D&D 4E 4e Compared to Trad D&D; What You Lose, What You Gain

[Garthanos]

An epic level Fighter jumping up and climbing upon an AT-ST, ripping off its hatch, jumping in and killing the crew, navigating the alien technology. That’s all too gonzo.

And that's not even wrestling with death... its just Legolas and the Behemoth.

 

[Manbearcat]

So through these two encounters, my guess is that we'd see something like:

* Rogue down 3 Surges and probably a Daily Attack, a Daily Item, and a Consumable.

* Wizard down 2 Surges and probably a Daily Attack, maybe Paragon Path Daily or a Utility (such as Arcane Gate to let the Rogue and Wizard more easily traverse the battlefield in their efforts to handle the Hoverpods and AT-STs) and a Daily Item.

* Fighter down 1-2 Surges and probably 0 Dailies.

I think through those first 2 encounters you would easily see the genre tropes and gonzo archetypes of these characters in the Epic Tier of play. It would also be pretty apparent just how much cross-class parity there is at the endgame of 4e. For the reasons above, the contrast with traditional D&D (1e and BECMI) would be stark, but you'd see a starkness in contrast with all other versions of D&D as well (some less - 5e, some more - 3.x).

---

This next part is where I picked up GMing.

I can easily see the significant differences from the 5e session right off the bat:

1) This would be a closed scene (a Skill Challenge) rather than free play/open exploration. This eliminates win condition abilities.

Skill Challenge Level + 0 Complexity 2; to get into the ship (including the air combat at the ship's hull as a nested combat for an accrued Success or Failure), 5 medium DCs, 1 hard DC. DCs would be 20, 27, 37.

2) Ritual Flight is right out for this. Phantom Steed can't get but 100 feet off the ground (the ship would be 1000 ft up), and Overland Flight is extremely expensive (5 k gold/residuum) and if you get in combat, you're assured to crash (for a ton of damage).

Mass Fly (if the Wizard has it) would be their ultimate (level 22) Utility spell slot. There are plenty of better options due to the limitations; the Wizard has to spend a Minor Action to sustain it, so god forbid the Wizard gets Dazed or Stunned (Stuns are rife at Epic Tier). Further, Mass Fly isn't Hover, so if you're Stunned...you're falling almost 600 feet per round...2 rounds and you're taking ALL the damage...and even one round and it will take you forever to get back into the combat. Its just not so helpful here.

So my guess is, I would see the 1st part of the challenge going down like this:

Wizard: Casts Wraithform; personal flight (hover), insubstantial, phasing (minor action sustain). This would grant 1 success in the challenge.

Fighter and Rogue: Group Dungeoneering to figure out the alien technology of the Hoverpods. Given the Fighter's prior experience with piloting the alien tech, I'd give him then an untyped +2. My guess is that the Wizard would use 1 of the 2 Secondary Skills available to deploy Arcana to buff their checks (using magic to interface with the operating system and his active Comprehend Languages Ritual to ask questions and gain insight for his companions' efforts). Their checks would be somewhere around a +18 after the buff. Extremely high chance (84 %) that one of them makes the check.

Good for the 2nd success.

So that would be a Fighter and a Rogue in a Hoverpod (Wizard contributing to success - plus 9% success rate - vs enabling success) and a Wizard in Wraithform vs Up-leveled Fly spell and a Hoverpod enabled via Wizard Portent.

 

[Ratskinner]

Really I started balking thinking about how Aspects felt like they were kind of already in classes, and backgrounds and themes and feats ... and all the nitty gritties

Just chiming in agreement here. You kinda get a double "bang for your buck" putting aspects on top of those structures.

 

[Garthanos]

and a Wizard in Wraithform.

Sort of the Harry Potter/Death eater flavored broomless flight spell but much slower , though not thinking they could do anything but fly fast in that state, constant run action Or a velocity gauged for modern sensibilities.

Heroes of Shadow had a number of things I find intriguing maybe not as many as HotF but interesting.

 

[darkbard]

Sure mate. I'll get a post up either tonight or tomorrow about Strike!'s action resolution and how 4e could crib it.

It's certainly not my intention to derail the current focus of this thread from how the framework of 4E's structure makes for a different game than "trad" D&D; your analysis of how these scenes (might) play out is fascinating!

Nevertheless, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] posted this regarding how combat differs from SCs in another thread, a further difference between mechanics like Strike!, DW, and PbtA engines in general versus 4E that was implied in some of the discussion of this matter but rather clearly and explicitly stated thus: "The need for pressure [in Skill Challenges] is fundamental, because only the players are declaring actions and rolling dice (very different eg from 4e combat or HeroWars/Quest extended resolution)."

Anyway, do carry on with the regularly scheduled program!

 

[Garthanos]

(very different eg from 4e combat or HeroWars/Quest extended resolution)."

I sometimes play in combat with players roll all the dice so they feel they are actively defending it actually does induce more sense that they are participating at all times.

 

[Manbearcat]

I

It's certainly not my intention to derail the current focus of this thread from how the framework of 4E's structure makes for a different game than "trad" D&D; your analysis of how these scenes (might) play out is fascinating!

Nevertheless, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] posted this regarding how combat differs from SCs in another thread, a further difference between mechanics like Strike!, DW, and PbtA engines in general versus 4E that was implied in some of the discussion of this matter but rather clearly and explicitly stated thus: "The need for pressure [in Skill Challenges] is fundamental, because only the players are declaring actions and rolling dice (very different eg from 4e combat or HeroWars/Quest extended resolution)."

Anyway, do carry on with the regularly scheduled program!

No worries! This isn’t a derail (and details are fine so long as they’re interesting!).

This hooks into some of my comments above about how Skill Challenges work and GM responsibility.

Just like in Dungeon World (and PbtA systems), the players are rolling all the dice.

However, both GM and players are “making moves” that impact the gamestate. The GM’s moves in a Skill Challenge (just like in DW) are about aggressive, dynamic evolution of the shared fiction. They need to put specific pressure, danger, and obstacles into the gamestate which can potentially confound PC goals. Once the PCs declare actions and resolve them with dice, the situation evolves with respect to those micro-results and the macro-gamestate.

GMs being timid and/or bland in their framing/re-framing of an evolving conflict in either DW or SCs in 4e is on the GM. It’s a skill that has to be honed like any other. I feel like a lot of people complaining about SCs over the years aren’t willing to accept responsibility for problems in this area. Could the SC resource minigame/resolution framework be more interesting? Yes. But it is by no means poor (or even average after RC) and isn’t even close to “not fit for purpose” as has been suggested over the years.

 

[pemerton]

In 4e combat, players roll all the dice won't give it the same dynamic as a skill challenge, because the GM is still declaring actions for NPCs/monsters that have an action economy, generate mechanical states of affairs that interact with the player-side mechanics, deplete PC hit points, etc.

Even if a player rolls a "defence" die, it is the GM who forces "OK, roll a defence die" having declared an action for the NPC.

Whereas in a skill challenge the GM is only changing the fiction.

It's pretty different, at least in my experience.

 

[Garthanos]

In 4e combat, players roll all the dice won't give it the same dynamic as a skill challenge, because the GM is still declaring actions for NPCs/monsters that have an action economy, generate mechanical states of affairs that interact with the player-side mechanics, deplete PC hit points, etc.

Even if a player rolls a "defence" die, it is the GM who forces "OK, roll a defence die" having declared an action for the NPC.

Whereas in a skill challenge the GM is only changing the fiction.

Not totally disagreeing but I feel if you are targeting pressure on the PCs it very much should be fiction that induces - I will solve this issue responses out of the PCs. Now what I see is that the players are more free in the SC to figure out what action they react with not a predefined one like that defense roll, which for me makes it potentially very interesting.

 

[Manbearcat]

In 4e combat, players roll all the dice won't give it the same dynamic as a skill challenge, because the GM is still declaring actions for NPCs/monsters that have an action economy, generate mechanical states of affairs that interact with the player-side mechanics, deplete PC hit points, etc.

Even if a player rolls a "defence" die, it is the GM who forces "OK, roll a defence die" having declared an action for the NPC.

Whereas in a skill challenge the GM is only changing the fiction.

It's pretty different, at least in my experience.

I think the difference would be most acutely experienced if you performed the following experiment:

a) Run a 4e combat.

b) Run a follow-on noncombat scene using Dungeon World and Apocalypse World/Blades Clocks (which may be as close as you get to 4th edition noncombat conflict resolution).