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

[On Puget Sound]

OK, I'm going to take a stab at fleshing out FireLance's idea.

On a (natural) roll of 16+, if that roll would hit your target, you strike a Mighty Blow. On a (natural) roll of 20+, if that roll would hit your target, you instead score a Critical Hit.

A Mighty Blow or Critical Hit lets you choose an effect to add to the normal consequence of your hit. Some choices are available to all characters; other Mighty and Critical options become available based on your race, class or level.

Examples of Mighty Blow:
Push 1 square; you may follow up if you wish.
Knock prone
Blood in eyes: target gets -2 to attack next round.
Extra damage
Disarm; weapon is on the ground.
A different adjacent opponent takes your STR in damage.

Examples of Critical Hit:
Push (1/2 level) squares and knock prone; you may follow up.
Disarm; if you have a free hand, you now have the weapon; otherwise it falls in a square of your choice within 5 squares.
Lots of extra damage
Make another attack against the same or a different target.

And here's an interesting way to use class features with this system:
Rogues are limited to light weapons, but they score a Mighty Blow on a 14+
Fighters can choose two Mighty Blow effects on a roll of 18 or 19.
Wizards who roll a Mighty Blow against one target of a multi-target spell can apply an effect to all targets; it must be the same effect.

If you are willing to make some assumptions of what would be a "normal" adventuring day - number of encounters per day, number of rounds per encounter - you could come up with some form of randomization that would allow martial "encounter" and "daily" powers to appear at roughly the same proportion as Vancian or AEDU abilities.

For example, if you are willing to assume that a typical adventuring day would consist of 4 encounters of 5 rounds each, and that an AEDU character would use 4 encounter powers and 1 daily power over those 20 rounds, you could have a "encounter" power level effect trigger whenever the character makes an attack roll and gets a score of 16-19 and a "daily" power level effect trigger whenever he gets a natural 20.

The specific effect could depend on what stance or fighting style the character is using at the time that the "encounter" or "daily" effect is triggered. A stance that increased damage could add +1[W] for an encounter-level effect and +2[W] for a daily level effect (more at higher levels). A stance that distracts an opponent, causing him to grant combat advantage on a hit, might daze him on a 16-19 and stun him on a natural 20.

Of course, if you aren't willing to assume what a typical adventuring day is like, or you see no real need to balance a martial character's potential "encounter" and "daily" power output with an AEDU or Vancian spellcaster, you could just set the numbers however you want and then let everything sort itself out in play.

Another possibility, more complicated but perhaps more tactical, would be the random acquisition of "encounter" and "daily" powers at the start of each encounter (perhaps the character gets one roll per opponent), flavored as spotting exploitable weaknesses in the opponents' fighting styles. Choosing to use a power then becomes flavored as choosing when to exploit that specific weakness. Again, the distribution of encounter and daily powers could, if so desired, be set so that the character gets about the same number of "encounter" and "daily" powers, on average, as a Vancian or AEDU spellcaster.

 

[BobTheNob]

Most DMs are bad at one or more of the above. In my experience, trying to do anything that is not codified in the rules is unreliable and inconsistent. I should only have to ask the DM for situational things. I want powers/rules for stuff that I'll be doing regularly.

Im not sure I understood this bit. Are you saying you want a power system AND an improvisation system to work side by side?

e.g. there exists a power which trips an enemy, but if I dont have said power that the system allows that I can "improvise" tripping him (DM allowing).

 

[Halivar]

Im not sure I understood this bit. Are you saying you want a power system AND an improvisation system to work side by side?

I believe he's saying that if it's something he does with regularity, he wants it to be supported by the rules, rather than by DM fiat.

 

[Rhenny]

I have to say I like the lists of possible maneuvers better than powers. To me, the powers are too limiting (the contrary of what another post said).

More times in my 4e games I have players who want to do interesting maneuvers, but because we have powers (and some powers that the PCs don't have cover some of the maneuvers), I'm forced as DM to say "no." I don't want to do that. I want to say, try it.

In one of my games, the characters were pinned behind a wall. Two archers about 80' away were firing arrows at them, as other monsters were moving up to engage in combat. My players wanted to peak around the corner, fire at the approaching monsters and then duck back behind cover. Dang, 4e rules make it impossible because only some powers grant this maneuver.

I made a house rule to allow move10', attack (-2 to attack), move10' to all creatures. Now we can have combats that seem more like the ones in movies. Why hold this type of maneuver for just a rogue, etc. It makes no sense.

 

[Ahnehnois]

No, I'm saying that I can reasonably expect to use any power on my character sheet. Anything that is not on my character sheet is subject to:

My ability to explain what I want to do.
DM favoritism.
DM knowledge of melee combat/athletics/physics/whatever compared to my knowledge of the same.
How good the DM is at game balance.
Whether the DM wants me to succeed or not.
How consistent the DM is in his rulings.
The DM telling me "Roll, and I'll tell you if you succeed".
What the DM thinks is cool vs what I think is cool.

Most DMs are bad at one or more of the above. In my experience, trying to do anything that is not codified in the rules is unreliable and inconsistent. I should only have to ask the DM for situational things. I want powers/rules for stuff that I'll be doing regularly.

Then I guess I'm not seeing where the PF system went wrong (if it did; and of course that system does have its own issues). Codified rules for things that can be done, with an open-ended aspect to allow improvisation. I'm also not seeing why the rules for stuff that happens regularly have to be on the character sheet as opposed to in the combat chapter of the book, so other characters can do them regularly.

In any case, I certainly hope that any version of D&D is flexible enough that the game being played is indeed more a product of the people at the table (i.e. DM fiat) then the people at WotC (corporate fiat). In my world, if a player pulls out a book and tells me "I can do this because it's in the book", that player is going to be a problem. If your character can do something, it's because it makes sense and seems fun, not because it's on a power card.

I've had experiences with poor DMing in various domains (both as a player and as a DM), which seems to be at the heart of this post, and I never looked to the rules to solve those issues.

I believe he's saying that if it's something he does with regularity, he wants it to be supported by the rules, rather than by DM fiat.

I should hope so. D&D needs to have rules that cover most likely actions and can reasonably be interpreted in unforseen circumstances. I just don't think powers are the right way of framing the rules (as posted above and as various others have articulated).

 

[Mattachine]

In one of my games, the characters were pinned behind a wall. Two archers about 80' away were firing arrows at them, as other monsters were moving up to engage in combat. My players wanted to peak around the corner, fire at the approaching monsters and then duck back behind cover. Dang, 4e rules make it impossible because only some powers grant this maneuver.

I made a house rule to allow move10', attack (-2 to attack), move10' to all creatures. Now we can have combats that seem more like the ones in movies. Why hold this type of maneuver for just a rogue, etc. It makes no sense.

The rules didn't make this impossible. In fact, the rogue power provides an example of the best, most optimal version of this special attack/move combo. You can use that as a guideline for other characters trying the same thing.

The power structure is liberating to some, as it provides a reliable, rules-backed way to do some things, and it provides examples to adjudicate many different actions.

The power structure is imprisoning to others, since it clearly defines what a particular character can do reliably. There is an assumption that other maneuvers cannot be done at all.


Of course, a system can definitely have both a powers system and an improv system side by side. Anyone heard of Iron Heroes? It had exactly that.

 

[BobTheNob]

I believe he's saying that if it's something he does with regularity, he wants it to be supported by the rules, rather than by DM fiat.

This is where the divide in opinion lies. I do want DM fiat driving it, but I want the rules to give strong aid in this process.

This is a tabletop game. Its strength compared to other forms of gaming is that the game can change and adapt as circumstances dictate because the DM can control it. To NOT give the DM fiat is to forget its greatest strength.

So from the rules I want to know how maneuvers are done, how the DM can modify and improvise with them, and how in turn a martially focused character can invest in such a way that they can improve capabilities within this framework rather than skipping off into a separate subsystem.

 

[outsider]

I'm also not seeing why the rules for stuff that happens regularly have to be on the character sheet as opposed to in the combat chapter of the book, so other characters can do them regularly.

When the combat maneuvers are in the combat chapter, the DM and players need to know the mechanics for all of them. This limits the amount of maneuvers pretty severely. When it's a collection of powers on the character sheet, the DM only needs to know the mechanics of the ones you have. This allows there to be hundreds of maneuvers in the game.

 

[Minigiant]

This is where the divide in opinion lies. I do want DM fiat driving it, but I want the rules to give strong aid in this process.

This is a tabletop game. Its strength compared to other forms of gaming is that the game can change and adapt as circumstances dictate because the DM can control it. To NOT give the DM fiat is to forget its greatest strength.

So from the rules I want to know how maneuvers are done, how the DM can modify and improvise with them, and how in turn a martially focused character can invest in such a way that they can improve capabilities within this framework rather than skipping off into a separate subsystem.

DM Fiat should not go away.

They point is to get a clear guide so everyone has an idea how an imagined action could be done.

With 100% DM Fiat
One DM could say this
Another could say that
And another could say NO!

I actually experienced 3 DM giving 3 different resolution for the same action. One with a HIGH chance of failure. One which was no different than a normal attack in resolution but weak in result. And the last said "You can't do that at level 3."

 

[BobTheNob]

DM Fiat should no away.

They point is to get a clear guide so everyone has an idea how an imagined action could be done.

With 100% DM Fiat
One DM could say this
Another could say that
And another could say NO!

I actually experienced 3 DM giving 3 different resolution for the same action. One with a HIGH chance of failure. One which was no different than a normal attack in resolution but weak in result. And the last said "You can't do that at level 3."

At this stage, Im going to stop using the word "Fiat". Its too strong in terms of lingo.

Im just going to refer to it as "decision". Isnt that why we have the DM, for making decisions? If we dont let them DM make decisions...why play? If I didnt want a DM making a decision, I would play a computer RPG. But I choose this form of gaming because it can do more.

Referring to the problems of 100% fiat. Yes, these things would you pointed out would be problems if the DM's had no rules to guide their decision process or they ignored the rules they have. You have gone directly to the extreme of what can go wrong when DM's have total control...I would never advocate such a situation.

That a decision is a MIX of DM and rules is not in dispute (It isnt in my mind at least). What is in dispute is how the rules should guide the DM decisions. I just dont want a situation where we have a loose system of improvisation sitting beside an arbitrary "usage based" power system and I certainly do not want a situation where the DM is utterly powerless to make change and adapt as he sees fit.

He is the DM for a reason. If he does a bad job of it, go find a new DM, but to strip DM's of ability to make decisions to compensate for bad DM's? Thats just not a solution in my eyes.