D&D 4E Forked Thread: Some Thoughts on 4e

[KarinsDad]

What I dont understand is why you dont just implement some simple changes that shifts the game in the direction you like (or just use 3ed rules if they worked better for you). At least in my gaming circles D&D have always been somewhat houseruled. From game to game and DM to DM there was always something that just didn't fit the preferences of those involved. IMO 4e is easier to house rule than any other version of D&D.

The reason I don't implement house rules is that I am not the DM.

However, our DM did implement two house rules to handle the issues of: a) running out of healing surges and having to hole up for the day, and b) lack of spell casting versatility.

The house rules are: a) a PC can use an Action Point to get back 1/4 of his healing surges, and b) a PC can use an Action Point to re-use an Encounter or Daily power.

The latter rule does allow my PC to do heroic things like Dimension Door to a location to save a fellow PC or some such, and then Dimension Door back out again on the next round. Something that I would enjoy doing. It's not always possible to move to a fellow PC in combat on foot.

The DM did not say so, but I think the standard one action point can be used per encounter is still in effect for these house rules.

I did suggest a house rule for using minor rituals in combat at a cost, but the DM has not agreed to those yet.

And the only other major thing bugging fellow players is the Skill Challenge system. The DM has not addressed that yet.

 

[Benimoto]

Except that you can't actually get away from the fighter. If you shift, he possibly hits you and you've moved one square. If you move, he almost certainly hits you and you've moved one square.

The fighter does not "almost certainly hit you". Monsters are not always being flanked, fighters do not always have good Wisdom scores, or even always good to-hit rolls, and many monsters have high ACs.

It has nothing to do with "afraid to be hit" and everything to do with "why be hit for no benefit?" Skirmishers and controllers frequently have ways to move themselves or the defender, as do many higher level extraplanar entities. but once a soldier or brute is next to a fighter, the price of trying to get away tends to be too high much of the time.

This interaction does not take place in a vacuum. There are typically multiple monsters in the fight, which means that the fighter will not always pursue a moving target. So even shifting one square can sometimes get a monster into a better position. Monsters can shift and then charge, or even move and then charge, and their basic attack is often their only attack, so there is very little cost there. Even in the worst case scenario, where the monster has to spend its whole turn getting away from the fighter, all it is giving up is an AO/CC attack from the fighter and a chance to hit the fighter.

Defenders, even if they have multiple enemies marked, can typically only use their defender features (combat challenge/aegis/paladin thing) once per round, so multiple enemies can sometimes time their turns so that the only one who suffers is the one best equipped to take it. Fighters can only make one AO per turn, and monsters have multiple move actions (or even one move and one charge action) so a monster can always get away if it doesn't mind the chance of getting hit.

When I DM, tactically I find that the combats are more dramatic and more interesting if the monsters behave in risky and unexpected ways. In other words, when the monsters behave in risk-averse ways, they get locked down by the "sticky" defenders, everyone else fulfills their role in combat, things become static, and victory becomes a fait accompli. When the monsters act risky, desperate and aggressive (as I feel they should, or why are they even in this fight?) then it's easy to see how a less optimal dynamic can develop. The slow defender will have to be chasing monsters around, and can often only tie up one at a time. The strikers will be getting hit more, and using more of their movement-related powers. The leaders will be in melee more and using their healing on the non-defenders, where it is less effective. The controllers may be running for their lives, or at the very least, burning resources on defense.

In other words, in my experience, when monsters behave in a riskier fashion, including drawing more attacks from the defenders, they can force the players to burn through more resources. They are effectively more dangerous. As a DM, that is what I want. Thus, fighters in my campaigns frequently get AOs and get to use their combat challenge.

 

[James McMurray]

The fighter does not "almost certainly hit you". Monsters are not always being flanked,

True, but the statement that spawned this discussion and has driven it is about a monster flanked by a fighter and a ranger. Not that most fighters need combat advantage to hit with an OA.

fighters do not always have good Wisdom scores, or even always good to-hit rolls, and many monsters have high ACs.

Again, perhaps it's our min-maxing at fault, but I have never seen a fighter with a bad Wisdom. You're absolutely right that some fighters won't have a good wisdom score, but since they've partially opted out of the defender game by doing that, they probably don't hold much weight in a defender discussion.

Which "many monsters" have high ACs? Elites and Solos sure, but most monsters start at the 50% hit zone and go down from there.

This interaction does not take place in a vacuum. There are typically multiple monsters in the fight, which means that the fighter will not always pursue a moving target. So even shifting one square can sometimes get a monster into a better position. Monsters can shift and then charge, or even move and then charge, and their basic attack is often their only attack, so there is very little cost there. Even in the worst case scenario, where the monster has to spend its whole turn getting away from the fighter, all it is giving up is an AO/CC attack from the fighter and a chance to hit the fighter.

Right, it's giving up almost its entire turn and ability to do any damage that round in the hopes that the fighter won't or can't follow. Sure, that's a good idea some of the time. But it's not the default situation, which is all I'm saying. If you're talling me that sometimes it's ok to walk away from a fighter, then I agree. If you're telling me that it's always a good idea, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Defenders, even if they have multiple enemies marked, can typically only use their defender features (combat challenge/aegis/paladin thing) once per round, so multiple enemies can sometimes time their turns so that the only one who suffers is the one best equipped to take it.

True. But we were talking about one monster being flanked by two characters.

Fighters can only make one AO per turn, and monsters have multiple move actions (or even one move and one charge action) so a monster can always get away if it doesn't mind the chance of getting hit.

True again. But in most situations (atleast most I've seen) "hit me please, so I can use the rest of my turn hoping you won't chase me" is a bad idea. Not always, but usually.

When I DM, tactically I find that the combats are more dramatic and more interesting if the monsters behave in risky and unexpected ways. In other words, when the monsters behave in risk-averse ways, they get locked down by the "sticky" defenders, everyone else fulfills their role in combat, things become static, and victory becomes a fait accompli.

This holds only partially true for our games. Victory is almost never guaranteed, even if everyone fulfills their roles perfectly. Monsters that choose not to die earlier make that possible by using their abilities more often. Monsters that die after a round and a half because they ignore their opponents' capabilities do nothing to make a battle exciting for me.

In other words, in my experience, when monsters behave in a riskier fashion, including drawing more attacks from the defenders, they can force the players to burn through more resources. They are effectively more dangerous. As a DM, that is what I want. Thus, fighters in my campaigns frequently get AOs and get to use their combat challenge.

We obviously have different games then, because when monsters at our table give people free damage, they die faster and the party expends a lot fewer resources. Fighters in our games only get OAs and use CC when it makes sense for the situation.

In either case though, the fighter is doing his job, since he's either keeping the enemy off the squishies, or killing them sooner with his free attacks. Different style, same outcome. so it's all good.

 

[Benimoto]

Right, it's giving up almost its entire turn and ability to do any damage that round in the hopes that the fighter won't or can't follow. Sure, that's a good idea some of the time. But it's not the default situation, which is all I'm saying. If you're talling me that sometimes it's ok to walk away from a fighter, then I agree. If you're telling me that it's always a good idea, we'll have to agree to disagree.

It is not a good idea for every monster in a given combat, but it is the situation for the majority of the monsters. The default situation for most monsters is that there is at least one other monster that the fighter would rather focus on. In other words, for a combat with 5 monsters, 4 of them can walk away from the fighter and not be pursued.

In addition, as I mentioned, by shifting and then charging, any monster can get away from the fighter and attack any other character within the monster's speed +1. The chances that a monster will have to spend its entire turn fleeing are low.

This holds only partially true for our games. Victory is almost never guaranteed, even if everyone fulfills their roles perfectly. Monsters that choose not to die earlier make that possible by using their abilities more often. Monsters that die after a round and a half because they ignore their opponents' capabilities do nothing to make a battle exciting for me.

Defenders in general have more hit points and more surges and sometimes a higher AC than other characters, so most attacks against them are simply worth less than attacks against other characters, from a resource standpoint. At the same time, the fighter does not do an overwhelming amount of damage with basic attacks, does not always hit, and most monsters have generous hit point scores. I stand by my contention that it is frequently worth provoking attacks in order to apply force where it is most effective.

 

[KarinsDad]

In other words, in my experience, when monsters behave in a riskier fashion, including drawing more attacks from the defenders, they can force the players to burn through more resources. They are effectively more dangerous. As a DM, that is what I want. Thus, fighters in my campaigns frequently get AOs and get to use their combat challenge.

Like I said earlier, I really do not understand the concept of multiple combat challenges or OAs occurring frequently (as per some people saying 1-3 AoOs per round nearly every round).

For example, if the Ranger flanks a Combat Challenged monster with the Fighter, that monster is at significant disadvantage. However, the moment the Ranger flanks the monster is the moment the monster's allies might be able to flank the Ranger. And the moment the Fighter takes on a monster in the first place is the moment that the monster's allies might be able to flank the Fighter.

Also, if the Fighter marks with his Combat Challenge, he IS using his Combat Challenge. He does not need to get the free attack to be doing his job of keeping at least one foe off of his allies. The DM does not need to play the monsters in a certain way just in order to give the player of the Fighter free Combat Challenge attacks. All of this is choice. If the players choose to play their PCs in a certain way and the DM chooses to play his creatures in a certain way, then more CCs and OAs will occur.

But I don't think the game system design is intended to have this occur. I think the intent is to lock down monsters, not give Fighters free attacks. The latter is a consequence of the former ignoring the lock down, not the responsibility of the DM to ensure that it happens.

 

[Lacyon]

For example, if the Ranger flanks a Combat Challenged monster with the Fighter, that monster is at significant disadvantage. However, the moment the Ranger flanks the monster is the moment the monster's allies might be able to flank the Ranger. And the moment the Fighter takes on a monster in the first place is the moment that the monster's allies might be able to flank the Fighter.

Flanking the Fighter is trying to win at a loser's game - he's the tough nut that you'll want to wait until last to try to bring down; he's at his best when his teammates can take advantage of the bad situation he's put you in.

Flanking the Ranger is somewhat valuable - he's relatively squishy, and dishing out considerable damage. Unfortunately, if we try to focus fire on him to actually take him out, the flanked monster takes an attack from the Fighter. It's (sometimes) worth the suffering to get focused fire.

Breaking away and charging the Wizard is the Jackpot, if you can manage it. Unfortunately, if you try to move away, the fighter and ranger both get an OA, which could end your movement. If you spend the move action shifting, you still take an attack from the Fighter, and likely an OA from the Ranger as well, and can't get as far away as you would on a missed OA. If you're made of beef, or the Wizard is hurt, go for it.

But I don't think the game system design is intended to have this occur. I think the intent is to lock down monsters, not give Fighters free attacks.

Dubious. If that were the only design goal, there are so many simpler and easier ways of achieving it than the current. (Such as rewriting Combat Challenge to actually lock down the enemy).

 

[WalterKovacs]

But I don't think the game system design is intended to have this occur. I think the intent is to lock down monsters, not give Fighters free attacks. The latter is a consequence of the former ignoring the lock down, not the responsibility of the DM to ensure that it happens.

The system does not intend for the free attack to never occur, nor for the free attack to always occur. The system intends for the threat of the attack to be part of the decision making for the monster. In any given round, who to attack is a choice. Picking the defender is ussually a bad choice, but this makes choosing someone else also a poor choice. Sometimes it's worth it to let the fighter get his attack and go after a squishier target ... this depends a lot on the kind of defender, etc. It also depends on the DM.

Some DMs will have the monsters be afraid of any kind of OA or similar effect. Others will play the monsters as not caring about it. Now, certain things are just stupid ... a minion will never invoke a paladin's mark because they would die instantly. And if the only person to attack is the fighter ... ditto. However, if there is a choice between a character that is easier to hit [even with the mark] and has a condition that makes your attacks better [such as bloodied or grabbed] you are going to be willing to take a hit to try to finish it off.

The purpose is giving the monsters tough choices instead of a video game/wow system that forces monsters to (re)act a specific way.

 

[Benimoto]

Also, if the Fighter marks with his Combat Challenge, he IS using his Combat Challenge. He does not need to get the free attack to be doing his job of keeping at least one foe off of his allies. The DM does not need to play the monsters in a certain way just in order to give the player of the Fighter free Combat Challenge attacks. All of this is choice. If the players choose to play their PCs in a certain way and the DM chooses to play his creatures in a certain way, then more CCs and OAs will occur.

That's certainly true. I haven't seen the fighter hitting the extremes of 1-3 extra attacks every round, though I suppose that could happen in a large group with a lot of monsters. But, similarly, I think that if the fighter is intent on getting extra attacks, then he probably will, unless the monsters follow a very risk-adverse (and IMO defeatist) strategy.

Just using his encounter powers, the fighter should be able to regularly mark 2-3 enemies at a time. Yet it's not really great tactics to have 2-3 enemies attacking the fighter in every battle. Some of these multiple enemies should probably be attacking someone else, and this means that the fighter is probably going to get some of his extra attacks.

Yes, of course it depends on PC and DM style. A PC fighter can take a lot of single-target powers, and only use them on a single monster that is already fighting him or her. Alternately, a DM can let one or two defenders lock down large groups of enemies (and I can see how a controller could get bored in this situation).

I think a better balance is somewhere in the middle. To be properly defending, a fighter needs to threaten and challenge multiple enemies. Yet I think that enemies using proper tactics means that no more monsters will be sticking around to fight the fighter than is absolutely necessary.

 

[KarinsDad]

Flanking the Fighter is trying to win at a loser's game - he's the tough nut that you'll want to wait until last to try to bring down; he's at his best when his teammates can take advantage of the bad situation he's put you in.

Not necessarily. Combat in the game is about action economy. The worse situation for the NPCs is if 5 NPCs each attack a different PC. The PCs will mop that up nearly every time, just like a battle where the PCs do not concentrate attacks will result in using more resources then one in which they do.

The best situation for the NPCs is if multiple NPCs attack a single PC. Granted, the Fighter is not often the best target for this (typically the Leader is), but there are many scenarios where taking out the Fighter is optimal just because he is out front, easy to reach, and can be swarmed. Sure, his AC, Fort and hit points might be higher, but there are creatures with Reflex and Will attacks which combined with flanking foes can take out a Fighter quickly.

Breaking away and charging the Wizard is the Jackpot, if you can manage it.

Again, not necessarily. Wizards are not necessarily helpless. Their Int modifier to AC and Reflex makes them a bit difficult to attack. The best target is typically a Leader since most other PC roles cannot heal as much or buff/debuff as much. The real advantage of PCs is that they can adapt and the main reason they can adapt is the Leader. Controllers are a secondary role for adaptation.

If the NPCs put down the Leader, the other PCs are at a greater risk because they do not have as much healing backup. If the NPCs put down the Controller, the Leader can just heal him back up and he's back in the fight.

Dubious. If that were the only design goal, there are so many simpler and easier ways of achieving it than the current. (Such as rewriting Combat Challenge to actually lock down the enemy).

The free attack is the consequence, but it is not the design goal. The design goal is to lock down opponents. The design goal is to make the Fighter sticky. How they achieved that is not the goal, it's the game mechanic to accomplish the goal.

The problem with a forced lockdown is that it is too much like compulsion magic. It appears that the designers prefered a system of choice with consequences.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, Cloud of Daggers is basically just damage as well. With the wide open encounter spaces in 4E, it brings very little to the terrain equation.

Usually, that's true, but every once in a while. Last session we were fighting in a tunnel complex (Thunderspire, Well of Demons), and there were not just a lot of corridors, but a lot of fights in doorways with little 5' entry halls that limitted melee to one or two characters. Anyway, the wizard tossed a number of Cloud of Daggers around, and on several occassions monsters - or even her own party members - ended up facing the choice of moving into or through a cloud to pull off what was otherwise thier best tactical option. It was actually a bit amusing. Well, for the Wizard.