D&D 4E I would rather not have 4e combat "powers" in D&D Next

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So here's what I find a little hard to suss out about the whole 'modular' thing:

In a base/core system where DM/player negotiations and reasonable-ness are the major rule, it seems like a fighter should be able to execute some combat maneuvers- disarm, pushing the opponent, tying up a weapon, tripping, etc. Without an AEDU-like system, any of these things can be done as often as the player would like to try them- they just have to be in a position where it is tactically reasonable, and they may incur some risk for attempting them. Both of those things seem well in the realm of things that a DM and player can work out together.

So enter the 4e-style AEDU snap-on tactical combat module.

Now, instead of being able to try these maneuvers anytime they might have a chance of working, an AEDU fighter can only do them x times per encounter/day. You might not be able to do them at all if they lack an appropriate power. It seems like the AEDU combatant is somewhat hamstrung in comparison with the non-AEDU combatant, who can just attempt anything they want whenever they want using the improvise guidelines.

So the question is, how do you make both the AEDU and non-AEDU character work without either a) taking options away from the non-AEDU character or b) making the AEDU character have fewer options than the basic character? What's the advantage to using the AEDU rules, other than 'my DM and I disagree about the circumstances under which a disarm or trip is feasible, and this removes the ambiguity'?

Remember 3E - If you wanted to Trip, you could try it any round. But you didn't get to deal damage with your trip, you either knocked someone prone, or you made a regular attack.

In 4E, there was no Trip, there were powers that dealt damage and knocked the target prone, which you could use only once per encounter or once per day.

AEDUpowers tend to be stuff that means "deal damage and use a maneuver". If anything, the non AEDUpowers character might be harmstrung. Might be, because the hypothetical module might also make other alterations, say, reduce hit points or damage bonuses, replacing innate bonuses the non AEDUpowers classes normally have.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Remember 3E - If you wanted to Trip, you could try it any round. But you didn't get to deal damage with your trip, you either knocked someone prone, or you made a regular attack.

In 4E, there was no Trip, there were powers that dealt damage and knocked the target prone, which you could use only once per encounter or once per day.

AEDUpowers tend to be stuff that means "deal damage and use a maneuver". If anything, the non AEDUpowers character might be harmstrung. Might be, because the hypothetical module might also make other alterations, say, reduce hit points or damage bonuses, replacing innate bonuses the non AEDUpowers classes normally have.

That's a good point- the combination of damage + effect with a guaranteed use vs. effect alone with situational use gives the 'powered' version a little more oomph. Though under that scenario, is the AEDU fighter also barred from trying non-AEDU maneuvers (the 'trip only')? If he isn't, than the non-AEDU fighter is really at a disadvantage compared to one using powers unless there are the sort of compensations that you mention- AEDU-users having reduced bonuses to class features vs. the base class.

 

[ComradeGnull]

This seems like an odd question. First off, there is nothing saying that the 5e version of tactical combat will look exactly like 4e. It would be odd if it actually did and also quite difficult to achieve.

At any rate, the point of AEDU is that a character is designed to pull off a very specific power, whatever it is, although there is still a chance to miss. But the player doesn't have to ask the DM, "Can I try X?"

Basically, there would end up being overlap, the CORE fighter can ATTEMPT to do all kinds of different manuevers, although the DM has definitive say in what actually happens. The AEDU fighter can make those same ATTEMPTS or burn an encounter/daily/utility and achieve a very specific manuever that they are talented at, with builtin rules that determine exactly what happens.

Personally, I prefer the open system rather than AEDU, but I don't see a conflict.

Regarding how similar 5e maneuvers will be to 4e AEDU powers, you're entirely right- we really don't know what it will look like. But given the statements that MM & co. have made regarding support for that style of play, if it's substantially different it seems like it might be hard to accomplish that- though again, we don't know what they have in store.

My question was more along the lines of 'what would make powers compelling vs. the open system', since personally I don't find 'I don't need to ask the DM' to be a significant advantage- unless you know that you and the DM have a substantially different idea of what is reasonable in combat, it seems like that can be worked out.

I think Mustrum_Ridcully partially answered my question- generally, 3e/open resolution wouldn't allow you to maneuver and cause damage in the same action. How the equivalency between AEDU/whatever module using combatants and non-AEDU combatants shakes out really depends on how the system is implemented, and if the power-users also get to use the open-style 'does this seem reasonable?' maneuvers in addition to your powers.

 

[BobTheNob]

another 4e hater. can you please just stay silent with your 'opinions'. its annoying. zzz

I'm not a 4e hater. In fact we played it for years and it was a very successful campaign. But I fully understand people's reluctance to see AEDU repeated, and frankly the arguments put forward against it have been rather compelling.

I will tell you one other thing I won't do. I won't tell my fellow posters to 'be silent'. This is a forum, I want to hear what they have to say. If you don't, what are you doing here?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think Mustrum_Ridcully partially answered my question- generally, 3e/open resolution wouldn't allow you to maneuver and cause damage in the same action. How the equivalency between AEDU/whatever module using combatants and non-AEDU combatants shakes out really depends on how the system is implemented, and if the power-users also get to use the open-style 'does this seem reasonable?' maneuvers in addition to your powers.

Could also be it is allowed to do a maneuver and deal damage, but it may be harder. That was the pre-4E/AEDU way of handling this - Sure, you can try, but you take a -5 penalty to the check (see Iron Heroes et al.).

 

[YRUSirius]

Though under that scenario, is the AEDU fighter also barred from trying non-AEDU maneuvers (the 'trip only')? If he isn't, than the non-AEDU fighter is really at a disadvantage compared to one using powers unless there are the sort of compensations that you mention- AEDU-users having reduced bonuses to class features vs. the base class.

Or the basic fighter get's fighter surges and the complex fighter has to trade them in for specific maneuvers that do damage + something special.

-YRUSirius

 

[OnlineDM]

That's true. But it can also be done without daily and at-will powers as well.

There isn't a dichotomy between having simple, easy-to-use characters and having powers. There are other options.

That's fine - you don't want any "powers" at all. That's a totally valid opinion, and one I'm glad you articulated. The original post only harped on encounter powers in particular, and there's a difference between "I hope D&D Next gets rid of encounter powers" and "I hope D&D Next gets rid of the whole concept of powers."

The original post sounded like the former, but your clarification explains that, for you at least (and possibly for the OP as well), it's really the latter. I think that's a useful clarification.

For me, I can understand why a lot of people don't like encounter powers, and I would probably be fine if they weren't part of D&D Next or were solely an "out in the wings" module. At-will powers, though, I do like. Non-magic dailies could go either way for me.

I think it's likely that the system of maneuvers you talk about is probably the way D&D Next will go with the base game. However, I'm a fan of giving players who want more tactical options (in a tactical module, not necessarily the base game) some more codified options of, "Because you have chosen option X, you now have the ability to do Cool Thing Y."

I think that's a cool thing to have in the game. I respect that you feel differently.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For the record, I am not saying that powers should never exist in D&D in any form. Or that any playstyle is "badwrongfun". I wouldn't mind that such rules existed as an optional expansion. I just don't want them part of the core.

Well, then you should have said that.

But you didn't.

What you said was "Encounter powers are something that should be kept out of D&D next."

And that's what we responded to. Not that they shouldn't appear in the base game, but that they shouldn't appear at all.

You may want to do a bit of self-editing of your posts next time if you find yourself misquoting yourself.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The problem lies in the narrative of powers:

I prefer: "I attack" to "I use sure strike"

I really don´t like players tell about their character as if he is using pokemon cards.

On the other hand, I have no problems with maneuvers like:

I knock him prone. I trip him. I feint him.
As long as powers/maneuvers have names, that are actual english verbas, that you can use in a normal english sentence without "I use", I am ok with it.

I guess, if 4e hadn´t tried to make all powers class exclusive, we would not have any problems. Having basically the same maneuver for different classes forced the designers to come up with silly names. Same for different monsters of the same kind.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Or the basic fighter get's fighter surges and the complex fighter has to trade them in for specific maneuvers that do damage + something special.

But it's not special, it's X damage, moving a mini somewhere, and maybe a condition or something; rinse, repeat (well, not repeat, because I used my encounter Oregano Up The Nose "power").

4th Ed is a great board game, has very little resemblance to those other previous editions.

Moderated: Steely_Dan's posts on this thread calling 4th ed not D&D, a board game, a mini game, etc are blatant edition warring, which is not allowed. Accordingly, I have given him a vacation from this thread. Please refrain from edition warring. Discussing the merits of editions and how that impacts D&D Next is great. Name calling is not. -Keterys