Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[Garthanos]

As someone else posted, combat in Conan isn't very swingy at all: Conan tends to kill everything he strikes at with a single blow.

I don't think classic D&D emulates that particularly well at all, because eg werehyneas will tend to have at least 2 or 3 HD, and hence not be liable to be killed by a single punch from Conan's fist. 4e's minion rules actually come closer to this feel.

Even 4e's minion rules are not quite up simulating that (minions are a bit dangerous)... the battleragers original rules would actually work to do the Conan effect though

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the bolded text is a big area of confusion:
That there is a default DC chart has nothing to do with the difficulty of a particular task. Simply that if a DM is going to put something in the way of the players at level X, it ought to have a DC of at least X. And if it is below that, it probably isn't worth mentioning as part of a skill check.

As an example, a group of 30th level PCs run into a series of DC 17 iron shod doors with lots of verisimilitude. The minimum DC for easy is DC 24. This doesn't mean they can't run into the doors. It just means that simply doesn't count for purpose of the skill challenge. A common mistake that people would make is that they'd take the exact same iron shod door and make it different DCs - and because LFR mods were set for different levels of PCs, they'd need to do that simply from a structure the skill challenge PoV.

And the early mods should have come with warning text saying, "Hey, just be aware, here's why the DCs change." but didn't.

This is a good post from a general consumption and clarity perspective (certainly as a parry to shallow edition war talking points).

However, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is certainly aware of the above. The reason why he posted what he did dovetails with several other posts in this thread (from all of us). Those facets of the basic resolution mechanics and play procedures serve a unified front in 4e:

1) They reduce GM mental overhead.
2) They reduce table handling time so action doesn't stall.
3) They coherently and transparently cement results such that GM Force is wholly unnecessary to produce genre tropes and dynamic fiction (with interesting decision-points).
4) They synergize with 4e's principles (genre logic, go to the action, say yes or roll the dice, dynamically change the situation, failure is not an endpoint).

Consequently, a GM's cognitive workload can be almost exclusively focused on framing interesting, thematically-relevant (to PC build flags) scenes, introducing interesting and stakes/goals relevant complications as the scene evolves mechanically, and resolving the scene's fictional output with stakes/goals relevant fallout after the conflict resolution mechanics say the scene has been "won" or "lost".

 

[MwaO]

This is a good post from a general consumption and clarity perspective (certainly as a parry to shallow edition war talking points).

However, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is certainly aware of the above. The reason why he posted what he did dovetails with several other posts in this thread (from all of us). Those facets of the basic resolution mechanics and play procedures serve a unified front in 4e:

1) They reduce GM mental overhead.
2) They reduce table handling time so action doesn't stall.
3) They coherently and transparently cement results such that GM Force is wholly unnecessary to produce genre tropes and dynamic fiction (with interesting decision-points).
4) They synergize with 4e's principles (genre logic, go to the action, say yes or roll the dice, dynamically change the situation, failure is not an endpoint).

Consequently, a GM's cognitive workload can be almost exclusively focused on framing interesting, thematically-relevant (to PC build flags) scenes, introducing interesting and stakes/goals relevant complications as the scene evolves mechanically, and resolving the scene's fictional output with stakes/goals relevant fallout after the conflict resolution mechanics say the scene has been "won" or "lost".

Right. Totally agree with all of this - that post was more to clarify that specific point, because I could see the counter-post looming

 

[Tony Vargas]

My response to this exchange was the same as doctorbadwolf's: I don't see how the game running smoothly, or abilities being reliable, has anything to do with tactical combat.

Along with balance, they have the same thing to do with it as with everything else you might want to do in any of the pillars: they enable, by making more alternatives both viable and practical to play through.

The mistake Parmendur makes - or more accurately, that the h4ters he's parroting made - is in rejecting broader and more even support (enablement?) as lack of support for a style previously over- rewarded or forced as the only playable option.

werehyneas will tend to have at least 2 or 3 HD, and hence not be liable to be killed by a single punch from Conan's fist. 4e's minion rules actually come closer to this feel.

Nod. 4e's genre-emulation was not nearly as bad as that of all other editions.

 

[Parmandur]

This doesn't seem a special virtue of a system - as you describe it, every system from classic D&D (with its stat checks) through RQ to 5e allows for this.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say here.

As someone else posted, combat in Conan isn't very swingy at all: Conan tends to kill everything he strikes at with a single blow..

Well, the combats tend to last one or two rounds by D&D standards, yes.


Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

.55*(5.5+5) = 5.78
.65*(4.5+4) = 5.5

i.e. about identical #s, except the 2nd guy has a heavy shield and therefore +2 AC/Ref, no reach and hasn't spent a feat to get +2 damage. As reach tends to be low value in 4e, especially for a Fighter, that's not a great outcome.

But provided he doesn't do similar things in the future, probably fine. And a lot of that is under your control via the magic items that you hand out in a PHB 1/PHB 2 only game and the other PCs giving CA or other options.

Speaking from experience, I played a Fighter with a 14 Strength in early 4e. Many things can be overcome if you think them through or you simply don't do anything else equally bad

Right, Pemerton's example fighter needs to pump STR religiously, pick up Weapon Expertise pretty soon, and probably work on ways to exploit his weapon of choice (Heavy Blade Expertise, Hafted Defense, maybe one of the style masteries from MP2, etc.). In paragon he can access the polearm feats, acquire threatening reach, etc. too if he wants.

There are builds that are 'basically not optimum' but are still 'good enough' too. Just things that never got specific support to pump them up to the 'next level', but you can still do a perfectly adequate job of filling your role. Some weapons, like picks, fall into that category.

 

[MwaO]

Right, Pemerton's example fighter needs to pump STR religiously, pick up Weapon Expertise pretty soon, and probably work on ways to exploit his weapon of choice (Heavy Blade Expertise, Hafted Defense, maybe one of the style masteries from MP2, etc.). In paragon he can access the polearm feats, acquire threatening reach, etc. too if he wants.

There are builds that are 'basically not optimum' but are still 'good enough' too. Just things that never got specific support to pump them up to the 'next level', but you can still do a perfectly adequate job of filling your role. Some weapons, like picks, fall into that category.

Pemerton's Fighter I think is PHB 1/2 only. But here are the likely ways that it didn't matter:
Pemerton could simply not throw unusually high AC opponents into the mix. Less Soldiers, more Brutes.
Pemerton could hand out more magic items. Having a +2 Halberd at say 3rd level wouldn't be too unusual, but would help with hitting.
The party could have a leader who handed out bonuses to hit and as a whole, the party would be focused on gaining flanks for Combat Advantage.

Etc...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Pemerton's Fighter I think is PHB 1/2 only. But here are the likely ways that it didn't matter:
Pemerton could simply not throw unusually high AC opponents into the mix. Less Soldiers, more Brutes.
Pemerton could hand out more magic items. Having a +2 Halberd at say 3rd level wouldn't be too unusual, but would help with hitting.
The party could have a leader who handed out bonuses to hit and as a whole, the party would be focused on gaining flanks for Combat Advantage.

Etc...

Sure. He could also emphasize things in his build like damage output and mark punishment, which were better supported in early 4e than increased to-hit. The dwarf in my 1st campaign was a somewhat similar build, 16 STR and used a battle axe, so not super accurate. Still quite sticky on the whole and I just found by defying her mark a lot she got a whole lot of chances to swing, so she hit often enough. That party was NOT optimizers at all, they were quite casual in that sense, but they also didn't ignore every sensible option. Any group that plays like that will comfortably fall within 4e's 'curve' and, as you say, you can always design encounters in a way that maximizes their fun. I definitely gave out a few compensatory items, that worked quite well.

 

[Parmandur]

Along with balance, they have the same thing Tod with it as with everything else you might want to do in any of the pillars: they enable, by making more alternatives both viable and practical to play through.

The mistake Parmendur makes - or more accurately, that the h4ters he's parroting made - is in rejecting broader and more even support (enablement?) as lack of support for a style previously over- rewarded or forced as the only playable option.

Nod. 4e's genre-emulation was not nearly as bad as that of all other editions.

Well, again, I'm just speaking for my own experience and tastes here, so "parroting" isn't quite accurate; as I checked out pre-wars, convergent evolution at worst.

"Balance" and "reliability" are fairly vague in this context: results on any edition can be charted for probability, so they are "reliable" in that sense, and different options contribute different sorts of fun so can be viewed as somewhat "balanced."

Genre emulation can go a lot of different ways, depending on your source material. The whole "Appendix N" fetish, silly as it can get, sheds a lot of light on OD&D/1E design decisions: though DCC RPG is the best I've seen at genre emulation.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is a good post from a general consumption and clarity perspective (certainly as a parry to shallow edition war talking points).

However, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is certainly aware of the above. The reason why he posted what he did dovetails with several other posts in this thread (from all of us). Those facets of the basic resolution mechanics and play procedures serve a unified front in 4e:

1) They reduce GM mental overhead.
2) They reduce table handling time so action doesn't stall.
3) They coherently and transparently cement results such that GM Force is wholly unnecessary to produce genre tropes and dynamic fiction (with interesting decision-points).
4) They synergize with 4e's principles (genre logic, go to the action, say yes or roll the dice, dynamically change the situation, failure is not an endpoint).

Consequently, a GM's cognitive workload can be almost exclusively focused on framing interesting, thematically-relevant (to PC build flags) scenes, introducing interesting and stakes/goals relevant complications as the scene evolves mechanically, and resolving the scene's fictional output with stakes/goals relevant fallout after the conflict resolution mechanics say the scene has been "won" or "lost".

I just wanna say that I really appreciate the way you have been breaking this stuff down in such a clear and organized way.

I also want to make clear that most fans of 4e didn't exactly examine the game at this level, but rather just played it and enjoyed it.

Yes, our games got even better when we finally read page 42 of the DMG, and even better still when we expanded on the rules there to include improvisation using your existing powers, but just changing some aspect of them. But the game was really fun for us even when we had too new an understanding of it to really start tweaking things. (A couple folks in our group are staunch proponents of the "don't houserules or homebrew until you know the game as written pretty well" philosophy)

But anyway, it's like the tactical thing. Yeah, 4e combat powers tend to have "tactical" elements, insofar as "tactical" can simply mean "more complex choices and consequences in combat than simple attacks and damage", but what we like about those powers isn't that they support tactical combat. It is everything you said in that other post that mentioned me, except we never examined it in those terms or that much detail. We just talk about how nice it is to know about how a given choice will go if it succeeds, how cool it is to have so many options both when building a character and leveling them, and in a given encounter (combat or not), etc. we don't even play tactically that often.

I do DM tactically, but that has been true since 2e, and has nothing to do with mechanics. I don't like the "glom onto a single target till it's dead, then move to the next" gameplay, so as a DM I discourage it by running monsters more tactically than the players are running their character, to push them to engage with the entire enemy force.