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

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Actually,

Jump check to jump up and grab it (its already in 3.5, no need for any extra rules)
If you grab the chandelier with your jump check, I would count the swinging as your movement, no need for a check.
Finally, an attack at no negative, because it's cool, and a tumble or balance check (already in the rules) to stick the landing, or be prone, no damage. Unless the chandelier is over 15 feet up, it wouldn't be a 10ft fall.

That is how I would run it

I would make it simpler, jump OR acrobatics vs reflexes, level apropriated damage and knocks the target... The problem with d&d (3e and 4e) is that it is very hard to hit with the wrong abillity, and there is too many bonus that are need to the math works... in a simple game like savage worlds this kind of thing works better IMO.

 

[billd91]

So what? Yup, you can cast three magic missiles per day. The 4e mage is doing it all day long.

Never mind that most abilities are not dailies, which means, while I might not be able to fireball twice in the same encounter, I can certainly do it many times per day.

And, I'd point out that your "more flexible" only applied to about half the classes. Everyone else was quite obviously quite a bit less flexible.

Huh. My 4e PH must be defective. It says fireball is a 5th level daily. And I don't mistake having a handful of fixed mechanical options as 'flexibility'.

 

[FireLance]

That is how I would run it

Ah, but the real question is, how will you ensure that every other DM who is faced with a similar request from his players will run it the same way?

You can either:

0. Give the DMs no guidelines at all, basically let each one decide how he wants to run it (number and sequnce of checks, how hard each check will be), and accept that there will be differences.

3. Standardize the resolution of the task and give the DMs instructions on the checks required for each step and the difficulty of each check.

4. Give the players the ability to tell the DM, "Look, my character can do this. This is the check I need to make, and this is the result if I succeed."

42. Give the DM very broad guidelines on how to manage such checks, with suggested chances for success and effects.

Different editions will, of course, adopt different approaches.

 

[Hassassin]

Ah, but the real question is, how will you ensure that every other DM who is faced with a similar request from his players will run it the same way?

The real real question is, should you? A different way of running it may be a better fit for his campaign and genre.

I think giving the DM guidelines is a very good idea, but that doesn't mean the DM should use them. And it certainly shouldn't mean that the players are allowed to expect them being used in all games.

To use your numbers, I would:

3. Move most DC guidelines to the DMG, and make them genre-dependent.

4. Make (the availability of) advanced character abilities a campaign choice.

42. Focus advice on the end result instead of on the numbers. Do this if you want to reward such attempts. Do this if you want to simulate gritty fantasy. Do this if you want wuxia. Etc.

 

[Bluenose]

Huh. My 4e PH must be defective. It says fireball is a 5th level daily. And I don't mistake having a handful of fixed mechanical options as 'flexibility'.

Cool. Let's reduce the spell lists so there's no more than twelve per level. After all, we can have flexibility without giving lots of mechanical options. It'll save a lot of space in the books if we don't have to have a hundred pages of spells in them too. Maybe that space could be used for role-playing advice about options that aren't mechanical.

 

[Mattachine]

Cool. Let's reduce the spell lists so there's no more than twelve per level. After all, we can have flexibility without giving lots of mechanical options. It'll save a lot of space in the books if we don't have to have a hundred pages of spells in them too. Maybe that space could be used for role-playing advice about options that aren't mechanical.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, since I agree with the sentiment, even if not exactly 12 spells per level. I would love the books to have a little less of spell lists (which was a huge portion of each PHB in editions 1-3), and more information on other things.

The game isn't just casters. It's not called "Wizards and Wyverns".

 

[Hussar]

Actually,

Jump check to jump up and grab it (its already in 3.5, no need for any extra rules)
If you grab the chandelier with your jump check, I would count the swinging as your movement, no need for a check.
Finally, an attack at no negative, because it's cool, and a tumble or balance check (already in the rules) to stick the landing, or be prone, no damage. Unless the chandelier is over 15 feet up, it wouldn't be a 10ft fall.

That is how I would run it

So, I need to succeed at three separate checks, just to make a regular attack against an opponent - if I fail the first, I lost my action for the round, if I fail the second, I deal no damage, and if I fail the third, I suffer serious penalties, possibly taking multiple attacks at bonuses.

Why in HELL would I ever do this? What possible reason would there EVER be for a player to take this option? I'm doing regular damage? I lose out on iterative attacks (if I have any) and I suffer serious chances of failure.

Or, I could just move up and make a regular attack, suffer no additional chances of failure, and be in total control of my destiny the entire way.

Yeah, that's a hard choice. Again, your example is EXACTLY why we need guidelines. Most DM's can't conceive of the math behind the game and make things unnecessarily difficult for too little benefit.

Huh. My 4e PH must be defective. It says fireball is a 5th level daily. And I don't mistake having a handful of fixed mechanical options as 'flexibility'.

Ahh, I see we're going to be extra pedantic today. Sorry, my 4e rules lore isn't picture perfect.

A 10th level PC in 4e, base, has 11 powers, at least 5 of which are either at wills or encounter. That's not counting any magic items, racial goodies, feats, or other odds and sods. Exactly how many options do I really need? Sure, a 10th level 3e caster has more options, he's got 16 spells per day (not counting zero levels).

So, our wizard has 5 more options per day than our 4e character. Note, that I picked a caster, because, well, any non caster has about 3 options at any given time - charge, full attack and whatever feat tree he's pursued. Now, those 5 more options though are all dailies. After the first encounter, our wizard is down to 10 options - the 4e character burns all his dailies, so, he's got 8 or 9 options, depending on his utility powers. Second encounter? 4e guy's still got 7 or 8 options, 3e wizard is probably down to 6 or 7. Third encounter? Wizard's pooped, he's out. Blew through his spell list. Certainly he should have blown through his list by the fourth encounter - the game is BUILT on that presumption.

4e guy's still trucking along. Only thing that's slowing him down is running out of healing surges. Keep those topped up and he has no problems.

So, the whole argument over "I have more options" depends an awful lot on what point in the adventuring day you want to talk about.

And, of course, presumes you're talking about a full caster. Everyone else is pretty much reduced to the three basics for the entirety of their existence.

Me, I LOVE the fact that non-casters FINALLY have options. Janaxstrus nicely proves why non-casters never had options. Even what he considers "reasonable" is still screwing over the non-caster.

 

[Hassassin]

Why in HELL would I ever do this? What possible reason would there EVER be for a player to take this option? I'm doing regular damage? I lose out on iterative attacks (if I have any) and I suffer serious chances of failure.

Personally, I would run the example pretty much as Janaxstrus wrote, except I would count it as a charge (+2 attack, -2 AC) and probably not ask for a tumble if the attack was successful. Also, a failure at jump would cost a move, so you could try something else.

The reason you would want to try is that you get the benefits of ride-by/fly-by/spring attack for the price of 1-2 extra checks. If you just charged the opponent, he'd get a full attack next turn, your allies might be at -4 to shoot him with ranged weapons due to cover, and you'd be in the area of any area effect attacks.

 

[eamon]

I think the options issue is valid, but it's also being exaggerated. Years ago (when I last played 3e), I don't recollect the non-casters being quite as limited as is being suggested here. First of all; as levels rose, in my campaigns they'd have several nifty items or divine boons: boots of teleportation, necklaces of fireballs, etc. Though casters might use these too, in practice they meant more for non-casters simply because the items often duplicate spells or are at least similar. Secondly, anybody that cared avoided the issue by twinking out his character with prestige classes (and generally that meant some amount of spell-like abilities). Finally, there was self-selection going on: some players don't want the complexity and just want dramatic beheadings with vorpal swords. Which is fine.

Which isn't to say that that state of affairs is what you want; it's just that it wasn't unfixable.

I like the improved balance 4e brought, but I also think that they took it too far. A bit of compromise sounds like a great idea to me.

 

[eamon]

Pretty sure we've been pushing people off cliffs, into fires and such since 1e via DM "that's a great idea, here's the number you need to hit to accomplish it" rule.

That's the one of the basics of roleplaying isn't it?

I think the cliff example is actually particularly amusing because it highlights the problems with ad-hoc rulings.

Let's say you wanted to push someone off a cliff. Well, you might think of an opposed strength check: two equally matched fighters have about as much chance of pushing the other over as two equally matched (but much weaker) wizards. Depending on the modifiers, you might have a reasonable change of success here: perhaps with saving throw after the attack as usual, but that's still approaching a 25% chance.

At a different instance, you might think of bull-rush: here the fighters still have a reasonable chance of success, but the wizards are very unlikely to succeed: they'd need to make a strength attack (virtually hopeless) vs. Fort (which benefits from cloaks and possibly reasonable constitution).

Indeed, I suspect most people would look towards bullrush first: its in the rules and does almost exactly what you want. Unfortunately, it's also very likely to fail beyond the lowest levels since its attack roll scales very poorly.

If bullrush didn't exist, I suspect most DMs would come up with a more effective ruling that would scale across levels; as it is, the existance of the rule bullrush means that not using it requires explanations. It's in that sense that improvisation and rules don't go together well: people have been improvising all the time, but generally only for actions not covered by the rules (indeed, that's in pg.42's title). Adding bad rules is in that sense actively harmful: you're not just making a rule nobody'll use, you're making a rule which implicitly deters improvisation achieving the same effect.