Why do 4e combats grind?

[LostSoul]

But the push itself is not exciting, the possibilities that are gained from it can be. Having the same set of possibilities (powers) in each combat is potentially less exciting than having varying sets of possibilities in every combat.

Right, that's my point. Having basic attack + push 1 creates more tactical choice - more possibilities - than just a basic attack.

edit: If you took away those at-wills, you would not get the same amount of possibility you do now. They might feel more "special" when you used them, but if the trade off is less tactical complexity I'll take the at-wills.

Recall if you will the days when feats did things more ambitious than add the tiny bland buffs they provide in 4e. Some feats actually offered the fighter different attack options, and often built on top of the basic attack options all characters had in 3e that now require a power to execute. You didn't need a power to knock someone prone in 3e, for instance, or be a 17th-level fighter to disarm someone.

The different attack options offered by feats are covered by Powers. The basic attack options all characters have are covered by page 42.

You don't need a feat or a power to knock someone prone in 4e, nor do you need to be a 17th-level Fighter to disarm someone.

During your turn, you can choose from a wide variety of actions. Usually, the most important decision you make in combat is what to do with your standard action each turn. Do you use one of your powers? If so, which one? Or does the situation demand a different approach, such as using your standard action to drink a healing potion, try to call a parley and talk to your foes, or instead get a second move action this turn? This seciont describes how to perform he most common actions that are available to you on your turn.

The list isn't exhaustive - you can try to do anything you can imagine your character doing in the game world. The rules in this section cover the most common actions, and they can serve as a guide for figuring out what happens when you try something not in the rules.​

Actions In Combat, PHB page 286.

 

[Felon]

True. In 3e you required an Int of 13 and two feats to try to do it even remotely reliably. And, even then, you would fail most of the time against anything larger than you or that might have more than two legs. But, you could certainly try.

I wouldn't want a disarm that was so reliable that everybody would be doing it all the time. You needed feats to be a specialist at it. Without the feats, there was a reasonable cost and chance for success, usually somewhere in the 50% arena, which isn't too far from what people are looking at with many of their attacks in 4e.

But yes, you certainly could try. Which now you can't.

I'm not sure why people think that at-wills are trying to be "cool". At wills are the bread and butter attacks of a class. They aren't cool any more than full attack was cool.

Not sure what all that's in reference to.

 

[LostSoul]

But yes, you certainly could try. Which now you can't.

Since the PHB says you can try anything you can imagine your character doing, the DMG says you should say yes to things the players try out, and the DMG has some helpful advice on how to adjudicate such actions, why do you think this?

 

[Felon]

The different attack options offered by feats are covered by Powers. The basic attack options all characters have are covered by page 42.

You don't need a feat or a power to knock someone prone in 4e, nor do you need to be a 17th-level Fighter to disarm someone.

Well, that makes having a 17th-level power for disarming an opponent kind of a gyp. If there's a detailed, comprehensive set of rules for how to perform those maneuvers, it's not on page 42 of the DMG, that's for sure. The "page 42" rebuttal has become rather overused. It's a pat response on these forums, as if that one page actually provided a comprehensive set of tools for crafting any action under the sun. The ripeness and novelty of it has expired IMO.

Let me brush off the glitter and get down to the nitty-gritty. Here's what page 42 really amounts to: it's a nice little use of a page that makes a few simple, helpful suggestions on how to improvise a very basic, damage-only attack. It tells you to make a call about what the attack is based off of, what defense it targets, and then it provides a table for improvising damage. That's pretty much it. It's better than nothing, certainly, but it is far, far, far from a complete, universal toolset for action-crafting. It is not a cure for all ills. It is not the answer to all the posts that it's been presented as the answer to.

For one thing, attaching effects and conditions aren't covered there, and there certainly should be some issues to address attaching a cost to improvised attacks that duplicate the effects of powers. There has to be some opportunity cost, some trade-off, some condition that has to be filled, or so forth. Otherwise, the point of burning an encounter or daily power to achieve an effect is moot. If they should present that kind of meta-toolset at some point in the future--with examples like Trip and Disarm--I'm all eager eyes and ears.

During your turn, you can choose from a wide variety of actions. Usually, the most important decision you make in combat is what to do with your standard action each turn. Do you use one of your powers? If so, which one? Or does the situation demand a different approach, such as using your standard action to drink a healing potion, try to call a parley and talk to your foes, or instead get a second move action this turn? This seciont describes how to perform he most common actions that are available to you on your turn.

The list isn't exhaustive - you can try to do anything you can imagine your character doing in the game world. The rules in this section cover the most common actions, and they can serve as a guide for figuring out what happens when you try something not in the rules.​

Actions In Combat, PHB page 286.

OK, I'm sweeping away the glitter again. Don't see anything underneath. Lemme rap my knuckless on it. "Substance? Hello? Are you in there?" Hmm. Kinda hollow.

Since the PHB says you can try anything you can imagine your character doing, the DMG says you should say yes to things the players try out, and the DMG has some helpful advice on how to adjudicate such actions, why do you think this?

All kidding aside. here's our disconnect: it sounds like you're seeing a house where I'm just seeing a little bit of foundation. How about at least some examples on how to DIY? In fact, how about just going to the combat section of the PHB, and actually put those examples there like they were real honest-to-gosh, sink-your-teeth-into-them rules.

Look, I'm not trying to bash abstraction or improvisation, but here's the thing: I already know I can go into my kitchen and just throw handfuls of stuff into a pot and try to make a stew out of it. I don't need the prologue of a cookbook to tell me that. What I want from a cookbook is a recipe. Maybe a few recipes, even. I think that's a pretty reasonable expectation.

 

[LostSoul]

Let me brush off the glitter and get down to the nitty-gritty.

Let's say a player wants to disarm someone. The PHB says he should be able to try it; the DMG tells me to say yes to his request. It's not in the rules so I turn to page 42.

I use the DM's best friend because disarming sounds tricky to me: -2 to the roll.

I cast the action as a check. I figure it's an attack using a weapon so I decide what defense it's made against. Ref sounds good; maybe Fort, if it's an ogre or something.

It doesn't do any damage, so we leave that part out.

So it boils down to this: Melee weapon -2 vs. Ref. Hit: The guy is disarmed.

I did all that following page 42 step-by-step. I left out other considerations (where is the weapon now?) but I figure that either the DM will cover that in the description of the action or make a ruling on it at some point.

This is what the game tells us to do. Maybe it's not as good as having a clear cut rule for disarm or trip actions (then again, maybe it's better), but it's not true that you can't disarm or trip someone without the 17th level power.

 

[Zustiur]

What does 'trying to be cool' mean in this context? Combat options are tactically interesting to use or they're not. If they are interesting to use, then they're exciting.

[To me] it seems the entire system is set up to 'be cool'. The simple fact we have powers in the first place is an indication of this. Everything is labeled with a flashy name instead of just being a flat bonus.
Example:
Dragonborn get these racial traits

Dragonborn Fury: When you're bloodied, you gain a +1 racial bonus to attack rolls.
Draconic Heritage: Your healing surge value is equal to one-quarter of your maximum hit points + your Constitution modifier

If you discount trying to reach the target audience by making everything sound cooler than it is, what reason is there for naming these traits instead of just putting the detail in?
There is no flavour text about either; other than the name of it. There is no text to fully indicate that the +1 to hit comes from being angry (furious). There is no real need to name the traits at all.
Compare it to skill bonuses on the same page.
+2 history, and +2 intimidate. Not "Draconic memory" and "Draconic scariness", just flat bonuses without fuss.

THAT is the context to which I am referring.

In regards to your comment, I do not find most of the combat options interesting to use, nor do I find them exciting. I'd prefer fewer flashier events to promote excitement, not many menial events.
Not every action you take needs to be exciting. Sometimes the mundane (basic attack/full attack) action needs to be present for the other options to shine. At one stage I worked out that my cleric's at-will powers were only having an affect on the battle an estimated once per two encounters. So I have to use something nearly every round to get that tiny benefit once every couple of battles? *Yawn*

If anyone is wondering how I came up with that estimate: Priest's shield gives +1 AC. Which means any single attack has a 1 in 20 chance of being deflected by the power.

 

[Felon]

So it boils down to this: Melee weapon -2 vs. Ref. Hit: The guy is disarmed.

I did all that following page 42 step-by-step. I left out other considerations (where is the weapon now?) but I figure that either the DM will cover that in the description of the action or make a ruling on it at some point.

This is what the game tells us to do. Maybe it's not as good as having a clear cut rule for disarm or trip actions (then again, maybe it's better), but it's not true that you can't disarm or trip someone without the 17th level power.

That a DM can use some vague guidelines to jury-rig a disarm rule on the fly only makes it "untrue" in the sense that a DM can whip up a house rule whenever he feels like making a granny shot.

Otherwise, it's absolutely true that 4th edition rules do not make allowances for disarming someone without a power. If you don't believe me, go check out the last podcast David Noonan did with Mearls before he was let go. They say it's intentional that there's no disarming in 4e, and they proceed to explain their rationale for dropping the maneuver.

In the interest of making a case as to why it's better to have actual rules in place, let's look at your homebrewed disarm. It's a melee weapon attack versus Reflex -2. So, the attacker is going to get the benefit of his melee weapon's proficiency bonus, but the defender doesn't get the benefit of his AC bonus. That gives the attacker an edge that the -2 penalty is hard-pressed to even wash out. So, you've whipped up a way to go knocking the weapon out of an opponent's hand that's about as reliable as attacking them for damage. Are you comfortable with that? According to Mearls and Noonan, that's an undesirable thing, but I'm a little more optimistic. I'd be curious to know how else it works.

A disarm can shut an opponent down completely, or it can be a meaningless trifle. There are other factors to figure out. Does the weapon just drop in the disarmee's square? And we all know what action it takes to pick up an object in your square, right? Or, does the weapon go flying off to some other square? It'd be good to know this before I try the maneuver. But, page 42 just doesn't help us out with any guidelines for this, true? So, it's a house rule or bust.

 

[Tuft]

The problem is the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 17th time that the player(s) are going to want to do the same thing - then they want consistency and reliability. You know, the reasons there are rules in the first place - otherwise you could page-42 the entire game.

And to provide consistency you *have* to start writing your page 42 rulings down as house rules.

 

[Mallus]

In regards to your comment, I do not find most of the combat options interesting to use, nor do I find them exciting.

That's fair.

I'd prefer fewer flashier events to promote excitement, not many menial events.

So you prefer playing spellcasters?

 

[Imaro]

Well, that makes having a 17th-level power for disarming an opponent kind of a gyp. If there's a detailed, comprehensive set of rules for how to perform those maneuvers, it's not on page 42 of the DMG, that's for sure. The "page 42" rebuttal has become rather overused. It's a pat response on these forums, as if that one page actually provided a comprehensive set of tools for crafting any action under the sun. The ripeness and novelty of it has expired IMO.

Let me brush off the glitter and get down to the nitty-gritty. Here's what page 42 really amounts to: it's a nice little use of a page that makes a few simple, helpful suggestions on how to improvise a very basic, damage-only attack. It tells you to make a call about what the attack is based off of, what defense it targets, and then it provides a table for improvising damage. That's pretty much it. It's better than nothing, certainly, but it is far, far, far from a complete, universal toolset for action-crafting. It is not a cure for all ills. It is not the answer to all the posts that it's been presented as the answer to.

For one thing, attaching effects and conditions aren't covered there, and there certainly should be some issues to address attaching a cost to improvised attacks that duplicate the effects of powers. There has to be some opportunity cost, some trade-off, some condition that has to be filled, or so forth. Otherwise, the point of burning an encounter or daily power to achieve an effect is moot. If they should present that kind of meta-toolset at some point in the future--with examples like Trip and Disarm--I'm all eager eyes and ears.


OK, I'm sweeping away the glitter again. Don't see anything underneath. Lemme rap my knuckless on it. "Substance? Hello? Are you in there?" Hmm. Kinda hollow.


All kidding aside. here's our disconnect: it sounds like you're seeing a house where I'm just seeing a little bit of foundation. How about at least some examples on how to DIY? In fact, how about just going to the combat section of the PHB, and actually put those examples there like they were real honest-to-gosh, sink-your-teeth-into-them rules.

Look, I'm not trying to bash abstraction or improvisation, but here's the thing: I already know I can go into my kitchen and just throw handfuls of stuff into a pot and try to make a stew out of it. I don't need the prologue of a cookbook to tell me that. What I want from a cookbook is a recipe. Maybe a few recipes, even. I think that's a pretty reasonable expectation.

This, this, this... a thousand times this. I thought I was the only one who went back, read pg. 42 and realized it has been highly overrated and way too often pulled out as the answer to questions it doesn't answer.

XP for you my good man.