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

[Hussar]

I think your issues are representative of what a lot of people didn't like about 4e.

I mean, knocking a gelatinous cube prone is not just failing to give a "nod" to simulationism. It's giving an obscene gesture to simulationism, really.

Just as a point - you are using "simulation" to mean "simulating reality - as in our real world reality". This is not actually what simulation means. Action Movie simulation would allow for you to knock a gelatenous cube prone, and would still be simulationist.

Sorry, just a bit of pedantry there.

If I can be blunt about it; I never found combat in the earlier editions to be lacking. 4E expanded combat in ways that I feel were completely unnecessary. Hence my gripe with it being slower. I see powers as a key contributor to that.

And this is where we differ. I look at every edition of D&D and every edition adds more mechanically supported options in combat than the edition before. Doesn't matter which edition you want to talk about, every subsequent edition adds more stuff you can do mechanically in combat.

This was one of my major draws to 3e to be honest. You mean I can have standard tricks built into the system and don't need to play Mother May I with the DM to pull them off? FANTASTIC! I can trip, disarm, whatever, and it works!!! WAHOO!!

But, then, as I played more and more of the system, I started to notice more and more problems. Tricks only work if you spend the feats and lazer beam focus on having them work. Tricks become the default with such characters, meaning they're no longer tricks. Many tricks are highly campaign dependent - disarm only works on stuff that has a weapon and most D&D monsters don't. Grapple was... not an easy mechanic to use.

Along comes 4e. They take all those tricks that I want to do, and make them work. Every time. I don't have to mess about with feats or whatnot. They just work. Sure, it might be wonky from time to time, but, meh, to me, it was totally worth it. I mean, taking the tripping the gelantinous cube example, who really cares? How often do you actually fight oozes, and when you do, how often do trips actually come into play?

To be honest, I've never actually seen it in play. So, for me anyway, it's entirely hypothetical. The closest I've seen to this sort of thing is forcing surrender with Intimidate checks. My Dark Sun Faelock has spent considerable resources on being able to kinda/sorta reliably force surrender. But, between the DM and I, we've basically come to a gentlemen's agreement that certain creatures just aren't susceptable to the effect, even though the mechanics might allow it.

Not a huge deal. It doesn't come up all that often, so, meh, not that worried about it.

And that's the thing, most of these "problems" with simulation that people talk about are very, very hypothetical. Don't like Come and Get it? Well, fine, don't use it. You'd actually have to have a fighter in your group, and that player would have to choose to use that power, instead of the eight or ten other powers of that level he could choose. It's not like there's not other options that are perfectly acceptable.

For those of us who don't have a problem with the option, what's the big deal with allowing us the choice? You don't like it, just say no. That's not going to break the game. I just don't understand the big deal with giving those of us who aren't "traditional gamers" the options that would make D&D better for us.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And that's the thing, most of these "problems" with simulation that people talk about are very, very hypothetical.

Don't we have a power system in the first place because of "hypothetical" problems like a 15 minute adventuting day or a legion of players who want a fighter but just can't play one because it isn't as powerful as an archmage?

As to the point. I've had complaints from players who couldn't understand why their nonmagic per-day abilities ran out, to which I have no good answer. If you want to play a 3.X barbarian, it's an issue, and there are a few other rules with the same problem (Stunning Fist, for example). I also had a significant issue with a knight's challenge (i.e. a predecessor to CAGI) ability where a player was pretty disgusted that he was forced to attack the knight when he was trying to diffuse the situation; it felt like mind control. I played things by the book, but the player absolutely had a point. It was one of the last strokes for a really problematic game that collapsed. So yes, these things are real.

In general, when problems arise in a game, it's almost always "this doesn't make sense" rather than "this is unbalanced", let alone "I want to do X but can't because there's no ability for it". I don't know that I've ever had any issue with a player who wanted to do something off the books and wasn't satisfied with the outcome, or one who complained about his melee combatant lacking tactical options. The numerous options I've added have helped, but I as the DM seem to care more about tactical combat than any of my players ever have. I've had tons of complaints about the breakability of doors, the jumpability of chasms, the density of lava, etc. What's the weather like? Why won't the bystanders help? How are we eating in the wilderness? These are the things players ask, not "why doesn't my character have powers"?

 

[BryonD]

Don't we have a power system in the first place because of "hypothetical" problems like a 15 minute adventuting day or a legion of players who want a fighter but just can't play one because it isn't as powerful as an archmage?

Exactly right.

Supposed problems such as having a lazer beam focus on one trick and thus always using it or else having a character for whom they just don't work would also fall under this.

 

[pemerton]

I mean, taking the tripping the gelantinous cube example, who really cares? How often do you actually fight oozes, and when you do, how often do trips actually come into play?

I can't remember any tripping, but the polearm fighter in my game did use Footwork Lure against cubes. It was a somewhat bizarre scene - the fighter moving in close to lure the cube forward, then stepping quickly back while holding the cube at bay with his halberd.

most of these "problems" with simulation that people talk about are very, very hypothetical.

Don't we have a power system in the first place because of "hypothetical" problems like a 15 minute adventuting day or a legion of players who want a fighter but just can't play one because it isn't as powerful as an archmage?

As to the point. I've had complaints from players who couldn't understand why their nonmagic per-day abilities ran out, to which I have no good answer. If you want to play a 3.X barbarian, it's an issue, and there are a few other rules with the same problem (Stunning Fist, for example). I also had a significant issue with a knight's challenge (i.e. a predecessor to CAGI)

I think your example of daily powers works better for your case than does the knight. 3E D&D can work perfectly well without the knight class, just as 4e can work without Come and Get It. But 4e without martial dailes is a much bigger deal (witness Essentials, and even it still allows for martial daily utility powers). Likewise taking the 15 minute day out of 3E, for those who experience it, would require a radical overhaul of 3E spellcasters. (Maybe along the lines of Tome of Magic, Incarnum and Warlocks? - I don't really know those aspects of 3E.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think your example of daily powers works better for your case than does the knight. 3E D&D can work perfectly well without the knight class, just as 4e can work without Come and Get It. But 4e without martial dailes is a much bigger deal (witness Essentials, and even it still allows for martial daily utility powers). Likewise taking the 15 minute day out of 3E, for those who experience it, would require a radical overhaul of 3E spellcasters. (Maybe along the lines of Tome of Magic, Incarnum and Warlocks? - I don't really know those aspects of 3E.)

3.X also works fine without polymorph, planar calling, and any number of other blatantly abusable spells that people complain about. Yet they cause problems sometimes, because they are in books and people use them. There is indeed though a difference between problems that are built in to the system and those that come out of it. Both matter, to some extent.

And I agree that daily limitations and the broad conceptual issues with trying to codify so many actions and limit them so profoundly by making them character abilities are more important than fighters with mind control or characters that shout wounds closed. But both are part of what makes the "bathwater" dirty, so to speak.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that daily limitations and the broad conceptual issues with trying to codify so many actions and limit them so profoundly by making them character abilities are more important than fighters with mind control or characters that shout wounds closed. But both are part of what makes the "bathwater" dirty, so to speak.

Another advantage of focusing on daily powers is that the issues raised can be stated in a reasonably non-tendentious way, whereas referring to "fighters with mind control" or "shouting wounds closed" comes across as strongly begging the question against the viability (not just the desirabitility for any particular RPGer) of particular (metagame heavy) approaches to player resources (including hit points, which are the quintessential D&D player resource).

 

[Hussar]

Ahnehnois - I'd say that there is a significant difference between an issue that only appears against one single opponent in which a single, class specific power is used and a systemic issue that is widespread enough to be pretty much instantly recognizable across tables.

Then again, maybe you use a LOT of gelantenous cubes.

But, the 15 MAD is pretty easy to see. I've recently spent a lot of time trying to get people to articulate how they DON'T have the 15 MAD, and, virtually without fail, they cannot do so. The best answer I get is, "We play really smart" which, while completely true, doesn't help me in the slightest since I cannot replicate their results.

But, all the 15 MAD discussions center on how to fix the problem. You can use random encounters, you can do this or that. Fair enough. But, you can only fix a problem that exists in the first place. Most of the conversations do start from the position that the 15 MAD is a situation which can plausibly occur at a table and there are several methods for preventing it.

What is generally not at issue is the existence of the 15 MAD in the first place.

OTOH, complaints about specific powers tend to be very, very specific. Look at the example above about the 4 goblins. Look how specific that example has to be in order to work - you need a rogue who sneaks up on 4 goblins, the rogue then needs to have two weapon fighting and be significantly high enough level to get iterative attacks, the goblins need to be close enough together that the rogue can make his multiple attacks without having to move, the rogue needs to win initiative after his suprise round AND the rogue needs to be able to move faster than the goblins in order to catch the fourth one.

That's a bit more specific than, "For the 15 MAD to occur, a PC caster needs to expend his spells in the first or second combat of the day."

 

[BryonD]

I think your example of daily powers works better for your case than does the knight. 3E D&D can work perfectly well without the knight class, just as 4e can work without Come and Get It. But 4e without martial dailes is a much bigger deal (witness Essentials, and even it still allows for martial daily utility powers). Likewise taking the 15 minute day out of 3E, for those who experience it, would require a radical overhaul of 3E spellcasters. (Maybe along the lines of Tome of Magic, Incarnum and Warlocks? - I don't really know those aspects of 3E.)

I don't see that as a fair comparison.

Powers are fundamental built-in element of 4E, and you seem to be agreeing with that. But when you (correctly) specify "for those who experience it" for the 15MAD it is implicitly false to state that fixing it would "require" a radical overhaul. Clearly, again as seems to be agreed, there are plenty who don't have this problem. Even if the people who can't avoid it are stuck with it due to some fundamental and completely permanent internal factor, it is still a function of the person, not the system. (Not that I claim or even believe this internal factor exists)

 

[BryonD]

OTOH, complaints about specific powers tend to be very, very specific.

I think this is a true and valid point.
But I'd also add that, at least for me and I know a lot of other people, these specific examples are symptoms of how the fundamental design of the game functions.
Any given example may only happen once *EVER*. But something is constantly happening.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The best answer I get is, "We play really smart" which, while completely true, doesn't help me in the slightest since I cannot replicate their results.

I'm not trying to be mean, Hussar, but this bit made me chuckle. As always, play what you like