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

[BryonD]

What's more ridiculous? That the choreographers of a fight scene in a movie don't want to make a crappy fight scene where the hero endlessly spams the same maneuver, or that I somehow have magically gained the ability to read minds and know what's inside someone's head.

You are still missing the point.

If they want to do it a second time they CAN. ("Spamming" red herrings aside)

 

[Hussar]

The massive flaw in this claim is that it presumes all targets are equal in merit so attacking the guy right in front of you is equally valid as attacking the guy over there. Even from a purely gamist pov that is frequently far from true. The guy over there may be a much more important threat and need to be dealt with *right now*.

But, once you've engaged "that guy over there", you stop moving.

I'm not saying that no moving ever happens. That would obviously be false. But, once you're engaged, not a lot of moving happens.

I went and randomly grabbed three sequential Dungeon issues from my of 3E days stack. I hit on 148-150.

Yeah, grabbing the last three adventurs of the Savage Tide AP is going to skew things rather a lot don't you think? Considering that these specific issues have some of the largest sections devoted to high level adventures, which isn't really the standard.

I actually happen to have 149 in front of me. About half the issue is devoted to Enemy of My Enemy, the penultimate Savage Tide adventure. Not a typical issue by any stretch.

Edit: this also contradicts your item #1 which claims you should just attack whoever is in your face.

That's not what #1 says. That's simply your misreading of what I said. What I said was that you are penalized for moving, not that you can never move.

 

[SteveC]

I have to admit, I'm getting rather tired having to have the exact same conversation, often with the same people, over and over and over again. Perhaps this is the source of my dismissiveness.

I had a thought on this. Why not make a thread with the arguments already laid out in them, and then just link to it?

One area that I particularly take issue with is the "all 4E characters are the same!!" argument. I've long thought about starting a thread over in the 4E board specifically to talk about classes and how they play differently. As an example, I'm currently playing one character (a lazy warlord) that's impossible to create in any earlier edition of the game, and plays totally different from other kinds of characters. This thread has made me want to create that thread (hopefully sometime this weekend... busy times for me).

I'd suggest a few threads about how 4E actually plays that can simply be referenced is a good start.

EDIT: thread, not threat! Not channeling anything, honest...

 

[Janaxstrus]

But, once you've engaged "that guy over there", you stop moving.

I'm not saying that no moving ever happens. That would obviously be false. But, once you're engaged, not a lot of moving happens.

I have played 3.0/3.5/PF since the release of the system. This is not the experience I have ever had.

Granted, no one has the ability to teleport 10 feet while being shot at by arrows, but somehow loses the ability when no one is shooting at them, so that changes the movement a little.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Go back and watch Jackie Chan movies. Look at how often he actually repeats any stunt in the same fight. Over the course of several fights? Oh heck yes. He does that all the time - tie the bag guy up with his clothes and beat the snot out of him. Seen it a million times. But, never in the same fight.

Like this one at the 1:23 mark?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8WJPY6MIkg]The Karate Kid (2010) - Jackie Chan Fight (HD 1080p) - YouTube[/ame]


Or at the 1:13 and 1:28 mark to two different guys (hurts Guy #2 at about 1:57)?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2IJxv1lbAc]Rumble in the Bronx (2/12) Movie CLIP - No Trouble (1995) HD - YouTube[/ame]


Or in The One, when Jet Li is confronted by the police in the hospital (about 37:30 into the movie), and he starts handcuffing all of them together?

It happens.

See, to me, process is pointless. The only thing that matters is the results. You want the same results that I do - no endlessly spamming the same maneuver. Seeing the same thing occur in the same fight should either never happen or be very rare. Since that's the goal you want, why not build that into the mechanics?

I think that people obviously want different stuff out of the game. If, however, you can use the ability again with a penalty (cumulative -5, or whatever) amounts to the same thing as not using it again to you, why not make that the mechanic?

I mean, if the results are effectively the same, but it satisfies people who are asking "why can you never do this again?", isn't that a better approach?

Again, I think it comes down to that dramatist/simulationist disconnect. Why can't you do it again? Dramatist: you can try, but it fails unless you use your narrative control to make it happen once per encounter, as you get that "perfect opening" to do the move. Simulationist: You can't try again, because...?

If, however, the results are all that matters, and they're the same to you, why not allow it to be tried again at a penalty? It'd stop you from performing the maneuver, but it wouldn't stop me (or others). And, it'd seem to satisfy both the dramatist/simulationist divide.

And, honestly, satisfying dramatist goals are often much easier than satisfying simulationist goals (it has kind of a "it's magic" defense for justification, but with many subjects). With that in mind, if you don't have an objection, would you support that change? As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

But, once you've engaged "that guy over there", you stop moving.

This presumes that
a) "that guy" doesn't move
b) the combat dynamics don't change who "that guy" is. (this happens BERY frequently in my games)
c) "that guy" lives til the end of the game

I'm not saying that no moving ever happens. That would obviously be false. But, once you're engaged, not a lot of moving happens.

Again, I can't speak for your game. I don't dispute it is true for you. I completely dispute that it is a truism.

Yeah, grabbing the last three adventurs of the Savage Tide AP is going to skew things rather a lot don't you think?

No. They actually had a lot of the one monster "set pieces" in the ST stuff.

But, just to put that to bed...

Taking ST out and just looking at the other adventures:
avg # dropped to 3.5
% over 3 dropped from 45% all the way down to 44%.
% with 2 or 3 went from 29% to 32%.
Still several with 10+ foes (though the 20+ case did drop out)

So, either way, your numbers were not even in the BALLPARK. You were just plain wrong.

I actually happen to have 149 in front of me. About half the issue is devoted to Enemy of My Enemy, the penultimate Savage Tide adventure. Not a typical issue by any stretch.

Well, I just demonstrated that it doesn't matter. But isn't it interesting that you are saying this flying in the face of your claims doesn't count because it happens to be "not typical", but it was hugely popular?

As I said, even if your numbers HAD been right, your point still doesn't stand because the system itself does an awesome job of managing large groups, whether WotC or Paizo elected to design adventures that way or not. The fact that you are mathematically way wrong (both with and excluding ST) is just icing.

That's not what #1 says. That's simply your misreading of what I said. What I said was that you are penalized for moving, not that you can never move.

I didn't claim you said "you can never move". Your point 1 (aka point 2) was you should stay with who is in your face so you don't lose attacks. You point 5 was you should go to the biggest threat.

And, yet again, nothing in this post addresses the true heart of the issue.

You should have your own CHOICE if you want to do something a second time. Having the rules tell the players they can't do it again is a good way to convince people to play a different game. I don't REMOTELY claim that 4E's flaws are summed up here, but on this point, they did an excellent job of driving fan base away.

 

[Mattachine]

I played the entire run of 3e and 3.5 (but not Pathfinder).

In my games, movement happened in combat in these situations:

1. Casters keeping away from melee
2. Getting or maintaining flanking
3. Switching enemies once an enemy was dropped
4. Running away
5. A combat character optimized for movement

#1 was the most common, #5 was the least. Even so, movement in combat was usually about getting into position, not staying there.

Fights with movement were rare, since both PCs and monsters usually did more damage (or got more chances for a special effect) when making a full attack.

Only monsters or PCs designed specifically around movement (flyby attack, certain monk builds, and so on) moved around a lot in combat.

 

[PTHoorah]

Since it seems that most people agree there should be some powers/maneuvers for martial characters (or tricks for thieves), I thought it might be helpful to summarize the ideas that have been thrown around, so they can be discussed/debated. If I didn't properly summarize an idea, or missed one, sorry. I didn't reread the dozen proceeding pages.

1. Tiered/Combo Attacks: A successful attack marks/engages (term?) the target. Follow on hits allow the player to choose from a list of options, with the options getting increasingly better as the hit sequence progresses. (So three hits in a row unlocks better options, four hits even better, etc.)
- For discussion: A. Do the options need to be picked before the attack roll?
B. Can other players pile on? (So if Fighter A hits, can Fighter B attack with an option on a hit? If B misses, does A then lose his bonus?)

2. Stamina Points/Exertion Points: Characters get X many points and can use those points to attempt maneuvers.
- For discussion: A. What determines X? Race, class, attributes?
B. How do characters get SP/EP back?

3. AC Plus X: If a character beats the target's AC (or other defense) by a certain amount X, the character gets to use a power/make a maneuver. If the character only beats the AC, he gets to roll damage as normal.
- For discussion: A. Do the options need to be picked before the attack roll?
B. Will maneuvers have different X values?

4. High Roller: if the character rolls above a number on attack roll, he gets to pick an attack option. (So, 16-18 might be one set of maneuvers, 19 might be another set, and 20 would be crits.)
- For discussion: A. Can players pick to use an option from a lower roll's list?
B. Does the player have to pick the option before the roll, and then the roll determines if it activates? (If the AC is beat, then damage as normal.)

5. Stance High Roller: The character declares an at-will stance, and then if the character rolls above a certain number on the attack roll, a pre-determined maneuver activates, in theme with that stance. (Again, a 16-18 might activate one maneuver, while a 19 could activate another.)
- For discussion: Can a player use a maneuver from a lower roll?

6. Power Points. (I apologize, I forget what the poster's term for this was.) When an attack roll beats the AC of a target, the character gains PP equal to the difference. The character can then use the PP to attempt maneuvers/powers.
- For discussion: A. Do the PP have to be used on the target that the character gained them from?
B. Do they collect from encounter to encounter? Or, when do they reset?

My thoughts: I think all the options have merit, because they eliminate the straight AEDU of 4e and the maneuvers are too difficult (or require lots of feats to be good) of 3e. (Disclaimer, I haven't played 3e, but reading here that sounds like a regular complaint.) All the options limit how often maneuvers/powers will happen in an encounter, without outright saying it can only be done once (or twice). I also think some of the systems could be layered - so maybe all characters could use High Roller or AC Plus X, but only martial characters would have Stance High Roller.

My preference: In general, I favor a system where powers are picked, then an attack roll is made. I think rolling then seeing what you can do is very "gamey" and would reduce roll playing and table talk. (I want the player to say, "I attack and try to push the orc into the fire." Then roll. Then the DM to tell the player what happens. Not: The player says, "I attack." Then roll. Then say, "Okay, I rolled high enough to push him into the fire, so I do.") Specifically, I'd like a system where basic maneuvers required an AC Plus X, but "powers" (the burst attacks, or cleave, or 3[w] attacks) would use EP/SP and only martial characters could use them. And Stance High Roller could work in this system too.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

The idea that JCVD or Chan is thinking inside his head that he CAN'T repeat a trick if the situation were to present itself is preposterous.

I wonder what 4e builds these comments are meant to relate to.

I assume that we can put to one side wizards, warlocks, clerics, invokers, etc, who are spellcasters in pre-4e D&D and maintain the trappings of spellcasting in 4e.

I would have thought we can put to one side 4e rangers, whose attacks are overwhelmingly mechanical variants on two-weapon melee attacks or two arrow shots. There is no reason at all to think that, in the game, these attacks are differing at all. The mechanical benefits of an encounter power like Biting Volley over Twin Strike as an at will play out at the metagame level. Rangers also have interrupts/reactions, but these aren't funky "signiature moves". Rather, they help break up the combat round, reducing the "stop-start" vibe of 3E and 4e turn-by-turn initiative. The same thing is true for a daily like Shots on the Run - in the game, this is just bowshots separated by movement, no different from any other bowshots separated by movement. That they occur in the same turn rather than separate turns is purely a metagame feature based on the power's interaction with the initiative sequence - it's not discernible within the fiction.

Figthers have a range of attacks that overlap in effects at the at will, encounter and daily level. The odd fighter build might have a signiature move feel - it would be interesting to see someone post such a build - but given the way that the game rewards specialisation, I think most fighters are built so as to maximise the overlap in effect between various powers. And once effects are overlapping, differences between powers again become metagame only - in the gameworld there is no telling the difference between an at will that affects multiple targets (eg Cleave), an encounter power that affects multiple targets (eg Passing Attack) and a daily power that affects multiple targets (the fighter in my game has a few, though I can't remember what they're called).

And so on for paladins and warlords, and I'm guessing rogues as well (though I'm not as familiar with them).

 

[Hussar]

I think that people obviously want different stuff out of the game. If, however, you can use the ability again with a penalty (cumulative -5, or whatever) amounts to the same thing as not using it again to you, why not make that the mechanic?

I mean, if the results are effectively the same, but it satisfies people who are asking "why can you never do this again?", isn't that a better approach?

Because pandering to people makes my teeth itch? /snark

The honest answer is, why bother? Why have this mechanics (cumulative -5) which is just begging to be broken? It's far, far more elegent a solution just to say, no, this doesn't work. It keeps game balance, doesn't interact with the thousand other rules which can give you attack bonuses and is not a trap for players with less than stellar math skills.

I mean, you already get this in 3e - you don't do maneuvers unless you have the feat. The maneuvers will almost certainly fail otherwise. Instead of having this math trap, why not just say, "Feat: Improved Trip - you may attempt trip attacks"?

The end result is exactly the same.