D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Fenris-77]

Simulationist combat differentiation is very cool if that's what what props your tent, and an enormous drag if it isn't. I have to say I find myself more in the second camp as I age into a fine RPG wine in my old age.

 

[Chaosmancer]

When I see that PF2 photo I just see a page of granular options that basically amount to "hit it with my sword" in a combat that's going to have to take far too long if these things are to be meaningful (because if I just cut the monster's head off, in any additional effects I might apply are meaningless).

Pulling this out to talk about. I only skimmed the photo, but it seemed to me like every attack (and a player could have up to three attacks a turn) would activate the effects, possibly with some of them gated behind how well you roll.

If I understand the system just from the glance, then if you roll well your attack will deal damage, plus a set of per-determined effects. Now, if every attack I make lets me force a movement choice or increase damage, and every hit also reduces AC by 2 (or whatever effects we stack on) then it shouldn't be too long, because it is all piled into a single set of results. This was my roll, therefore apply X,Y,Z along with this much damage.

I think that is how it is supposed to work, which will be faster than I think you are imagining.

If your choices don't allow you to focus on something to do that better than other members of your class, you, or at least I, will quickly tire of the charade.

So not meaningless. And "not optimal" is not suboptimal. You're free to think things are absurd, but remember: the issue here isn't your strawman "if it’s not possible to make a suboptimal character, then character building choices don’t matter".

What's absurd is being asked to make all these choices as if they matter - you still end up pretty much the same as every other fighter (say) of your level - the same attack bonus, the same saves, the same damage... The game is "locked down" and you're only being trusted to change the superficial things. It's the illusion of choice.

Then that allows the publisher to spew forth literally hundreds of feats, all with minute differences, but none of which make any real difference.

Believing this is an adequate substitute for real choice is what I would consider absurd if you ask me.

That does not seem to square with the abilities I saw.

A one-handed duelist gets feats to increase his AC and cause his opponent to be flat-footed (which memory says is a debuff to AC by taking away Dex)

A greatweapon wielder gets to increase damage or move an enemy, and other effects.

These two fighters will have different ACs, damage, and possibly even attack bonuses. Now, maybe every great weapon fighter will take the same feats at the same time... but you can't really prevent that in design. Just like every Battlemaster might take all of the same manuevers at every level.

So, since from just a brief glance it seems that the numbers you list as being the same are different, I'm not sure why you keep insisting there is no real choice to be had by the players.

 

[Fanaelialae]

@Charlaquin

I was very intrigued by the game. The first thing I did was check out their model for Degrees of Success.

Unfortunately, they went with a model I’m not interested in. I was expecting something akin to Strike (!) which cribs from PBtA where the most interesting results is the Success with Complication/Cost/Twist. Instead, they actually took that out and kept everything else; Success, Success with a Bonus, Failure, Failure with an additional Penalty.

I would love to have the designer’s notes on why they went that route.

It would be fairly effortless to incorporate it by offering the player who rolls a failure the opportunity to treat the roll as a success, but at a cost. Admittedly not quite the same as the approach used by Strike!.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Dismissed. That's an apples to oranges comparison.

I don't even have to explain why. Hint: not all ttrpgs place the same emphasis on combat capacity.

This is a quite literal True Scotsman Fallacy.

Meanwhile in 4e the fighter who gets up in the enemy's face with a sword, and the equivalent of from memory six 3.5 feats at first level to lock the enemy down is considered the same as a wizard who throws magic missiles and firebolts from far away. And the warlord who turns over all their attacks to other members of the party?

Can you tell me which of them isn't special? Can you tell me how this means that all of them aren't special unless you follow the philosophy of a cartoon supervillain?

And can you tell me how they are all similar to Pathfinder 2e characters?

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok so leaving aside what 'special' means...

'Balance' as such depends to a degree on how directly comparable things are. If a game says "here are three ways to be a badass melee warrior, choose one" then those three things are likely directly comparable and as such there's an issue if they aren't balanced. If a game says "you can be a badass warrior or you can turn into a bat for 10 minutes every day, then these are less directly comparable, and much more difficult to balance. How useful is to be a bat? How much combat will there be? A lot of balancing the two falls back on the GM or the creativity of the players (depending on playstyle) and their different enough that even if they aren't balanced, the player who thinks turning into a bat is really cool, may still choose that option because it's the only way to achieve that end.

A lot depends then on how interesting you think choosing how you can be a bad ass warrior is. For some players it is significant. For others it may feel like "you can have any colour you like as long as it's black." When I see that PF2 photo I just see a page of granular options that basically amount to "hit it with my sword" in a combat that's going to have to take far too long if these things are to be meaningful (because if I just cut the monster's head off, in any additional effects I might apply are meaningless). In any case it's definitely a choice with less breath then "badass warrior" or "turn into bat".

I find it hard to agree that balance is, in itself, actively a problem, but there are trade offs in design used to achieve it. Things are often balanced because they're designed within a more narrow sphere. After all 4E was as balanced as it was not because it's options were rigorously tested and reiterated over time. It was balanced because it's options were designed in such a way as to be easily comparable. This has to result in a trade off in breadth.

There's a paradox that also arises when you look at the possibilty of reskinning and how mechancially distinct options are. Say we have this set of mechanics:
Fighter: default damage D6 Choose one of the 2 following options.
Great Weapon FIghting: Add + d4 damage
Two Weapon Fighting: Roll 2d6 for damage and choose the best.
Our two options are distinct but not in any meaningful way. What's more, The first is clearly better. It's only by a small amount, but since the two choices are so comparable it's obvious. If I'm allowed to reskin powers there's no reason here for me to choose the lesser option. Just take Great Weapon Fighting and reskin it as fighting with two weapons. The sub-optimal choice is only worth taking if it provides a meaningfully different play experience. (See for example why people played the old school thief class, despite it's obvious weaknesses.).

So there's a vicious circle that can arise. The more you design for balance the more any imbalances, however small they are, become glaring and obvious. (And this can make choices more burdensome then fun)

But this also doesn't mean balance doesn't matter. If you have three ways to be a badass warrior, but one is garbage, then you usually don't pick it, or it becomes obvious quickly and you rebuild or retrain. If you choose between bat-shapechanger and badass warrior you may end up playing a campaign for a whole year with gradually growing disillusionment as you find that the situations where you use your bat powers to do something cool are vastly outnumbered by those in which you feel you have little meaningful to contribute.

Well said.

I also think there is another important dynamic not mentioned - what obstacles you face in combat and out of combat really factor into what meaningful differences are. You kind of highlighted the out of combat problems a special ability can find. However, even in combat, consider:

An enemy mechanic that grants invulnerable to attacks unless you have a +X attack bonus could mean effects that grant +1 to attack play significantly differently than ones that grant +Y damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Simulationist combat differentiation is very cool if that's what what props your tent, and an enormous drag if it isn't. I have to say I find myself more in the second camp as I age into a fine RPG wine in my old age.

Not sure what you mean by “simulationist combat differentiation.”

Pulling this out to talk about. I only skimmed the photo, but it seemed to me like every attack (and a player could have up to three attacks a turn) would activate the effects, possibly with some of them gated behind how well you roll.

Not quite. Most PF2 combat feats are activated by spending a number of actions (usually 1 or 2), which might otherwise be used for an attack. Power Attack is a good example. It costs 2 actions to use, and allows you to make one attack (at your current multiple attack penalty) that deals double damage dice on a hit. So a character who wants to spend their whole turn attacking has the baseline:
• Attack at no penalty for 1[W] damage
• Attack at -5 to hit for 1[W] damage
• Attack at -10 to hit for 1[W] damage

With Power Attack, that character could do the above, or
• Attack at no penalty for 1[W] damage
•• Attack at -5 for 2[W] damage


or:
•• Attack at no penalty for 2[W] damage
• Attack at -5 for 1[W] damage

In all three cases, the character can deal up to 3[W] damage, and each action seems to be “worth” 1[W] damage, but Power Attack basically allows you to combine two of those attacks into one, trading an additional chance to do some damage for a better chance to do more damage. Ultimately not a super interesting choice, but the math gets more complex if you want to do anything on your turn besides attack, or if you have other Feats you want to use your action on.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not sure what you mean by “simulationist combat differentiation.”


Not quite. Most PF2 combat feats are activated by spending a number of actions (usually 1 or 2), which might otherwise be used for an attack. Power Attack is a good example. It costs 2 actions to use, and allows you to make one attack (at your current multiple attack penalty) that deals double damage dice on a hit. So a character who wants to spend their whole turn attacking has the baseline:
• Attack at no penalty for 1[W] damage
• Attack at -5 to hit for 1[W] damage
• Attack at -10 to hit for 1[W] damage

With Power Attack, that character could do the above, or
• Attack at no penalty for 1[W] damage
•• Attack at -5 for 2[W] damage


or:
•• Attack at no penalty for 2[W] damage
• Attack at -5 for 1[W] damage

In all three cases, the character can deal up to 3[W] damage, and each action seems to be “worth” 1[W] damage, but Power Attack basically allows you to combine two of those attacks into one, trading an additional chance to do some damage for a better chance to do more damage. Ultimately not a super interesting choice, but the math gets more complex if you want to do anything on your turn besides attack, or if you have other Feats you want to use your action on.

The math in pathfinder really isn't that bad because of how crits double damage.

 

[HarbingerX]

It’s absurd to me that you consider anything besides attack bonus, saves, and damage “the superficial things.” I believe quite the opposite, those are just numbers, and by far the least interesting way to differentiate characters. What actually matters is the tangible effects they can cause outside of plain damage. I see a much bigger difference between Tide of Iron and Grappling Strike than I do between a fighter with the great weapon fighting style attacking with a greatsword and a fighter with the duelist fighting style attacking with a rapier. The only difference between the latter is boring numbers, the former actually affect the encounter in different ways than each other.

Speaking from my own personal experience with 4e, I found every class had a 'sameness' because their mechanics were all identical - do 'at-will' with damage plus small class specific effect; do 'encounter' with more damage plus bigger class specific effect; do 'daily' with lots of damage plus class specific effect. And the effects were 'magic-like' no matter which class you were playing.

I personally tried to be descriptive with my attacks to try to make them a bit more interesting, but a lot of other players at the table wouldn't even bother mentioning the attack name - they'd just say 'I do 2[w] and mark this guy'. The tactical focus of all the powers were just not what I was looking for in a game.

So for me, having a great weapon fighter reroll 1-2 or a duelist get +2 dmg or two-weapon fighter roll two attacks feels much more interesting than Tide of Iron or Grappling Strike ever did; I feel like a fighter with his speciality.

 

[Eric V]

do 'at-will' with damage plus small class specific effect; do 'encounter' with more damage plus bigger class specific effect; do 'daily' with lots of damage plus class specific effect. And the effects were 'magic-like' no matter which class you were playing.

Can't even...like...come on....

Ok. There are class-specific effects to each of the types of actions being used (though the italicized part is so...ugh), but somehow having nothing but "+2 to damage when wielding a one-handed weapon" is somehow more interesting???

Please.

 

[Garthanos]

Can't even...like...come on....

Ok. There are class-specific effects to each of the types of actions being used (though the italicized part is so...ugh), but somehow having nothing but "+2 to damage when wielding a one-handed weapon" is somehow more interesting???

Please.

Raw numbers you write on your sheet and forget 99 percent of the time are interesting is kind of faerie tale like to me too.