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

[JamesonCourage]

Because pandering to people makes my teeth itch? /snark

Helpful.

The honest answer is, why bother?

To help people in both camps enjoy the mechanics instead of being split by what you consider to be the same results?

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.

That's if there are a thousands rules that can give you an attack bonus in 5e, which is currently aiming for much flatter math. A cumulative -5 penalty in a system with flatter math seems like a big enough deal that I'd hesitate to use it again, but I might attempt it.

As far as math goes, I want the fiction > the rules. The rules should aid the fiction, not unnecessarily restrict it. I love random results that make for fantastic fiction.

Three sessions ago, I had a player (who could regenerate limbs) lather "essence of death" collected from a defeated Avatar of Death on his right hand before a fight with a dragon, in case he could block with his arm. In the combat, it bit him. As I use a d100 Hit Chart in my game, I rolled. Arm damage (elbow). Roll to see left or right arm; right arm. It dealt enough damage to bite his arm off at the elbow, and as a dragon, it did just that. This dragon's weakness was specifically against the "essence of death" (story reason, multiple trials, etc.), and I showed them the stat-block afterwards. It bit his arm off, and took damage for doing so, and it was a really cool moment that played out randomly.

In my longest running campaign (over 2,000 hours put into what began as a no-magic 3.5 game), I also used the d100 Hit Chart. There's a 1 in 100 chance of an eye getting hit, and it got rolled against the melee warrior from an arrow while he was charging into a battle (in the third session), and he took enough damage to lose an eye (left). Then, in a fight against Abelth (his former ally) in the same battle, he got crit on, and I rolled it again (except he lost his right eye). He was now permanently blind, but he ended up winning the fight (temporarily paralyzing Abelth on the Hit Chart), and sparing his former ally (they later made up). While the player thought it was cool, he was a little bummed at first, and kept playing him while waiting for a good place to swap out. He never did, and the party grew from level 2 (pre-battle) to level 26, with his character there the entire time (though his eyesight was restored around level 11). In the meantime, he picked up blindsense via a "Blind Fighter" custom prestige class, nearly eliminated miss chance, picked up an amazing ability to Listen, etc. It was by far that player's favorite character.

I love what random, honest results can produce. Sure, you may not hit with that second special attack at -5, and almost certainly won't with that third attack at -10, but special things can happen in-game when you do connect. Absolutely awesome story can unfold.

What I want in a system is something that enables this sort of thing. I don't want it to say "no, you can't, because it's effectively the same thing." Trust me, there's a world of difference between "you can't" and "you probably won't". When I played a one-shot "recently", I threw a spear at a pict thief who had nearly full cover from me, and I needed a nat 20 to hit; I rolled, and got it. That reminded me just how awesome that feeling of "probably won't, but did anyways" truly is.

I want that feeling as a possibility in the game. And, if it's all the same to you anyways, at least let me have it.

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.

No, it's not. I've definitely seen players use maneuvers without the feat. I've done it, too. Your "same" seems to be wildly different from mine, and if this simple change (cumulative penalty) can appease people like me and people like you, why not use it?

You say, "why bother?" Well, how about to make more potential players happy? You don't need to use the lesser mathematical option if you don't want to, and I can use it again if I think it'd make sense to try it again (or at all, with your trip example!). Win/win, right? As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

See, to me, that 1 in a 1000 chance of happening just isn't worth the mechanics. I mean, what were the actual odds of the dragon biting THAT arm off? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? So, yeah, it led to a great result that time. However, the other 99 times, it was a complete waste of space as the dragon bit off the other arm, leg, left testicle, whatever. Why bother?

As far as trying without the feat, well, again, how often? Once a session? Once every three sessions? Ten? Again, if it only comes up 1% of the time, why bother having mechanics? It's a waste of space and processing time. Much better to have mechanics that cover 99% of the time and deal with that 1% at the table with the DM adjudicating.

See, your example of the death hand is exactly what Page 42 is for. It's a Daily effect - and because it's set beforehand, it works perfectly well. The PLAYER decides if that's what he wants to have happen or not. I'd much rather the players determine the course of the game rather than rely on that 1% chance that it happens. Presuming, of course, that it actually is 1% and not just the DM tipping the dice so that the effect occurs on time.

----------

Back to the mobility thing. Ok, let's say I'm wrong. Fair enough, I've been wrong lots of times before.

So, for those of you who have mobile 3e combats, how do you do it? What tactics, tips and strategies do you use in play to keep combats mobile?

Note, by mobile, I mean that a combat should cover around 10 x 10 squares, and at least 2 PC's must take a full movement every round. 5 foot shifts don't count as mobile. Because, that's what 4e gives me. So, if I want the same thing in 3e, how do I do it?

 

[LostSoul]

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.

My idea - the one I currently use in my 4E hack - is similar to your first, but there's a crucial point that's either been missed or glossed over. The idea is that the first action sets up a fictional condition that opens up possibilities for future actions.

e.g. If your foe's weapon has been parried aside, you can allow your allies to move without being struck. Or: If your foe is doubled-over, you can swing at his head and deal extra damage.

(These are two examples from my current game.)

So your PC has a special move that's triggered by a fictional condition - or in-game condition. You - or someone else - sets up that condition, and then you can use your special move.

 

[LostSoul]

See, your example of the death hand is exactly what Page 42 is for. It's a Daily effect - and because it's set beforehand, it works perfectly well. The PLAYER decides if that's what he wants to have happen or not. I'd much rather the players determine the course of the game rather than rely on that 1% chance that it happens. Presuming, of course, that it actually is 1% and not just the DM tipping the dice so that the effect occurs on time.

I am reminded of this blog post: anyway: Rules vs Vigorous Creative Agreement

2008-04-09 : Rules vs Vigorous Creative Agreement
I really dig the term vigorous creative agreement and I really dig Jim Henley's post about it. He sets me up (by association, not by name, and I don't hold it against him a bit, these are the circles I run in) to think that natural, emergent agreement is a poor substitute for functional formal rules. In fact I think the opposite.

Here's what I'd say: if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better.

(This goes along with my answer to Mo here about the Wicked Age's owe list, and maybe see also reward the winner, punish the loser.)

As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create. And it's not that you want one person's wanted, welcome vision to win out over another's - that's weak sauce. (*) No, what you want are outcomes that upset every single person at the table. You want things that if you hadn't agreed to abide by the rules' results, you would reject.

If you don't want that - and I believe you when you say you don't! (**) - then live negotiation and honest collaboration are a) just as good as, and b) a lot more flexible and robust than, whatever formal rules you'd use otherwise.

The challenge facing rpg designers is to create outcomes that every single person at the table would reject, yet are compelling enough that nobody actually does so. (***) If your game isn't doing that, like I say it's interchangeable with the most rudimentary functional game design, and probably not as fun as good freeform.​

 

[JamesonCourage]

See, to me, that 1 in a 1000 chance of happening just isn't worth the mechanics. I mean, what were the actual odds of the dragon biting THAT arm off? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? So, yeah, it led to a great result that time. However, the other 99 times, it was a complete waste of space as the dragon bit off the other arm, leg, left testicle, whatever. Why bother?

About 1 in 100. That's what makes it so incredibly memorable. The use to the "other times", of course, is that you can lose an arm without a positive benefit. I like that, but don't expect it to be standard in 5e (which is why I'm not trying to promote it).

However, I doubt a cumulative -5 penalty on the attack/check would make it 1 in 100, so I don't think it applies to what I was asking for anyways.

As far as trying without the feat, well, again, how often? Once a session? Once every three sessions? Ten? Again, if it only comes up 1% of the time, why bother having mechanics? It's a waste of space and processing time. Much better to have mechanics that cover 99% of the time and deal with that 1% at the table with the DM adjudicating.

It really depends on the story. Is there a reason to push a guy? Is here near a cliff, or standing over a ritualistic fire, or in the way? It'll get used without the feat in my group, if so. Do I want to take this guy's weapon so I don't need to beat him unconscious? Disarm will get used without the feat. Grapple is the most common maneuver (in 3.5 at that!), in my experience.

I'd say about 1-3 times per session (but my sessions are about 9-10 hours long... but generally about 1 combat per session, so I guess that's not too bad ). Why have it, though? So people can use it reliably. I'm a big proponent of written, reliable rules that can be ignored or changed via house rules, if desired.

See, your example of the death hand is exactly what Page 42 is for. It's a Daily effect - and because it's set beforehand, it works perfectly well. The PLAYER decides if that's what he wants to have happen or not. I'd much rather the players determine the course of the game rather than rely on that 1% chance that it happens. Presuming, of course, that it actually is 1% and not just the DM tipping the dice so that the effect occurs on time.

This is fine from a dramatist perspective (and I like the goal of page 42). Heck, it's desired. It's not my ideal way to play, though. So we'll legitimately differ, there. However, if it's the same result-wise to you, and results are the only thing that matters, why not go about it with the penalty, and make both sides happy? As always, play what you like

(Side note: the player could have tried to make the dragon bite his hand, if he had wanted to. It was just a 1 in 100 chance of it happening to him on the dragon's bite attack, with no effort of his own.)

 

[pemerton]

As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction.

<snip>

The challenge facing rpg designers is to create outcomes that every single person at the table would reject, yet are compelling enough that nobody actually does so.

I think this is too strong a criterion, and the argument for it relies on a pun - ie "X is unwanted by A" generally means "A is averse to X", but in this context all that is required is that "X has not desire for A". It is possible to have situations in which something is not the object of desire, but also is not the object of aversion. Examples of such things include the unexpected or surprising, and I think one importnat function of RPG rules is to introudce the unexpected or surprising into the fiction.

There is also an issue of time-sequence in relation to the desire/aversion/surprise. One important function of RPG rules, in my view, is to create results that wouldn't arise out of agreement because no one would think of them, or think of moving the fiction towards them. But it is not fatal to this that the surprise not be sudden. For example, there are various forms of RPG conflict resolution - combat rules in many games, extended conflict rules in games like HeroWars/Quest, 4e (skill challenges), etc - that create a "space" in which the resolution of events is structured and "drawn out" in a certain sort of way. And in this space unexpected things happen (you once posted an example of a negotiation between a PC and some NPCs, in which the PC's success was a foregone conclusion, but the process of accuring sufficient successful skill checks required the PC to actual play out the negotiations, which in turn produced unexpected offers to and compromises with the NPCs).

When this sort of resolution is being resolved at the table, it can sometimes - perhaps often, even - be the case that, as things play out, everyone suddenly sees some endpoint creeping up on them, that they hadn't anticipated and looks like it might be interesting and exciting. It doesn't undermine the funciton and utility of these rules that by the time the at-first unanticipated ending actually comes around, people at the table have noticed it and started pushing towards it. The rules did their job in creating the space for it.

A further complication here is that the point of view of desire, rejection etc can be either that of the player, or that of the PC. One further function of action resolution rules, in my view, is to handle and mediate the pressure between these two perspectives, so that players can (i) play their PCs to the hilt (as described in the Eero Tuovinen blog post on pitfalls of design that you have linked to from time to time), yet (ii) get results that are satisfying for themselves and others at the table, even if not what their PC would desire. Good mechanics can ensure that the game doesn't turn into inspid "conch-passing", in which players sacrifice their advocacy for their PCs (how much? and in whose interests?) in pursuit of a story. (And on the flipside, good action resolution mechanics remove the need for any reliance on the GM to do the same thing on his/her side of the table, via the so-called Golden Rule of White Wolf/AD&D 2nd ed notoriety.)

The relationship of randomness in resolution mechanics to all this is an interesting question. It obviously depends a great deal on how the random mechanics are designed, what other factors bear upon the framing of the "question" that the random mechanics answer, etc. I've played a lot of a game notorious for its random crit tables - namely, Rolemaster - and they certainly are part of the charm of the game. But in my view their main effect on combat is tactical - for example, they make focus fire less significant as a tactic than it is in D&D hit point attrition combat - and not dramatic. Not to say that they couldn't be adapted or developed in a more dramatic direction, but that would be a non-trivial amount of work (compare Rolemaster or classic RQ, for example, to Burning Wheel and the machinery that it uses to frame its crit-based combat resolution).

 

[Hussar]

JC walk me through this. Do I have the sequence right?

1. PC discovers dragon's weakness. A poison.
2. PC procures the poison.
3. PC knowing that the dragon is near, smears the poison on his hand in the hopes that the dragon will bite his hand off.
4. The rest of the group goes along with this plan.

Is that right?

Umm why didn't they

A) coat their wepons in poison?
Or
B) put the poison in or on some kind of food and throw it down the dragon's throat?

See to me there's some details missing from this story. And if there isn't I really can't see how this is a good reason for random resolution. I don't think mechanics should rely on situations this bizarre to be "good".

 

[JamesonCourage]

JC walk me through this. Do I have the sequence right?

1. PC discovers dragon's weakness. A poison.
2. PC procures the poison.
3. PC knowing that the dragon is near, smears the poison on his hand in the hopes that the dragon will bite his hand off.
4. The rest of the group goes along with this plan.

Is that right?

No.

1. They PCs acquired "poison" from the Avatar of Death (a different PC picked it up as a trophy).
2. They guessed that the dragon was weak against it based on the vision of an NPC (it was highly symbolic, but they guessed correctly).
3. PCs know the dragon is near, and plan an assault. They coat their weapons (of their main melee guys), and then one PC (not the guy who owned the "poison") asked to coat his hand, too.
4. The PC who owned the "poison" agreed, since he knew that the character was also a grappler, and might have a way to get it in the dragon's mouth.
5. They initiated the fight with the dragon, and then it bit his hand off (well, arm at the elbow) on that really cool hit.

Umm why didn't they

A) coat their wepons in poison?
Or
B) put the poison in or on some kind of food and throw it down the dragon's throat?

They considered B, but opted for A. They had extra, so he coated his hand as well.

See to me there's some details missing from this story.

Of course there were details missing, I wrote a medium-length paragraph of a "boss" fight against a two-headed dragon (first time I'm mentioning the two heads, too!). I didn't mention a few things.

And if there isn't I really can't see how this is a good reason for random resolution. I don't think mechanics should rely on situations this bizarre to be "good".

I don't think they do. Getting blinded for Blake (the Fighter PC) ended up being really cool. He was able to use his blindsense to find things like invisible creatures, and to help locate survivors after a town was nearly leveled in a raid by an invading barbaric force.

Throwing that javelin at that pict thief when I needed a natural 20 (because he was barely visible while sneaking up on my friend) was awesome. I dropped him, stabilized him, and had him help us. Now, I only had a 5% chance of success, and the GM (one of my usual players) pretty much let on that it's nearly an impossible shot (or impossible, he didn't say), since I had to make a huge called shot to hit him (we have rules for that, too). But, I took the shot anyways, and the story changed a lot based on that small, 5% chance of success.

Which leads back to my actual point: that small chance of success? Some people will take it, and it can really change how events unfold. That cumulative -5 penalty to encounter powers would make a world of difference to some people, and if it's the same to you either way, why not support it? You won't take it; I will. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Throwing that javelin at that pict thief when I needed a natural 20 (because he was barely visible while sneaking up on my friend) was awesome.

<snip>

Which leads back to my actual point: that small chance of success? Some people will take it, and it can really change how events unfold.

Doesn't this depend heavily on the opportunity cost of taking the small chance (which is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point, at least as I read him).

One memorable moment in my game involved the PC wizard taking an oppy attack against a gnoll with his Tome (an improvised weapon), needing a 20 (excatly) to hit, rolling the natural 20 which (in 4e) is also a crit, and then killing the gnoll with the bonus crit damage from his Tome - the Tome is a Tome of Replenishing Flame, and the bonus damage is fire damage, and we narrated the Tome bursting briefly into fire as it struck the gnoll.

But the opportunity cost of taking this oppy? Zero - because the PC in question has nothing else to do with oppy attacks, and there is no fumble system or other way (within the mechanics) that taking an oppy can backfire.

Likewise, perhaps (at least judging from what you've written) for hurling your javelin.

But for manoeuvres like grappling, tripping, disarming etc in 3E there is an opportuntiy cost, namely, forfeiting a standard attack that would wear down an enemy's hit points. This is what is said to make them traps for maths-weak players, and why encounter powers offer one viable alternative to attack penalties for rationing them.

A different alternative again would be to have some sort of Fate Point mechanicsm, or "Now I'm Really Desparate!" card, which can be played to open up some sort of opportunity for a workaround the normal hit point attrition mechanics when it is obvious that hit point attrition isn't what is needed.

In Rolemaster and similar games, the pressure to find a good way to handle these sorts of attacks is reduced by the existence of a crit system - even a standard attack can deliver a solid debuff on a lucky crit roll, and disarm, sunder etc are just ways of slightly increasing the odds of a debuff at the cost of a chance to do fatal damage. But in a hit-point based combat system like D&D, these melee debuffs live in the same design space as "save or suck", and give rise to some of the same design problems.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Doesn't this depend heavily on the opportunity cost of taking the small chance (which is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point, at least as I read him).

I didn't read that, but it's possible.

One memorable moment in my game involved the PC wizard taking an oppy attack against a gnoll with his Tome (an improvised weapon), needing a 20 (excatly) to hit, rolling the natural 20 which (in 4e) is also a crit, and then killing the gnoll with the bonus crit damage from his Tome - the Tome is a Tome of Replenishing Flame, and the bonus damage is fire damage, and we narrated the Tome bursting briefly into fire as it struck the gnoll.

But the opportunity cost of taking this oppy? Zero - because the PC in question has nothing else to do with oppy attacks, and there is no fumble system or other way (within the mechanics) that taking an oppy can backfire.

Likewise, perhaps (at least judging from what you've written) for hurling your javelin.

With your example, there's no cost. Everyone gets one opportunity attack against every opponent that provokes one, to my knowledge (not one per round, like in 3.X).

In my example, I don't have my javelin anymore. If the pict thief grabbed my comrades pouch and ran, I couldn't throw it after him with a better shot, or threaten him with it, or the thief might well pick it up on his run out!

But for manoeuvres like grappling, tripping, disarming etc in 3E there is an opportuntiy cost, namely, forfeiting a standard attack that would wear down an enemy's hit points. This is what is said to make them traps for maths-weak players, and why encounter powers offer one viable alternative to attack penalties for rationing them.

If I use my "encounter power" (like 4e, but with cumulative -5 uses) in combat, I might consider the next use unlikely but feasible. Using it again still depletes the "feasible" resource, since I might consider -10 unfeasible. So, there's still a cost, in my mind. As always, play what you like