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

[Crazy Jerome]

The inherent problem with the "simple list of maneuvers" is that they are either lousy (and not much used) or potentially overpowered. It is a very fine line. No one writing the 3E feats expected a "trip monkey" archetype to emerge.

When you throw in simulation and fantasy narrative concerns, it gets even more complex. Disarming and tripping are often much more difficult than projected, but not as difficult as the baseline needs to be set. So "make it lousy by default but work just super with a single feat choice" is functionally 99% the same as "you have an at-will power that codifies that you can now do this--or you don't do it." Characters who have mechanical widget X do it a lot, and those that don't have X, don't do it at all. Whereas both the simulation and fantasy narrative approaches are more along the lines of "comes up occasionally and the trained character pounces" (simulation) or "arises occasionally in the story, and the character does something dramatic" (fantasy narrative). Neither of those address the "grit to wahoo" scale, either.

So my best suggestion is that the base maneuvers be codified as such, for anyone to use, but that all of them be so codified as universally lousy options. Trying to "disarm" all the time IS a terribly lousy option. Then on top of this, build several alternate means to make the options more palatable by giving enhancements to the base:

• High grit - if you don't have some kind of huge situational bonus, the options remain lousy.
• Situational by training - characters have abilities that improve the odds when that situation comes up.
• Situational by fiction - a lot like the previous, but see Lost Soul's reply above.
• ADEU powers grant you bonuses to the base maneuvers.
• You can take feats, 3E style, which do make the options very nice, and presumably govern overuse by other means (or don't mind it).
• The lousy base is the worst it can get. Use a powerpoint/fatigue system to start out about as good as normal attacks, but regress to the lousy base as your points run out.

The nasty problems only enter when someone wraps up the "thing that makes this palatable" and the "base nature of the thing" all in one easy package--whether 3E feats or 4E powers or presumed fatigue system or whatever. Split those out separately, and you can have an easy distinction between:

• What anyone can do, anytime, versus,
• What some people can do well, sometime.

 

[Rampaging Lawn Gnome]

OK, I'm going to take a stab at fleshing out FireLance's idea.

On a (natural) roll of 16+, if that roll would hit your target, you strike a Mighty Blow. On a (natural) roll of 20+, if that roll would hit your target, you instead score a Critical Hit.

A Mighty Blow or Critical Hit lets you choose an effect to add to the normal consequence of your hit. Some choices are available to all characters; other Mighty and Critical options become available based on your race, class or level.

Examples of Mighty Blow:
Push 1 square; you may follow up if you wish.
Knock prone
Blood in eyes: target gets -2 to attack next round.
Extra damage
Disarm; weapon is on the ground.
A different adjacent opponent takes your STR in damage.

Examples of Critical Hit:
Push (1/2 level) squares and knock prone; you may follow up.
Disarm; if you have a free hand, you now have the weapon; otherwise it falls in a square of your choice within 5 squares.
Lots of extra damage
Make another attack against the same or a different target.

And here's an interesting way to use class features with this system:
Rogues are limited to light weapons, but they score a Mighty Blow on a 14+
Fighters can choose two Mighty Blow effects on a roll of 18 or 19.
Wizards who roll a Mighty Blow against one target of a multi-target spell can apply an effect to all targets; it must be the same effect.

Rather than the riders taking effect on a certain die roll (16-18 e.g.), perhaps tie it to exceeding the target's defense by a certail score:

beat target defense by 2 or more = class A rider
beat target defense by 5 or more = class B rider
etc.

Also, maybe some riders need to meet certain requirements:
target has to be marked
target has to be bloodied/unbloodied
attacker must have advantage

The end result may be that in order to trip an opponent, the opponent must be marked, the attacker needs advantage, and the opponents defense was beat by 5. And they need legs.

Just brainstorming the idea.

One pitfall to this system would be that the player would have a high incentive to max their primary stat if riders depend on hitting the opponent.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Has anyone here looked at the codex martialis? I imagine that is something that will satisfy many of you!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Rather than the riders taking effect on a certain die roll (16-18 e.g.), perhaps tie it to exceeding the target's defense by a certail score

...

One pitfall to this system would be that the player would have a high incentive to max their primary stat if riders depend on hitting the opponent.

In a homebrew system (not at all D&D-ish), we had a lot of fun with a separate die for the rider effects, rolled with the attack dice. In that system, it was 2d10 for attacks, and a d6 for the riders. The rider table had effects ranging from results of 1-10, with the first four being "nothing", but very high attack results or situational modifiers gave bonuses to the rider roll. It is fairly fast in practice, because most attacks have no riders, and this is readily apparent from the results. You only care about the exact rider result when it is possible to get 5 or higher on that result.

With the d20 as the attack die, you could also set the rider as a d8 by default, then bump the die size up or down a notch or two depending upon character capabilities, attack chosen, anything known at the time of the attack roll.

Doing something like that might make "attack exceed target by 10" acceptable, because set conservatively enough, you'd only care when the rider die was high enough for it to matter.

 

[Quickleaf]

Has anyone here looked at the codex martialis? I imagine that is something that will satisfy many of you!

That's the system with a dice pool of d20s right? I read a couple reviews that it was great but also quite a bit more complex than I wanted. But the dice pool system seemed really well done.

So it seems like the heart of this thread is about retaining cool maneuvers while jettisoning the AEDU system for martial characters. After reading this thread I made a list of "alternative recharge options" presented by other posters.

* No "recharge", just maneuvers list and feats to offset penalties (a la 3e/PF)
* Fatigue/Exhaustion
* Narrative Setup/Requirement [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]
* High Roll Add-Ons [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] (a la Savage World)
* Dice Pool [MENTION=51168]MichaelSomething[/MENTION] (a la Codex Martialis)

Maybe you all could point out any which I've overlooked? This thread has grown incredibly fast in just a day so I may have missed some while speed reading thru it.

In the way of adding something new, here's a wild thought which kind of branches off the "Fatigue" concept... What if warrior types could spend Hit Points (or healing surges if those are in the game) to accomplish more powerful moves? It's kind of simplistic, but it falls in line with the point of martial powers being to avoid combat becoming an attrition slugfest. The fighter might have the option of speeding things up dramatically with a 5 dice attack, but he's making himself vulnerable to do so. It's appealing because it provides an immediately clear risk vs. reward option. OTOH if it costs HP and HP are a daily resource then maybe it wouldn't see much use unless the benefits were really strong.

Actually my idea might be better to model barbarian rage...

I kinda like the idea of different classes having different methods for pulling off strong moves. For example, the rogue might require "advantage", perhaps pulled off in a way that resembles [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] 's suggestion. The barbarian might trade HP for super damaging moves or rages. The fighter might have upgradable stances using a maneuver list & feats, as well as rider effects on high rolls with weapon attacks as [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] suggests.

 

[BobTheNob]

To caveat what I said earlier: I want AEDU, but it is neither necessary nor advisable for it to be core, because I also understand they want to appeal to 3.x gamers who hate it to death.

But I want it to be an option out the gate, and I would like it to be equally supported in terms of quality and testing.

Dont assume its 3e players that hate it to death. Im a 4e player that hates it to death!

 

[SteveC]

Either I don't understand this, or it makes no sense to me...

What do you mean, to be creative?

If you mean that you can freely come up with a new combat trick anytime you want, this is not what you can do in 3ed and it is also not what you can do with 4ed powers. In 3ed there's a bunch of non-standard combat options available to everyone, some of which however are penalized; to remove the penalty and make them good, and also for more combat tricks, you need to gain your feats. In 4ed you need to gain your powers. There's no difference between the editions in terms of "creativity", because you must have picked up those class features before you can use those combat tricks, you can't just come up and ask the DM to let you do something that feats or powers do if you didn't get them when levelling up.

I think this is the problem here: there's nothing in any edition of the D&D rules that tells you to play this way. Where did you ever get this notion? In 4E I'd direct you to page 42 for some pretty good rules on doing this, but I certainly allowed people to try things in earlier editions as well. I'm surprised that you have this attitude... where does it come from?

 

[LostSoul]

I think there are two different levels that they should design combat for.

The most basic should be a very abstract version - maybe not one-minute rounds, but still pretty abstract. B/X would be the baseline here: you have a few combat options, like melee, charge, ranged attacks (details about firing into melee if possible), withdraw, and casting spells. Turn-based initiative.

It would be too abstract to get into details like disarming or even knocking someone prone. HP would cover a lot of that ground.

The design goal would be for quick real-time resolution and a drain on adventure-scope resources (HP, spells).

They should also include a more detailed combat system where each character's action is 6 seconds. What your character is actually doing is important here.

The design goal would be to make sure that players have interesting tactical choices that change round-by-round while adventure and encounter-based resources would be drained.

I personally feel that if we're going to get into detailed choices we might as well remove abstraction, that is, the system would care about what your character is actually doing in the game's fiction. e.g. If you have the ability to knock someone prone, the system would care about how you actually achieve that effect instead of using an abstract to-hit roll + choice of power.

But that's just me.

 

[FireLance]

Here's another option which might fulfil both the tactical and power aspect of the AEDU system while maintaining approximate (though not exact) balance: have a system of setup strikes.

Maybe you have your basic attack, and three basic setup strikes:

1. Reckless strike (-2 to your AC)
2. Precision strike (-2 to your attack roll)
3. Trick strike (-4 to your damage roll)

However, if you hit with your setup strike, your opponent could then become vulnerable to specified second-tier attack in the next round (different setup strikes would "open up" different second-tier attacks). The effects of these second-tier attacks should be fairly significant: it's pointless to take a -4 penalty to damage in one round just to gain +1[W] damage in the next, for example.

Alternatively, if you have a system of at-will attacks so that your standard action attacks already do more than a basic attack, you need not take any penalty to the setup strikes, but the only additional benefit you get from them is to make the target vulnerable to a second-tier attack.

Hitting with a second-tier attack could also make the target vulnerable to specified third-tier attacks in the next round, and these can be where the really nasty effects come in: massive damage bonuses, stunning, maybe even death effects. Again, different second-tier attacks would open up different third-tier attacks. Really nasty third-tier attacks could have relatively weaker setup and second-tier attacks leading up to it.

Probability-wise, assuming a base hit rate of about 50%, a fighter would have a 1 in 8 chance of chaining up to a third-tier attack in three rounds, and this probability could be improved with combat advantage and other attack bonuses. While this might look (too?) good, remember that other characters would be attacking the opponents as well, and some opponents may not survive to be affected by a third-tier attack, or a third-tier attack might be overkill (even a normal attack would have been enough to finish off the opponent).

Still, this might not be all bad - it would make the fighter perform better against elite and solo opponents, and really make his third-tier attacks seem like finishing moves. Some might consider this to be a feature, not a bug.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's another option which might fulfil both the tactical and power aspect of the AEDU system while maintaining approximate (though not exact) balance: have a system of setup strikes.

Maybe you have your basic attack, and three basic setup strikes:

1. Reckless strike (-2 to your AC)
2. Precision strike (-2 to your attack roll)
3. Trick strike (-4 to your damage roll)

I like the idea of set-up strikes, but there's a possible issue depending on how they are defined: do these set-up strikes work the same way against all opponents? e.g. How do you do a trick strike against a "mindless" creature, like an ooze?

I think you want to make sure that whatever options you bring in accurately reflect what's happening in the game world. It can be difficult to create rules that carry all that weight on their own.