Of the many failings of 3e and 4e both was the handling of mechanics. In 5e, I want three things for the mechanics of the game:
1. The fluff must represent what is happening the mechanics.
2. The fluff must not be poorly-written.
3. The mechanics must not be cumbersome.
3e and 4e were terrible in this regard for different reasons. In 3e, the mechanics often matched the fluff so closely that it resulted in a quagmire of dice rolls. For instance, take any of the combat maneuvers available. Everyone knows that grappling was a mess, but let's talk disarming for a moment.
Disarming seems like a pretty basic maneuver that could be resolved relatively easily. Depending on my mood, I might handle it as an opposed attack roll, or I might make it a normal attack that required a saving throw to avoid. 3e, on the other hand, decided to make it complicated.
Step one: You're trying an unusual attack maneuver. Unless you're specially trained in disarming, you should be awkward when attempting it, so you provoke an attack of opportunity. Then, if the AoO hits and you take damage, you can't concentrate any longer, so you fail the disarm check. Makes sense.
Step two: Make an opposed attack roll as your weapons smash together and you try to gain the advantage. It's hard to disarm large creatures, and some weapons are easier to disarm (or disarm with) than others. Apply bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Step three: Find out what happens. Did you win the roll? Then the attacker is disarmed. If you're unarmed, you are now holding the weapon because you grabbed it from him. If you're wielding a weapon, you disarm your opponent and his weapon drops to the ground. If your opponent won the roll, though, you're in one of those swords-clashing-together-complete-with-sparks moments, and he gets to try and disarm you.
And that is not how the game should work. It's a complicated mess. It discourages players from attempting to use the mechanic.
On the other hand, 4e had a number of powers that were easy enough to use, but they didn't accurately convey what was happening in the game (or the fluff was eye-rollingly bad). Take, for instance, marking. What the hell is marking? The term "marking" tells me nothing. It doesn't explain what it is or how it functions. Why does a fighter's mark impede a paladin's (outside of game balance concerns)? It don't make no sense. You can rationalize these things, but once you need rationalizations, you have failed.
When a fighter uses Power Attack in 3e, there's no real question about what's going on with his character: he's swinging wildly, sacrificing accuracy in his attack for damage. It makes sense. When the cleric casts bless, there's no confusion about what's going on. When the wizard casts magic missile and the spell notes that the missile strikes unerringly, nobody questions what's happening.
In 4e, when the fighter uses Tide of Iron, I get what's going on. But when the 4e fighter invokes Combat Superiority to add his Wisdom modifier to his attack rolls or uses Villain's Menace, I'm not really sure what is going on from an in-character perspective. I'm asking myself, "How does the fighter do this?" When the rogue uses Torturous Strike, I'm confused about the rogue "twist[ing] the blade in the wound just so [to] you can make your enemy howl in pain." The effects of this exploit? 2[W] + Dex damage, add your Strength modifier if you're a Brutal Scoundrel. I'm not seeing the "twisting the blade" bit. (If I were writing the power, I might allow the rogue to use a move action to do an additional 1[W] damage to represent the twisting, but that's beside the point.)
Likewise, if I really want to nitpick, let's talk Righteous Brand. The cleric smacks his enemy with his mace and a glowing rune shows up, giving everyone a bonus on attack rolls? Lame. That is the worst fluff justification for a power's effects that I have ever read. It's clear that the writers wanted to give the cleric an attack power and that he needed a "leader" quality to it, so they slapped on a bonus on attacks and then scribbled some fluff onto it.
That's awful. That needs to end right now. Fluff and mechanics need to go hand-in-hand. Write the fluff first and then write mechanics that simulate what's going on.
Ultimately, 5e needs to merge the smoother mechanical resolution process of 4e with the "simulationism" of 3e.
Thoughts?
1. The fluff must represent what is happening the mechanics.
2. The fluff must not be poorly-written.
3. The mechanics must not be cumbersome.
3e and 4e were terrible in this regard for different reasons. In 3e, the mechanics often matched the fluff so closely that it resulted in a quagmire of dice rolls. For instance, take any of the combat maneuvers available. Everyone knows that grappling was a mess, but let's talk disarming for a moment.
Disarming seems like a pretty basic maneuver that could be resolved relatively easily. Depending on my mood, I might handle it as an opposed attack roll, or I might make it a normal attack that required a saving throw to avoid. 3e, on the other hand, decided to make it complicated.
Step one: You're trying an unusual attack maneuver. Unless you're specially trained in disarming, you should be awkward when attempting it, so you provoke an attack of opportunity. Then, if the AoO hits and you take damage, you can't concentrate any longer, so you fail the disarm check. Makes sense.
Step two: Make an opposed attack roll as your weapons smash together and you try to gain the advantage. It's hard to disarm large creatures, and some weapons are easier to disarm (or disarm with) than others. Apply bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Step three: Find out what happens. Did you win the roll? Then the attacker is disarmed. If you're unarmed, you are now holding the weapon because you grabbed it from him. If you're wielding a weapon, you disarm your opponent and his weapon drops to the ground. If your opponent won the roll, though, you're in one of those swords-clashing-together-complete-with-sparks moments, and he gets to try and disarm you.
And that is not how the game should work. It's a complicated mess. It discourages players from attempting to use the mechanic.
On the other hand, 4e had a number of powers that were easy enough to use, but they didn't accurately convey what was happening in the game (or the fluff was eye-rollingly bad). Take, for instance, marking. What the hell is marking? The term "marking" tells me nothing. It doesn't explain what it is or how it functions. Why does a fighter's mark impede a paladin's (outside of game balance concerns)? It don't make no sense. You can rationalize these things, but once you need rationalizations, you have failed.
When a fighter uses Power Attack in 3e, there's no real question about what's going on with his character: he's swinging wildly, sacrificing accuracy in his attack for damage. It makes sense. When the cleric casts bless, there's no confusion about what's going on. When the wizard casts magic missile and the spell notes that the missile strikes unerringly, nobody questions what's happening.
In 4e, when the fighter uses Tide of Iron, I get what's going on. But when the 4e fighter invokes Combat Superiority to add his Wisdom modifier to his attack rolls or uses Villain's Menace, I'm not really sure what is going on from an in-character perspective. I'm asking myself, "How does the fighter do this?" When the rogue uses Torturous Strike, I'm confused about the rogue "twist[ing] the blade in the wound just so [to] you can make your enemy howl in pain." The effects of this exploit? 2[W] + Dex damage, add your Strength modifier if you're a Brutal Scoundrel. I'm not seeing the "twisting the blade" bit. (If I were writing the power, I might allow the rogue to use a move action to do an additional 1[W] damage to represent the twisting, but that's beside the point.)
Likewise, if I really want to nitpick, let's talk Righteous Brand. The cleric smacks his enemy with his mace and a glowing rune shows up, giving everyone a bonus on attack rolls? Lame. That is the worst fluff justification for a power's effects that I have ever read. It's clear that the writers wanted to give the cleric an attack power and that he needed a "leader" quality to it, so they slapped on a bonus on attacks and then scribbled some fluff onto it.
That's awful. That needs to end right now. Fluff and mechanics need to go hand-in-hand. Write the fluff first and then write mechanics that simulate what's going on.
Ultimately, 5e needs to merge the smoother mechanical resolution process of 4e with the "simulationism" of 3e.
Thoughts?
