D&D 4E 4E vs. Iron Heroes- per encounter abilities

[Sadrik]

There is going to be a big change in characters and how they interact with the game. Characters are going to be able to use a bunch of abilities no matter how many encounters they have during the day. Say, someone has five per encounter abilities (or however many it turns out to be). They get to fire them off the first chance they get. During the first five rounds of combat the character will never really do just an attack. I can totally see the term "attack routine"- meaning the order of which special powers the character is going to use in a combat. Guessing in the powers, it will work along these lines- round 1: focus for a bonus to hit, round 2: powerattack, drop the opponent use a swift cleave, round 3: wallup an opponent etc. It may become overly predictable and static.

In Iron Heroes, characters did not get all of their per encounter abilities immediately, they had to build them up. So for instance, the archer takes the aim action to watch an opponent and get Aim points then spends his Aim points on his archery powers to get bonuses. The Berserker gets fury points by taking damage, the weapon master gets weapon points to duel an opponent and the hunter gets tactical points by watching the battlefield (btw- this class will likely be like the new warlord). So, with it like this every character is trying to develop their points so they can spend them on their special powers. I think I like this much better because the characters are trying to managing their resource by the flow of the battle rather than arbitrarily when a battle begins they get all per encounter abilities- period.

Should character get all of their per-encounter ability at the start of every combat?

 

[PatheticWretch]

That's an interesting possiblity, but I don't think it will happen.

The reason is, every combat is so different. Each combat will have different opponents with various special abilities, different terrain to maneuver around, and different chaos to manage.

I think it would be pretty difficult to execute an "attack routine" for each battle. Round 2, you want to power attack your opponent, but the ranger killed him, he moved out of range, he used one of his special abilities on you, the trap nailed you, etc. No plan survives contact with the enemy, that type of thing.

 

[Dragonblade]

While the token system is cool, I don't like it from the DM side of the screen. Its just too much to keep track of especially when running a large combat with multiple high level NPCs.

 

[ruleslawyer]

You shouldn't need to be using tokens from the DM's side of the screen. The IH villain classes are specifically designed to fill the necessary PC-equivalent niches while NOT using complicated elements, including tokens.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Well, they said action points would be core, but would not do what we used to...you might be on to something with this.

 

[Slander]

I liked the IH system as well, but in terms of streamlining play I can see why they chose not to go that route. The Bo9S mechanics for managing special powers/maneuvers are simpler than managing tokens.

However, there is going to be (... well, supposed to be) a bigger focus on doing things other than damage. I'd hope a good portion of the powers PCs get would be oriented towards inflicting various statuses on foes, moving them around the field, etc. And if that's the case, I can't imagine it would be to your advantage to use those powers ASAP instead of waiting until you and your team can maneuver to make the most of those abilities.

Now that said, barring holding maneuvers for expected reinforcements, I would imagine that all damage dealing PEAs will be used pretty early on if not right away. I think there was even a designer blog that said as much.

 

[Gundark]

You shouldn't need to be using tokens from the DM's side of the screen. The IH villain classes are specifically designed to fill the necessary PC-equivalent niches while NOT using complicated elements, including tokens.

mostly true, however you could have NPCs take feat chains which used tokens.

 

[TerraDave]

the new edition has the "bloodied" condition that will, from what I know, allow for certain actions when you take enough damage.

But someone at WotC blogged that he used his best per encounter thing first. And in a thread on that, someone noted that in SAGA, use of per-encounter abilities did tend to be pretty predictable. (EDIT, from this thread)

 

[Greg K]

I really wish the designers of 4e would go with the Book of Iron Might approach to maneuvers. No tokens. No B09S lame names or lame maneuvers like healing someone by scoring a crit, and no limitations on attempting a maneuver one round after another other play choice due to a maneuver's riskiness (BAB penalties, drawing AO's, opponent's save negates effect, etc.)

 

[Odhanan]

While the token system is cool, I don't like it from the DM side of the screen. Its just too much to keep track of especially when running a large combat with multiple high level NPCs.

That's why in IH you have Villain Classes. From what I understand the "Villain roles" described for 4E might be similar to Villain Classes, that is, some sort of templates depending on the specific role a monster has during the encounter.