which I don't care for either).

So encounter powers (and dailies) are not themselves that interesting, but they do set a framework and expectation that can make the interesting things more likely. If the rogue had been doing 1d4+1 all this time, or something similar, her "precision" would have been mere flavor, and getting half damage against swarms wouldn't have meant much either way. But because her "precision" is modeled in the combat engine, when it doesn't work, it creates pressure on the participants--all of them.

If the mere flavor is enough for someone, then the above is not likely to register as useful. It is not enough for me. I want some support from the mechanics that is inline with the flavor--or at the very least, not actively opposing it.