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

[LostSoul]

No thanks. I'd rather see the counter-trip etc happen in game, instead of having it forced 'off screen' by the rules.

Given the abstract nature of D&D combat (any edition), I'm not sure any action happens in-game. e.g. You "trip" your opponent, but what actually happened? We don't know; all we know is that he's prone. Another example: You deal damage on a successful hit. What actually happened? We don't know; all we know is that he doesn't have as many HP.

I could be wrong, though.

 

[Hussar]

Should that rogue be prevented from trying the trip/immobilize maneuver multiple times because you believe it is "boring" to re-use a maneuver in the same combat? Not at all. If there is ever the circumstance that using a particular maneuver is a good idea, there will always be circumstances, however situational, where using that maneuver multiple times is a good idea and would be no more boring than a normal attack because that maneuver is the logical choice in that scenario. In such a circumstance, one should not be prevented from doing so because of the potential for spamming; spamming should be prevented in a different way, i.e. not introducing a feat/power/etc. that makes that maneuver better than a normal attack!

Yes, absolutely.

Because your example doesn't work. The rogue kills goblin 1 and then trips Goblin 2. Goblins 3 and 4 run away and you don't get the chance to trip them. Why are they standing around waiting for you to trip them?

OTOH, if I have an encounter, or perhaps a daily power, that is considerably more powerful than a single trip attempt, I can trip targets in an area attack effect, tripping the entire lot of them in a single round.

But, if I do that, and then do it again, and then do it again, that's boring as hell.

/edit to add

The basic point here is that some attacks should be more powerful. Not every attack that the character attempts should be the same power. That's what we had in 3e and earlier. And, you get exactly that - the non-caster characters do the exact same thing, over and over and over again, round after round, level after level, with the occasional bright spot where they got to do something funky.

All because no attack option could ever be better than a basic, vanilla attack.

3e went some ways towards mixing things up - they added decent mechanical resolutions for various common maneuvers. However, the problem here is that the common maneuvers become better than a regular attack, thus, you simply shift from making a standard attack all the time to making a trip attack all the time. And, of course, this generally only applied to fighters because they were the only ones who could afford the feats to be able to spam special maneuvers.

It was an improvement over what came before, but it didn't go far enough.

4e says, as Pemerton rightly points out, "Look, some attacks are just flat out better than other attacks. This power here? It does twice as much damage as your regular attack. But, we can't really let you spam that because then, well, you don't need a regular attack. So, we make it an encounter power."

Like Pemerton points out, it's empowering players to be able to decide when they want to be awesome. Or at least cool. If we go back to the idea that no attack can ever be better than a basic attack, but, you can do it all day long, we go back to the idea that fighter types basically do one thing most of the time, level after level.

Hey, if you like that, cool. Me, I don't. I don't want my moment of cool to be dependent on random chance. I want to be able to set it up. Now, I might fail, and that's fair enough. In the last session, I set up a nice little chain of powers with my human warlock, that utterly failed due to poor rolls. C'est la vie. But, the attempt was still under my control, not the DM nor random chance.

 

[Mattachine]

Now say our fighter is successful with his first push power attack, but that he only has one power with a Push. He's slain one troll, but there's 3 left. Logically, being a martial trick, it's something the fighter knows how to do, so he should be able to do it again. But the game rules prevent it, even though the story makes it appropriate. It's not the same troll, so it hasn't 'learned it's lesson' from the first use of the power.

He's left with bull rush, which he'll have to do repeatedly, at the cost of only ever moving 1 square at a time, and doing no damage. He can do that all day long, so why not the power based push?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I put up with it because 4E is the only game I have going right now, but I don't like it.

If all attack options were balanced against a MBA, there's no reason to limit them to a single use. It's the 'intentional overpoweredness' of encounters and dailies that force them to have a limit.

I see this sentiment in many threads. The 4e rules do not prohibit combat creativity, nor do they say what cannot be done. Instead, the rules say what can be done reliably. The rest has to be judged by the DM, similar to AD&D or OD&D. The DMG (p. 42) and the DMG2 (terrain powers section) give excellent advice on adjudicating these situations. I do agree that the rules could have been more explicit about trying things besides specific powers. I think that is a victim of moving combat rules from the DMG to the PHB back in 3e.

The new edition of the game need only provide a set of clear guidelines, similar to the 4e p.42 and the DMG2, and combat maneuvers will be used. They could even throw in some combat stunt rules such as in Iron Heroes. Didn't Mearls work on that or something?

 

[TwoSix]

This is the thing. To me, having a thing that is 'very likely going to happen' ceases to be awesome....<snip>
You see, for me to use the word awesome, the event must be quite extraordinary. Using a power that is near guaranteed offers no 'awesome' for me. It might please me, it might be cool, it might make me smile, but it won't have me saying 'Holy crap, that was awesome!'.

It seems to me there's an argument between two different flavors of awesome.

The first is the awesome of the improbable, the "HOLY ****" moment, the winning lottery ticket, the guy who falls out of a plane without a parachute and lives kind of moment. This type of awesome suits traditional RPGs really well, which are based on modeling the expected results of a fantasy world with expected verisimilitude. Every once in a while a series of improbable rolls happens, and a monster dies in a way no one expected, or a character lives (or dies) in some improbable way, and those are the stories that get passed around the gaming table 10 years later. Everyone still probably remembers the exact dice rolls (He rolled under a 3 five straight times!).

Hussar is arguing for the awesomeness that more narrative games are built for, the awesomeness of the climatic moment. When the storyline comes together, and the character faces a true live-or-die (or needed success vs epic fail) moment, then the game rewards you for not just attacking, but doing something memorable. Narrative games thrive by giving rewards for expending or risking character resources at dramatically opportune moments to create climatic moments of awesomeness.

It's the awesomeness you feel that comes when you've finished a really good book or movie, that shivery flutter in the pit of the stomach. In a narrative game, you help to create that moment instead of just witness it. It's not that adrenaline rush that comes with rolling a 20 when you're the last guy standing, but it's certainly an awesomeness worth respecting.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Lots of posts, did not read them all. Surely someone suggested what I am about to;

The premise is that if some attacks are more powerful than others, they need some restriction otherwise they just become the default attack.

4e had an arbitray restrictions (daily, encounter), 5e should have more organic ones.

Every attack that is more powerful than the baseline attack needs a costs.

From past past editions, we've always hada higher risk of failure. i.e. Good old penalty to hit or a required successful skill check otherwise the action is wasted. The problem with this approach is from a mathematical point of view, a higher risk of failure can often be compared to the expected result and canny player end up spamming those with a good ratio and avoiding those with a bad one, irrelevant of the coolness factor of the move.

It can be a 'vitality cost'. This would work better, IMO. If an attack costs you 5 hp each time you do it, you will pace yourself!

It can be a drawback. If you lose 2 to 4 points of defense every time you do it, you will pick your spot.

It can be a nasty consequence. A free attack from the target after your resolved your attack is nice. If you did not put him down, pay the price!

It should be things like that. Thus, we would see a wider variety of maneuvers employed.

 

[pemerton]

Every attack that is more powerful than the baseline attack needs a costs.

From past past editions, we've always hada higher risk of failure. i.e. Good old penalty to hit or a required successful skill check otherwise the action is wasted. The problem with this approach is from a mathematical point of view, a higher risk of failure can often be compared to the expected result and canny player end up spamming those with a good ratio and avoiding those with a bad one, irrelevant of the coolness factor of the move.

It can be a 'vitality cost'. This would work better, IMO. If an attack costs you 5 hp each time you do it, you will pace yourself!

The balance issue here is that spellcasters have access to a separate vitality pool (spell points, spell slots, etc) and don't suffer penalties to hit with their better attacks (in 3E the save DCs for those spells are higher, not lower! - HARP is the only system I know which takes the opposite approach, and makes powerful spells attack with a lower bonus).

I don't see why resting is a problem in that situation. If the story allows them 100 days to explore an area, and it will take them roughly 3 days to explore. Why wouldn't they do so cautiously? If there isn't a logical story-based reason to press on, I don't really see the 15 minute work day as an issue. I see it more as 'the characters doing the sensible thing in the situation presented'.

The issue is not resting per se (although for some groups that can produce slightly inane stories). The issues arises when player control over resting means that some PCs (the Vancian ones) are systematically more effecive than other PCs (the non-Vancian ones).

You are a rogue, scouting ahead in the dungeon. You run into four goblins in one room

<snip>

Sadly, you trip one, but two of the goblins escape to alert their tribe to come slaughter you and your party, because tripping all three of them would be boring.

Just adding to what Hussar said - after tripping the first goblin, the rogue should be clonking the next one on the head, pushing the third into a nearby pit/chest/iron maiden/other similar restraint, etc. I think this is the sort of non-boring, perhaps slightly gonzo, action that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is talking about.

 

[pemerton]

There is a certain amount of truth to the idea that lots of people can get all kinds of useful results out of a game when they aren't pushing it too hard in play. I find, for example, that most systems run better overall when you don't make every fight a life and death struggle. (There are exceptions, of course, both in systems and groups using them.) So in that sense, playing at "full throttle" is abnormal.

Good post. I just wanted to clarify something about "full throttle" play. I wasn't meaning to say that the stake are always as high as they could conceivably be, but rather that, in playing their PCs, the players don't hold back mechanically. So in a non-life-and-death struggle, the PCs might hold back on their deployment of lethal force, but the players wouldn't hold back in the way they use the mechanics to play their PCs' holding back. (I hope that makes sense.)

TI think I am about as big a fan of, "the spirit of the game it the main thing," as there can be, and still care about design at all. I just happen to think that if the spirit is conveyed only in flavor, not in mechanics, that it will ultimately be rather superficial or hollow. I recognize that not everyone sees things that way, but I'm not at all sure the recognition cuts the other way.

I think that a "spirit of the game" that the mechanics don't reflect is in some ways worse than superficial. I find it can mean fighting with the game at every moment of play.

 

[JamesonCourage]

OTOH, if I have an encounter, or perhaps a daily power, that is considerably more powerful than a single trip attempt, I can trip targets in an area attack effect, tripping the entire lot of them in a single round.

But, if I do that, and then do it again, and then do it again, that's boring as hell.

Well, I disagree. For instance, in this scene (actions starts at about 1:50):
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ZHWSEABWE&feature=related]Final Fight (Scene From Kiss Of The Dragon) - YouTube[/ame]

In this scene, he uses the same moves over and over. At about 2:17, he starts hitting legs over and over. He grapples someone and throws/knocks them into others at 2:05 and 2:31. Goes for the legs again multiple times at 2:41. He feints someone in combat three times in a row at about 5:30.

Or, like this scene with Tony Jaa:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_LHPYERoyk]Tony Jaa Break Bones - YouTube[/ame]

Tony Jaa is breaking bones over and over (the action starts 0:40 in). Sure, it looks different, but as Lost Soul points out, such is the abstract nature of D&D. I can use my "Break Bone" maneuver this round, and it deals damage and disables them. The first guy, I break him arm. Then I break someone's fingers. Then I break someone's arm again. Then another arm. And so on.

This scene is very popular out of the scenes in this movie, and he very much does the same move over and over.

Or here's another fight, but with western weapons:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1slkFc7YBkc]Best Sword Fights - Vol. 2 - Troy - YouTube[/ame]

In this scene, Achilles does his jumping attack (the one that kills the other army's champion at the beginning of the movie) at 1:51 and again at 2:51.

People use the same moves twice in the same fight in these scenes, including breaking bones, shots that kill champions, trips, and the like. And, most people consider these good scenes, not boring.

Like Pemerton points out, it's empowering players to be able to decide when they want to be awesome. Or at least cool.

The cumulative penalty would give you a shot at being awesome, and I think a smaller chance is nearly necessary for it to be awesome instead of cool. If we're going for cool, there's lots of ways to add that; my RPG has stances and maneuvers in addition to the standard combat maneuvers (plus a couple others). If you qualify for all nine stances (not impossible at high hit die), you'd have over 70 different maneuvers to perform, not counting the standard combat maneuvers like trip or grapple).

You can imbue cool in a lot of ways besides encounter powers. I just want a way to make encounter powers more appealing to more people, and in a way that I think encourages awesome moments.

I don't want my moment of cool to be dependent on random chance. I want to be able to set it up. Now, I might fail, and that's fair enough. In the last session, I set up a nice little chain of powers with my human warlock, that utterly failed due to poor rolls. C'est la vie. But, the attempt was still under my control, not the DM nor random chance.

Um, that's what the cumulative penalty would accomplish, wouldn't it? You'd know your odds are worse, but if you succeed, a moment of awesome can be achieved. Either way you can fail to poor rolls, but you had the power in setting it up. As always, play what you like

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

The balance issue here is that spellcasters have access to a separate vitality pool (spell points, spell slots, etc) and don't suffer penalties to hit with their better attacks .

I will answer this objection with a quote from the designers of 5e.

When looking to design two classes, I may want to make sure that there is parity between the options available to each class, without needing to be symmetrical and give them the exact same kinds of options in the same frequency. Parity and symmetry can be applied to both power and complexity, making these two axes of design. Personally, my experience with games (both RPGs and board games) is that symmetry is not essential for parity, and in many cases the game can often be made more exciting by asymmetrical mechanics.

Here is the link to the entire rule of three entry from Wizards:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 03/06/2012)

In other words, it doesn't matter that they don't work the same way as long as there is a parity in effectiveness between the classes.

For example, if a fighter learns a deadly maneuver at level 5 that is more dangerous to a single target then any level 3 spell, then it could be fair that there is a cost in hp.

 

[BryonD]

Honestly, BryonD, trying to turn this into yet another edition pissing contest is of ZERO interest to me.

Interesting comment considering I was replying to you pissing on 3E.

But, that doesn't change the fact that spamming the same action over and over and over again is boring.

In what game? I mean, I guess in theory that may be true. But since it isn't a problem in any known game, I don't see the relevance to building a better 5E.

Does it happen at your table? Don't care. Frankly. Why would I care what happens at your table. I only care what happens at mine. And, I don't want to play at tables where spamming the same action over and over and over again is mechanically the best option out there.

As far as how widespread the issue is, I'd have to guess that that's what market research is for. Again, I'm in no position to pretend to know what happens at most of the tables, so, I'm never going to base my argument on what's good for the "industry".

Shrug. I suspect if you felt like you could actually make a case for your point of view being consistent with market success, you would see it differently.

But may I take this as a standing statement that you have nothing to offer for how to make 5E popular and everything you say should be taken as "for Hussar's personal benefit and screw everyone else"?

Because I'd like to see 5E be hugely popular. I'd really like to love it myself. But I have great games already and given a choice between a marginal 5E that I like and a smash hit 5E that doesn't work for me, I'd honestly choose the second. My gaming will be better in the long run if that happens.

Now, if you don't mind, we're having an interesting discussion about mechanics. Please leave the edition warring at the door. Thanks.

You mean when you are slamming 3E for being boring and all that....

gotcha