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

[Ahnehnois]

Yikes. If 5E does not have AEDU, I will cobble them back on. "I attack, I attack, I attack" is simply not a valid play-style for me anymore.

Are we to conclude that the only two possibilities are unmodified simple attacks for all (incidentally, something that doesn't have to happen in any D&D game), and nonsensical AEDU powers? Isn't the point of this thread to discuss how to make characters without doing either of those things?

 

[The Little Raven]

In other words, more fluff. Fluff is good.

Except then they said they were going to do this, there was such an outraged reaction that they were "dictating" to us the flavor of the game that they backed off of it.

Gamers are like a group of finicky eaters. Some just don't like peas, and are upset when peas are on the plate. Some don't like their vegetables to touch their meat and get upset when you don't keep them cleanly separated. Some just don't like the flavor because they won't like any flavor but what they cook into it themselves.

 

[Halivar]

Are we to conclude that the only two possibilities are unmodified simple attacks for all (incidentally, something that doesn't have to happen in any D&D game), and nonsensical AEDU powers? Isn't the point of this thread to discuss how to make characters without doing either of those things?

I was merely stating that "nonsensical AEDU" makes the most sense to me. It's the mechanic I want, and the mechanic I'll use.

EDIT: Note that it's not hard to do, either. Tactical adjustments in 4E powers aside from damage can be lifted whole cloth and dropped into just about any edition.

 

[SteveC]

Not hard at all. It's what I do for 1e and other old school games I run.

Well you should definitely post them! I think a lot of people would like to see this sort of thing...

 

[The Little Raven]

Are we to conclude that the only two possibilities are unmodified simple attacks for all (incidentally, something that doesn't have to happen in any D&D game), and nonsensical AEDU powers? Isn't the point of this thread to discuss how to make characters without doing either of those things?

Isn't it hard to have a reasonable discussion when you call one side's argument or system of choice "nonsensical?" It immediately suggests to me that you don't think it's a discussion worth having when you show such an attitude.

 

[BobTheNob]

Yikes. If 5E does not have AEDU, I will cobble them back on. "I attack, I attack, I attack" is simply not a valid play-style for me anymore.

That really does assume AEDU is the only solution to prevent "I attack, I attack, I attack".

Are we so bereft of ideas?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Isn't it hard to have a reasonable discussion when you call one side's argument or system of choice "nonsensical?" It immediately suggests to me that you don't think it's a discussion worth having when you show such an attitude.

I don't think the original post is any less derisive. If D&D was ever a series of attacks without choices, I am not aware of this.

In any case, I am trying to articulate the idea that it is not necessary to frame issues as "my way or the highway", which is what creates an "other side" to begin with. While it may sound negative, "anything but that way" is actually far more open-ended and inclusive. There are a number of mechanical approaches (some discussed here, many elsewhere in this forum) that can allow flexibility and viability to all characters. Since we're talking about a new game, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider them all and not dismiss anything that doesn't fit within a certain paradigm.

So there is a discussion worth having, one on how to create an engaging and rewarding game without the problems that the OP and several others have discussed.

 

[Halivar]

That really does assume AEDU is the only solution to prevent "I attack, I attack, I attack".

Are we so bereft of ideas?

If the Something Awful leak is true (not something I am taking as a given at all; everything I say is conditional here), then fighters are not getting some elegant new mechanic. If their tactical options are the same as in 3E, then it is a definite regression for me.

 

[SteveC]

Are we to conclude that the only two possibilities are unmodified simple attacks for all (incidentally, something that doesn't have to happen in any D&D game), and nonsensical AEDU powers? Isn't the point of this thread to discuss how to make characters without doing either of those things?

Whenever I see something like this (that you can do 'powers' without a power system), I always want to mention this:

Suppose you have a decent basic D&D game, but one where the GM says "no" when you make a suggestion about doing an attack that's not just a simple basic attack. Or even better, they say "no" where you make a suggestion that you do the same maneuver they're allowed more than once a session. Or take your power and make an arbitrary rule that makes it far less effective than just making a basic attack.

That's what D&D was like for many, many people before the power system. That was the entire point of the system: you can do interesting things that the GM agrees will work reliably without having to get their permission.

Imagine if I was playing an AD&D fighter and said "I just dropped a foe, so I'm going to take an extra blow as the attack cleaves into the adjacent foe." How many GMs would allow that? And how many would allow it every time, instead of eventually saying "you're just trying to get away with something, cut it out!"

And yet when you're using the 3X combat rules, you can do exactly that, all the time, with cleave. The 4E power system lets you choose between dozens of effects just like that. The GM approves the power, and you know it's going to actually be available and work for you. No negotiating, no "the circumstances don't work this time," no "you've done that too often, your foe counters it."

I don't understand how it's hard to see that idea as a bad thing. If you do see it as bad, what would you suggest if your players wanted to be as creative as you can be with the powers system on the fly, every combat? If you say "great! I'd love it!" then why would actually putting some rule mechanics behind it be a bad thing?

EDIT: wow. One post leveled me up Thanks everyone, I'm a Myrmidon now.

 

[Someone]

Sorry for only skimming the thread, maybe what I'm going to post it's been already discussed.

In any case:

The baby: More varied and tactically interesting combat, options for non-spellcasters.
The bathwater: Heavily codified powers suggest a limited set of options so when a player faces a challenge he tends to limit himself to that set of options when he could improvise. Also many powers are practically the same with different names. Classification between at will-encounter daily feels forced.

How to throw just the bathwater: Basic attacks can be upgraded with different options; extra damage, push, drop prone, etc, at the cost of a penalty to the attack roll. More powerful effects or combininf more than one basic effect -in essence, the equivalent to an encounter or daily power- also require spending Action Points (or Effort Points, if you like) that you recover after resting.

Classes can eliminate the attack penalty to some of these effects, for example wizards can choose free area of effects, essentially creating the standard scorching burst.

Basic classes and combat would have those options already chosen and will use the Action/Effort points on extra actions instead of more complex powers.