D&D 4E Find the Anime/Video games in 4e

[Doug McCrae]

Keeping track of wealth (at the individual coin level), encumbrance and supplies such as arrows and rations is videogame-y. The bad kind, because it works much better in videogames, where the computer can keep track of all that stuff for you, than it does in face-to-face games, where it's just a PitA.

 

[Henry]

I've said straight out that concepts like respec-ing and per encounter very well likely came from video games, as well as many newer mechanics.

But the argument most people tote around is that d&d is becoming too hack and slash like video games when it was d&d that was hack and slash to begin with. It was the players that turned it from a hack and slash tatical squad based game to a true roleplaying game. Then in response the designers started building the game around that.

As in a lot of these discussions, the opinions of all people on a given side of an issue are often puréed by into one opinion shared by all of them, when it isn't the case. I've always preferred about a 50% mixture of hack & slash Vodka in my D&D Screwdriver. But by its nature I also don't like where the "per encounter" of Saga takes the game as opposed to a more Vancian system, or even preferably a slow-regenerating points system.

As for styles of play, that is your opinion that they become invalid, and I see it as a false statement to begin with. Name a style of play that is now invalid with saga and maybe I can see what you mean. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on with this statement.

One style that's gone: Holding back resources so that you can have something in reserve when fighting something tougher later on. In our Saga games our players have fallen into a pattern. The Jedi will ALWAYS, ALWAYS without fail open with Move Object, Force Grip, or Force Slam (depending on who chose what power suite) and move on to lesser powers. It doesn't matter if they're fighting Storm Troopers, maimed Mynocks, or A SITH LORD, it's 1,2,3 by the numbers; the Robin Laws-ian "method actors" or "story tellers" might change it up if they're bored, but it's rare. Instead of debating whether to use a resource, they use it up because they don't know or care if it's the first of 5 fights that day, or the first and only fight that day. It doesn't matter -- they have no reason to be combat-ineffective.

Another style: Finding it necessary to rest before tackling a bad guy. I ran at least two games where they either started off hurt and on the run, or completely tapped out of hit points and in chains. They went from 1 hit point to all six of them being at half hit points within 6 hours, and able to kick major butt. Even the Soldier was only slightly less combat effective with a tree branch spear with a burned tip-point than he was normally. To be honest, they probably could have taken on the opposition with about 1 minute of rest, because they second-winded and recovered and jedi-healed to a pretty good strength anyway. The only time they're NOT at full power is in the middle of combat rounds, and I don't really want wall-to-wall 25-round combats just to give them a little challenge -- which it what I've had to do.

Another style: having low-level characters fight their way through low-level opponents and be crafty and clever in tackling their enemies, before they graduate to tackling tougher foes. A first level Jedi can Take down a Clone ARC trooper (the "special forces" troopers) with a move object or force grip like he was a spacer thug.

This works for Star Wars, as I said; but for me, it doesn't work for D&D, because all of those used to be viable play styles in the years I've played. I'm glad if it does end up bringing more people to the table in the long run instead of to the MMORP guilds, but it is one style of play I've seen as either not viable, or very, very difficult to emulate. Any counter examples of being able to emulate this style of play in Saga Edition, short of changing the rules, are welcome.

 

[The Little Raven]

One style that's gone: Holding back resources so that you can have something in reserve when fighting something tougher later on.

That's not necessarily true. You still have per-day abilities, which are your big guns. Now, do you use it on the goblin warband you're having trouble against, or do you wait until you get into the goblin fortress and face the warchief? It's just that instead of that being the ONLY option available (which it was before the addition of classes like the warlock), they've got other things so that you aren't immediately dipping into your rarest resource first, and bringing the action to a halt because you've run out of big guns and need to rest or had to resort to many rounds of wasting crossbow bolts because you're saving spells (some of which you might never get around to using).

Any counter examples of being able to emulate this style of play in Saga Edition, short of changing the rules, are welcome.

This isn't a very fair qualifier, since we know 4e has per-day abilities, while Saga does not. In order to emulate the per-day ability, you would have to change the rules, since per-day abilities do not exist in the rules. So, if this is your qualifier, there is no way to successfully meet this challenge.

 

[Henry]

This isn't a very fair qualifier, since we know 4e has per-day abilities, while Saga does not.

Since bonethug and I were both talking about Saga Edition, it's completely fair. I don't know about 4E, but in Saga there's NO reason to hold back. Another Example: in 3.5, Book of 9 Swords, there's no reason to hold back anything. Again, same reason -- all maneuvers, all the time.

Now, in 4E, if Daily abilities are a significant part of a character's power, then it's a different story. If they aren't (one quote a few months back suggested they're about "20% of a character's power"?) then the argument still stands. Why hold it back whether there's a boss fight near or not? You might not get a chance to use it that day if you don't meet the boss, so fire at will, anyway! The only thing I could see holding back is something not immediately useful, like Teleport or Plane Shift...

...and even then, when I got back to town I'd probably teleport across the bar to get my drink, just to impress the peasants...

 

[The Little Raven]

Since bonethug and I were both talking about Saga Edition, it's completely fair. I don't know about 4E, but in Saga there's NO reason to hold back. Another Example: in 3.5, Book of 9 Swords, there's no reason to hold back anything. Again, same reason -- all maneuvers, all the time.

It's a matter of design intention. Star Wars is about replicating cinematic encounters from the movies, which show a lack of dependence on real time-keeping. It doesn't matter whether the Death Star bombing encounter takes place on the same day as the Death Star rescue encounter, so SWSE doesn't worry about timekeeping on the level that D&D does. In D&D, this is much more important, because D&D tries to do different things than Star Wars.

Now, in 4E, if Daily abilities are a significant part of a character's power, then it's a different story. If they aren't (one quote a few months back suggested they're about "20% of a character's power"?) then the argument still stands. Why hold it back whether there's a boss fight near or not? You might not get a chance to use it that day if you don't meet the boss, so fire at will, anyway!

Then it seems like per-day powers are the issue, not per-encounter ones. No matter what you do with the system, when you have per-day encounters, you always have the risk of "Do I blow it before we need it, use it when we actually need it, or let it go to waste by being over-cautious about my resources?" I don't see how this can ever change when you have per-day abilities thrown into the mix, whether they are the ONLY options available (3e and earlier) or just one of a group of options available (4e and beyond).

...and even then, when I got back to town I'd probably teleport across the bar to get my drink, just to impress the peasants...

Show off!

 

[Henry]

Then it seems like per-day powers are the issue, not per-encounter ones. No matter what you do with the system, when you have per-day encounters, you always have the risk of "Do I blow it before we need it, use it when we actually need it, or let it go to waste by being over-cautious about my resources?" I don't see how this can ever change when you have per-day abilities thrown into the mix, whether they are the ONLY options available (3e and earlier) or just one of a group of options available (4e and beyond).

I'm not sure i see the reasoning there; when it's your main power, then whether you waste it or not is important, because that way you always have some power no matter what goes on; if it's a drop in the bucket of the rest of your powers, however, it doesn't matter when you use it, so why not blow it out with the rest of your powers?

Show off!

I used to have a magic-user who lit wood-burning stoves with fireballs - claimed it always made the fire last longer. It did - because the DM usually ruled it set the house on fire.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm not sure i see the reasoning there; when it's your main power, then whether you waste it or not is important, because that way you always have some power no matter what goes on; if it's a drop in the bucket of the rest of your powers, however, it doesn't matter when you use it, so why not blow it out with the rest of your powers?

I could respond to this in a couple ways, but I want to get some clarification first, so we're on the same page.

First off, what do you mean by "drop in the bucket?" Are you talking about the quantity of powers (drop in the bucket compared to the amount of things you can do), or the quality of them (drop in the bucket compared to the strength of things you can do)? If it's quantity, I definitely do not agree, because having more options available at one time doesn't make your single use of fly (an example) any less important. If it's quality, then I'm confused as to why you'd suggest that a per-day power is less powerful (and thus important) than a per-encounter one.

Secondly, I don't really see how having per-encounter abilities makes your per-day abilities less important. It's still your big-shebang, your ace-in-the-hole, and still requires you to make the decision whether to use it now (with death possibly staring you in the face) or save it for later. Having weaker spells you can use more regularly doesn't change it's importance in my mind. Could you explain further?

 

[Henry]

I could respond to this in a couple ways, but I want to get some clarification first, so we're on the same page.

First off, what do you mean by "drop in the bucket?" Are you talking about the quantity of powers (drop in the bucket compared to the amount of things you can do), or the quality of them (drop in the bucket compared to the strength of things you can do)? If it's quantity, I definitely do not agree, because having more options available at one time doesn't make your single use of fly (an example) any less important. If it's quality, then I'm confused as to why you'd suggest that a per-day power is less powerful (and thus important) than a per-encounter one.

I'm thinking more of "quality" than "quantity." and I'm suggesting it because of the "20% of a character's total power" quote from a few months back I heard. If a character gets the equivalent of "fireball" all day, but "Acid Orb" once a day, there's no harm, no foul in ditching that Acid Orb on the first group of peons you see, because there's little that the fireball won't do.

Secondly, I don't really see how having per-encounter abilities makes your per-day abilities less important. It's still your big-shebang, your ace-in-the-hole, and still requires you to make the decision whether to use it now (with death possibly staring you in the face) or save it for later. Having weaker spells you can use more regularly doesn't change it's importance in my mind. Could you explain further?

I don't see it as your "big shebang" if you can still go all day without it. "Big shebang and ace in the hole" to me implies about half your power, not a fifth of it. Now, if I'm wrong on that quote, I'll feel better. (I need to look it up in the old news.) But if I'm not, then you're just as good with it, as without it, pretty much.

 

[The Little Raven]

If a character gets the equivalent of "fireball" all day, but "Acid Orb" once a day, there's no harm, no foul in ditching that Acid Orb on the first group of peons you see, because there's little that the fireball won't do.

That only works based on the idea that your Acid Orb is not substantially better than Fireball. If that fireball is only a 1d6, then your 10d6 Acid Orb is still far better, and something to be used more effectively than just torching the first group of peons you come across. If they're closer in power, to where that "acid orb" is basically a "fireball plus 1d6 more damage," I can see the issue.

Just because a cleric might have an at-will ability to heal minor damage (say, 1d8) or a per-encounter ability to heal moderate damage (say, 5d8) doesn't mean that his per-day heal (heal all but 1d4 hp) is less important, or strategically unimportant.

I don't see it as your "big shebang" if you can still go all day without it. "Big shebang and ace in the hole" to me implies about half your power, not a fifth of it. Now, if I'm wrong on that quote, I'll feel better. (I need to look it up in the old news.) But if I'm not, then you're just as good with it, as without it, pretty much.

I think we're working from an entirely different definition of "ace-in-the-hole."

Ace in the Hole is a slang expression meaning a secret or extra asset to assure success, referring to the ace playing card a player has as a hole card (or face down card) in a game of stud poker.

This definition doesn't say anything about it being a regular part of your arsenal for success, but rather an extra special component that assures success (like a super-damaging per-day spell, as opposed to the moderate damage of your per-encounter or at-will abilities).

 

[Henry]

This definition doesn't say anything about it being a regular part of your arsenal for success, but rather an extra special component that assures success (like a super-damaging per-day spell, as opposed to the moderate damage of your per-encounter or at-will abilities).

Except that in most stories, the protagonist's "ace in the hole" is the trick that saves their butts from failure, instead of just a little better. No way to know until it gets here, but I'm hoping it's worth a darn, instead of being that "drop in the bucket" I'm imagining.