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

[billd91]

They're perfectly fine with both sides lining up and trading blows in a fairly static manner until one side falls down.

[sarcasm]Yes, because that's the only alternative to playing 4e style.[/sarcasm]


I will admit that 4e does have a certain feel to it - I found it very Kung Fu Panda. Probably because I went out to the drive in movies to watch that with my kids the day I got the 4e Players Handbook. 4e is readily suited for that sort of action flick, the ones in which the protagonists show off with a series of signature moves--one time each--before the fight is over.
Or pro-wrestling. It's suited for that too.

I don't find it well-suited to general D&D-style fantasy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't find it well-suited to general D&D-style fantasy.

And therein lies the eternal disconnect. Some people find the 'classic' D&D-style fantasy to be boring from a combat perspective, whereas others think it's fantastic. And rarely the twain shall meet.

 

[Minigiant]

The whole thing is scene control.

When you make an attack roll, you don't technically only attack one. A single attack roll can be a single sword stroke, an upward axe swing then a downward followup, or a three piece punch combo. The roll is just an abstraction of the combat frame.

4e's encounter and daily attack are simply more abstract control of the scene. Technically you can do (your DM should let you anyway) Passing Attack every round. The use of the encounter power is just control of the time it works. Every other time becomes a miss, morphs into a MBA or atwill attack, or is performed at a massive penalty.

4e just granted players more abstract control of the scene with AEDU. It was just a bit too abstract.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It may be dismissive, but, then again, we've SEEN it in this thread and many, many others that people are making broad sweeping statements about the system without actually taking the time to READ the system.

So you agree with me that "universal calls of a subjective feel need to stop on both sides, but voicing your subjective view on how something makes you feel should be okay"?

Fighters are like Wizards because of AEDU? I'd buy that, in a way, although, I find it rather trivially easy to justify. Heck, how do people justify the Trip Fighter in 3e doing the same attack over and over and over and over and over again, fight after fight, level after level?

People like to point to tripping as a prime example. "You can only trip with an encounter power? How can you limit the number of trip attempts in a combat? That's so much like a wizard." Only problem is, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping you from trying to trip something without using a power. Basic Melee attack, deals no damage, target is knocked prone. Done.

Well, my 4e is rusty, but I remember defined combat maneuvers for bull rush and grapple, but not trip (although I could easily, easily be mistaken). If that is the case, is what you're offering right now a house rule? Because that'd be the Oberoni Fallacy.

You could use page 42. Those guidelines should cover it, I would imagine. Still, you don't understand how someone could get their lines crossed when the rules don't give explicit explanation of how to use a completely mundane ability except for as an encounter or daily power?

Considering how little effect prone actually has in 4e, do we REALLY need a specific mechanic for it?

Ideally. But, my ideals account for many, many things that no edition of D&D has successfully accomplished, so take that as you will.

Now, if you want to deal damage and knock something prone, then you have to use a power and that will be limited to a certain number of times per fight. Fair enough - we're not talking about just pushing someone over here, we're talking about that scene in an action movie where the character sweeps the guy's legs and then spikes him into the floor.

I don't see any reasoning on why this can't be done at the same time, mundanely, at will. I could see it not doing any damage, too, but I also didn't see why "no damage" needs to be the case.

Do we really want to go back to spamming the same action over and over again?

Isn't that what at-wills are? Now, you just have like, what, three of them? (Though, to be fair, you would probably use your encounter powers first, letting you use 4-5 powers per combat... significantly above the Char-Op board trip Fighter.)

See, the problem here is that we're not actually talking about simulation. 4e simulates high action drama rather well. In an action movie, or story, you don't see the characters performing the same trick over and over again throughout the story. They do different things all the time. Even though you might be able to do a super Jean Claude Van Damme high kick, he doesn't do it in every fight against every opponent. That would be boring.

Except that's exactly what's happening. The Wizard is using Fireball over and over again, and it's represented within the fiction as the Wizard using Fireball again. And, it takes him rest to get his spell back.

Then, you switch over to the Fighter, and if people don't switch gears right, they expect the same thing, since they have the exact same resolution system with that character. Fighters (and other mundane characters) are more abstract, because their powers seem to be more dramatist; that is, they can achieve the perfect setup, etc. You're switching from someone who does in fact use the same power over and over (the Wizard) to someone who gets the same result over and over (the Fighter), and that can trip some people up (get it?).

I think it's more to do with the idea that people just don't want to interact with the game on that level.

I'm sure that's some people, but I doubt your statement is true universally, and I'd guess it's off by a wide margin.

I guess, at the end of the day, it's all about priorities. If you just want to get to the end of the fight as soon as possible, then all the 4e bits just get in the way of that. OTOH, if you see combat as being a fun part of the game, equally as fun as any other part, then 4e probably speaks to that.

Well, combats in my game take a long time. I like that. I enjoy them when they do pop up (maybe once every 10 hours of gaming). I think that our current conversation, however, on what Fighters/Wizards feel like to some people, is completely divorced from that. "Fighters" and "Wizards" in my game would use such a completely different resolution system that I doubt many people would say they "feel" the same, but I could see it from the fringe (the d20 mechanic in general to some people). As always, play what you like

Or apparently, often not even reading rebuttals to their mistaken points. It is quite easy to criticize 4E without making up stuff that isn't there, yet some people have clung to untruths about 4E since its launch. Prove them wrong with a long thread and multiple cites from the text and multiple testimony from actual play, they'll drop it. Next week or next month, back the same false assertions will creep in.

It's almost as if they need 4E to be worse than it is for some reason. Hmm.

These arguments of "wrong people are wrong" and "biased people are biased" are true, but I think we all knew that. I think they're pretty much ignoring my point, which was that "universal calls of a subjective feel need to stop on both sides, but voicing your subjective view on how something makes you feel should be okay." How is that in any way objectionable? As always, play what you like

 

[Crazy Jerome]

These arguments of "wrong people are wrong" and "biased people are biased" are true, but I think we all knew that. I think they're pretty much ignoring my point, which was that "universal calls of a subjective feel need to stop on both sides, but voicing your subjective view on how something makes you feel should be okay." How is that in any way objectionable? As always, play what you like

It's a "free country" (within the mods rules and discretion ) on a relatively trivial subject. People can feel whatever they want, and express it however they want. Then other people can express how they feel about that, obviously also within tighter limits. However, if people want any kind of respect for the content implied by those feelings (as opposed to, say, themselves as a person having feelings like everyone else), then some accuracy in the content is helpful.

If you say you that don't like (or do like for that matter) elves because you feel like they are too nature-loving or haughty or getting way too much milage out of having pointy ears, well, fine. Whatever. Some people won't agree, but it is all taste anyway. However, if you say you don't like D&D edtion X.Y elves because being short guys that bake cookies in cartoon treehouse make them feel trivial to you--your feelings are still yours to feel as you want, but your claim to content respect is non-existent.

People making implied claims of content (or even fact) based on feelings is not the best thing in the world, but hardly earth shattering in human history. Given the confusion surrounding written forum communication, I'd expect more than our fair share in such an environment. We aren't Vulcans. Yet, what we get is sometimes beyond that. We get someone who is offended because their mistaken confusion between D&D elves and cookie mascots is called into question, as if that was an attack on whatever feelings they expressed. Or an attack on their best buddy that told them about the cookie mascots, and couldn't have possibly been joking or lying or mistaken or misunderstood or anything else. No, D&D elves make cookies in treehouses, and that's that.

I should also say that I've had enough recent exposure to people with certain issues (and not uncommon and not their fault) to understand that it isn't quite that simple--that for some people, any disagreement with a point they make is an attack on their feelings, from their perspective. I don't think, however, that the best way to accommodate their needs is for people that darn well know better to try to make implications of fact behind the shield of feelings. If anything, it creates a more hostile environment for them.

Short version: People will generally be a lot more tolerant of unpopular expressed feelings if those feelings are expressed as feelings and not something else.

 

[Ratskinner]

It was also suggested earlier on this forum that after the roll, if the roll was high enough, the player could chose a bonus (like trip or push). I think the problem with this is the fighter is still saying, "I attack, I attack, I attack," and then waiting for the roll to see if he gets to do something cool. I'd rather be saying, "I attack and want to try to push him down the stairs." A small difference, but I'd rather be thinking about what I'm going to do and trying to roll for it, not roll and then trying to decide what I'm going to do. (That might slow play down too.)

Good point. If it was the system I was suggesting. I'd give a discount on the shifts needed to perform the "called" maneuver, with a caveat that you don't get to pick a replacement maneuver should you miss.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's a "free country" (within the mods rules and discretion ) on a relatively trivial subject. People can feel whatever they want, and express it however they want. Then other people can express how they feel about that, obviously also within tighter limits. However, if people want any kind of respect for the content implied by those feelings (as opposed to, say, themselves as a person having feelings like everyone else), then some accuracy in the content is helpful.

But that "accuracy" is subjective, unless you're going back to "wrong people are wrong" or "biased people are biased" again, which we all know to be the case already. If I say that something makes me feel a certain way, there's really no justification necessary. I can attempt an explanation, but no amount of "well it's different because of this" would necessarily change how it makes me feel.

If you say you that don't like (or do like for that matter) elves because you feel like they are too nature-loving or haughty or getting way too much milage out of having pointy ears, well, fine. Whatever. Some people won't agree, but it is all taste anyway. However, if you say you don't like D&D edtion X.Y elves because being short guys that bake cookies in cartoon treehouse make them feel trivial to you--your feelings are still yours to feel as you want, but your claim to content respect is non-existent.

This is back to "wrong people are wrong" and that's not the point I made. I said that Hussar's "meme" comment on people's feelings was wrong, he replied, and you commented on his reply with "wrong people are wrong, and biased people are biased." Well, sure, but my point was (again) "universal calls of a subjective feel need to stop on both sides, but voicing your subjective view on how something makes you feel should be okay."

You should be able to express how you feel from a subjective standpoint, and it shouldn't be dismissed as a meme for doing so.

Short version: People will generally be a lot more tolerant of unpopular expressed feelings if those feelings are expressed as feelings and not something else.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I basically said that before Hussar disagreed with me and you seemingly agreed with him. As always, play what you like

 

[Ratskinner]

Player: I want to jump up and grab the chandelier, swing across the room and nail that guy in the middle.
DM: Ok, gimme a Str check to jump up and grab the chanelier (if you fail, your attack fails), now gimme a Dex check to swing across (if you fail, your attack fails and you wind up taking damage), now make an attack at -4 for being off balance, now gimme a Dex check to stick the landing (if you fail, you fall and take damage).
Player: Ok, Str, succeeds, Dex, no problem, attack, yeah, Damage 3, Dex... oh damn... failed that last check.
DM: You slam down 10 feet onto the barroom floor, take 7 damage. Oh, and the bad guy's three buddies now attack you while you're down...

Just to note how I'd like to see it happen:

Player: I want to jump up and grab the chandelier, swing across the room and nail that guy in the middle.
DM: Okay, make an Athletics check for all the fancy movement, DC 18 to pull it off, DC 24 or better gets you Advantage for the attack.
Player: rolls...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You should be able to express how you feel from a subjective standpoint, and it shouldn't be dismissed as a meme for doing so.

If one person says that they don't like D&D cookie making elves because it makes them feel trivial, we can let it slide, perhaps with a friendly correction on the facts while letting the feeling stand. If several people continue to do this, then it is the very definition of "meme". If some innocent comes along and expresses a meme all unknowingly, because that is what they feel, then it is still a meme.

As far as accuracy and subjectivity, there are things that are completely subjective and things that admit to some reason and discussion, where reasonable people can draw minimal lines. If X reminds you of a videogame, makes the game "feel" like a videogame--well, not much to say to that. OTOH, if you feel that X is too much like a videogame because A, B, and C are like videogames ... You are entitled to your feeling, you are not entitled to shield your subjective interpretation of the nature of A, B, and C on the grounds that because your interpretation is not based on anything solid, no one else's is either. Given the admitted basis for the statement, how could such a person even know enough to compare with what others think and why?

I'll grant that some will take the view that it is all subjective, and the preceding paragraph never applies to anything. They can do that. And as soon as I become aware that they are doing that, I can stop paying any attention to anything they say, on the grounds that the chances of them having any useful insights or thoughts are extremely low. Win-win.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If one person says that they don't like D&D cookie making elves because it makes them feel trivial, we can let it slide, perhaps with a friendly correction on the facts while letting the feeling stand. If several people continue to do this, then it is the very definition of "meme". If some innocent comes along and expresses a meme all unknowingly, because that is what they feel, then it is still a meme.

Here's what I was commenting on:

And I dislike 4e powers because they were "not-magic" magic. Everyone did the same thing with a different name.

So yes, to more abilities to fighters. No, to magic-lite abilities for fighters

Here's another meme that really needs to get put down.

Look, while there are a couple of powers that are "magic lite", the VAST majority of them are straight up cleaves and bull rushes.

Fighters really, REALLY aren't "magic lite" characters. Honest.

To the poster, obviously Fighters feel like Wizards. Hussar is saying "no they don't, and that meme needs to die."

There is no comment on cookie-making-elves here. Your comparison is so off. The guy I'm talking about is saying "Fighters fight like Wizards; they use the same system, they just call it different things." He feels like they're the same, and, yes, they use the same system.

Mind you, you can still get different feels from them, but you might need to be someone else. That is, while being able to open a magical gate and being able to heal a guy with your inspiring words and being able to cleave everyone around you all feel different to some people, the A/E/U system, the damage + best ability mod., the uniform resolution system can make them feel the same way to others.

Is either side right or wrong? Nope. It's subjective. And going to your cookie example over and over isn't going to change that. Sorry. As always, play what you like