D&D General Why is D&D 4E a "tactical" game?

[teitan]

I think the answer is a lot simpler than people are putting forth. Hasbro wanted D&D to be a "feature brand" like Transformers & My Little Pony at the time or Monopoly, where the brand generates revenue of 50 million plus. The D&D team put together a presentation that was very forward thinking with ideas that were, at the time, in their infancy like virtual table tops and online character generators and subscription services. Things we take for granted now. The idea was also to have the game go much deeper into the side products like the miniatures and tiles that proved very successful in the 3.5 era, since that line launched in that era off the failure of the CHainmail game.

For this reason the system was designed to be tactically heavy, more deeply integrating miniatures and miniature play, The system was option heavy, almost requiring the character generator and also expansion heavy with multiple PHB and DMG, with subsquent DMG's intended to cover the tiers of play as well as the MM providing monsters in a similar manner. The rules were designed to provide more tactical options to give WOTC a plethora of product options beyond just books and minis including cards, tiles, digital tools, and terrain to take advantage of the options baked into the rules set that they never took advantage of in the right way.

It was particularly unfortunate because the products that they were publishing that the system was designed to take advantage of were wound down shortly after launch like the D&D miniatures, into less popular forms, or licensed out to GF9 and others who didn't have the same resources so that the game was not serviced very well. I think the idea was that the VTT and digital tools were seen as more lucrative and licensing the rest out was easy money that didn't account for the bottom line in the end because bean counters. I think the Tiles were the only real survivors of the whole thing.

So it was a system designed to take advantage of digital tools that weren't quite up to snuff yet and based on the ideas, even now aren't quite there yet like automating the effects of some of the attacks and spells fluidly. It was ahead of the curve considering the popularity of D&D Beyond and VTT and different apps and websites that supplement them. In 2009 these were new ideas that were just getting started.

 

[Undrave]

even a level 1 fighter has it, and he clearly has honed nothing to such a level.

See, this is a thing that always crop up "Even a level 1 Fighter" you say, as if a level 1 Fighter is nothing more than a glorified commoner with better gear. Meanwhile, the Wizard has 'studied the secrets of the arcane for years! YEARS!". Everybody keeps seeing the Fighter as just a town guard, or a soldier, but they're not. They're an order of magnitude above those common footsoldiers! The Fighter should have as much training in Fightering than the Wizard has in Wizarding, or as much talent as martial prowess than a Sorcerer has arcane power. Otherwise levels don't mean anything.

made fights and winning them too much of an objective

Are you saying the characters shouldn't ALWAYS try to beat enemies?! Like...is wanting to win a confrontation a BAD thing????? Nothing in 4e is stopping you from trying to AVOID fights in a 2e kind of way, it's just not giving you cheesy ways to do so with magic like in 3e. It's not like there isn't rules available if you want to reward the players with XP for avoiding fights.

I just wanted to comment on the whole "Marking" thing: it's less of a magical power and more trying to get at something that is hard to model in TTRPGs without getting into a whole bunch of bookkeeping and die-rolls. "Marking" is low-level threat, something that weighs on your decisions because base fear makes you want to attack the thing hitting you rather than perhaps the more abstract, big-picture threat. The fighter hits you, and he's now on your mind and how you need to fight back or push through and ignore him. So if you decide not to attack the fighter, the penalty represents the mental hesitation and the threat of the fighter preoccupying your thoughts. It's honestly a really good mechanic, and I'd argue the closest thing RAW in 5E to it is one of the Barbarian's Bear Totem powers, where you if target someone else with your attack and you are within 5 feet of him, you're at disadvantage (also you are immune to this if you are immune to fear effects, which makes it pretty obvious what they are pulling on).

Obviously that sort of thing isn't generally restricted to a "class" in real life, but if applied more broadly with an actual mechanic in games (Rather than just GM fiat) it would make things damn-near unrunnable. You'd have to track who has been hit by what on a given turn, how stacking attacks would work, if there would be any way to try and mentally push past that without a penalty (likely more dice rolling), etc... it's a simple idea but it has a lot of big implications. That's why it works as a class feature: it's something that will matter to one person, not every token on the mat, and also increases the tactical options on the stage.

Also note that a mark always ends when someone else marks the target and thus you can only ever be marked by the last person to use it.

And honestly, it is so much easier to modify 4e on the fly, such as monster creation can literally happen in a couple of minutes when you're fluid with the system or just making house rules. Not having to deal with Vancian casting alone...

4e's rules look stricter because its game design is more transparant. Being able to see the design intent is also what makes it easier to modify. Making new monsters was so easy!

think the answer is a lot simpler than people are putting forth. Hasbro wanted D&D to be a "feature brand" like Transformers & My Little Pony at the time or Monopoly, where the brand generates revenue of 50 million plus. The D&D team put together a presentation that was very forward thinking with ideas that were, at the time, in their infancy like virtual table tops and online character generators and subscription services. Things we take for granted now. The idea was also to have the game go much deeper into the side products like the miniatures and tiles that proved very successful in the 3.5 era, since that line launched in that era off the failure of the CHainmail game.

Note that they also tried to expand the Brand by making Dungeons & Dragons Kreon sets! I always felt like that was a super missed opportunity to not use that toy line to give us, essentially, customizable minis. Grab the Tiefling minifigure, give it the right armor and weapon and BOOM! Here's a mini for your character! Heck... they even had blind bags that came with a circle base that fit perfectly into a 1 inch sided square! Really missed marketing potential there.

 

[Lyxen]

I just wanted to comment on the whole "Marking" thing: it's less of a magical power and more trying to get at something that is hard to model in TTRPGs without getting into a whole bunch of bookkeeping and die-rolls. "Marking" is low-level threat, something that weighs on your decisions because base fear makes you want to attack the thing hitting you rather than perhaps the more abstract, big-picture threat. The fighter hits you, and he's now on your mind and how you need to fight back or push through and ignore him.

The "in your "thoughts" has no value compared to immediate threats, that's the problem, if there is no magic behind it. The mechanic looks and feels abstract (like a lot of 5e powers) because it purely technical and is supposed to work across the whole field of battle, instead of being the "in your face" kind of mark that you have in sports. This is why it feels unnatural, it was designed from a boardgame-y technical perspective and not even justified in terms of what happens in the game world. And it's the reason it was mostly dropped in 5e, except when there is obvious magic to support it (and even then, it is still more "in your face" for example with compelled duel).

That is basically where you feel the design intent seeping and influencing all the rules, and the difference when you want to create a very tactical and precise boardgame or a very open and therefore imprecise RPG.

 

[Lyxen]

Given the poster that poster was responding to was claiming something didn't exist which is present in the Rituals system, that was a factual correction and assuming them unfamiliar with the game was the charitable assumption, the alternative being they were deliberately misrepresenting it.

And it's not what was said, what was said, and this is a fact, was that the design, to protect their boardgame, pushed everything that they could not control in terms of combat effects out of the combat, creating a disjointed game with a boardgame mini-game inside it, actually a maxi-game considering the time it takes and the importance of it since even most of the so-called "utility" powers are actually only combat powers. Other magic such as rituals were forcefully pushed into a different part of the game and forcefully controlled as well, using long durations and costs.

 

[Lyxen]

So, from what I am understanding 4E is tactical because it focuses on the specific actions characters take during combat, how well they work as a team and how they control and change the field of combat but 3.x was more about character optimization and then just standing there pounding away at the enemy. Interesting differences. Based on some of the descriptions of play I don't think I regret my decision to skip 4E but I can certainly see the appeal for others. It sounds like the game became really complicated as the characters gained levels and the game itself matured, something 3.x suffered from as well. For as much as I loved 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder 1e, I rarely took characters beyond 10th level because the game just became too complicated and fell apart.

Indeed, it's an unfortunate side-effect of increasing complexity. Since then, editions took a different tack on this, 4e basically only increased the numbers but kept the powers extremely similar (honestly, apart from doing more damage or effects over a wider area or over more targets, level 30 did not feel that different from level 1). and 5e tried to replace the geometrically expanding possibilities of 3e with something more linear by using concentration, attunement and the very limited number of slots at high level. It sort of succeeds, but it's true that even at level 20 in 5e you don't get the feeling of power that you had in 3e or AD&D.

 

[Lyxen]

See, this is a thing that always crop up "Even a level 1 Fighter" you say, as if a level 1 Fighter is nothing more than a glorified commoner with better gear.

I'm sorry, but you are reading way too much in what I wrote. I never said the fighter did not train, I just pointed out that if you expect level 1 fighters to have "honed his body and reflexes to the highest level," I'm not sure what is left to do until level 30...

Are you saying the characters shouldn't ALWAYS try to beat enemies?! Like...is wanting to win a confrontation a BAD thing????? Nothing in 4e is stopping you from trying to AVOID fights in a 2e kind of way, it's just not giving you cheesy ways to do so with magic like in 3e. It's not like there isn't rules available if you want to reward the players with XP for avoiding fights.

I had a count in 5e the other day, the combat rules take up 3% of the player handbook. On the other hand, in 4e, classes descriptions are ONLY about combat powers. There is nothing else in there. Segmenting the game like 4e did with such a heavy influence of combat shows off the design intent, especially considering the take on winning and the referee status of the DM, first and foremost. It does not mean that the game cannot be played any other way, but even looking at published adventures and the carefully crafted fights, or supplements like the delves which are purely about combat and winning it, it's obvious what the intent was.

Also note that a mark always ends when someone else marks the target and thus you can only ever be marked by the last person to use it.

4e's rules look stricter because its game design is more transparant. Being able to see the design intent is also what makes it easier to modify.

Alright, just give me an idea of a 4e rule that you modified to a significant extent.

I agree that the intent is absolutely transparent and that it is totally consistent with the end result, which is a good thing if you agree that this design intent is in line with your tastes in terms of TTRPG, by the way.

Making new monsters was so easy!

This has nothing to do with rules, and I indeed was much relieved to see the monster design in 4e compare to the huge time-wasting mess that it had become in 3e. And also glad that the 4e spirit was kept, even more informally and easier in 5e.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I never said the fighter did not train, I just pointed out that if you expect level 1 fighters to have "honed his body and reflexes to the highest level," I'm not sure what is left to do until level 30...

Not to mention that yes, 100% a fighter and wizard can have disparity in the amount of training required to qualify as a level 1 character. For that matter, so can a wizard and sorcerer. There are different themes and tropes surrounding each character class, and there's no reason why level 1 has to represent the same thing for each. So yeah, years of study versus "I spent a summer training with the local guards" can absolutely both result in starting characters.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The "in your "thoughts" has no value compared to immediate threats, that's the problem, if there is no magic behind it. The mechanic looks and feels abstract (like a lot of 5e powers) because it purely technical and is supposed to work across the whole field of battle, instead of being the "in your face" kind of mark that you have in sports. This is why it feels unnatural, it was designed from a boardgame-y technical perspective and not even justified in terms of what happens in the game world. And it's the reason it was mostly dropped in 5e, except when there is obvious magic to support it (and even then, it is still more "in your face" for example with compelled duel).

Except they are an immediate threat, because they attacked you. That's the point: it's modeling an abstract but understandable idea that people defend themselves when attacked, even when it might be disadvantageous. And I'm okay with a ranged attack, too; it's a little more abstract, but it works in context of you taking fire. Think of someone being suppressed by having an arrow fly too close by.

And I way prefer this to the way 5E does it because with 5E, that sort of stuff is just GM fiat. I like the player having mechanical power to do something like this because they don't have to rely on litigating what they can do with the GM.

That is basically where you feel the design intent seeping and influencing all the rules, and the difference when you want to create a very tactical and precise boardgame or a very open and therefore imprecise RPG.

I really don't see how this makes the RPG "imprecise". I feel like you are applying your simulationist preference rather than considering that there are other ways to RP.

 

[Lyxen]

Except they are an immediate threat, because they attacked you.

And then moved away, maybe they were scared of you ? See, I don't have a problem with tanking in your face, but a fighter's mark persisting from across the battlefield just does not cut it with me.

That's the point: it's modeling an abstract but understandable idea that people defend themselves when attacked, even when it might be disadvantageous. And I'm okay with a ranged attack, too; it's a little more abstract, but it works in context of you taking fire. Think of someone being suppressed by having an arrow fly too close by.

Except, once more, it has no validity of the fighter hit you with a sword and then moved away and does not have any ranged attack. And has no validity if you have cover or a much more dangerous adversary in your face.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tanking, I think it's cool, it's just that the 4e mechanics are just that for me, mechanics, designed for a boardgame.

And I way prefer this to the way 5E does it because with 5E, that sort of stuff is just GM fiat. I like the player having mechanical power to do something like this because they don't have to rely on litigating what they can do with the GM.

This should not be the aim, and honestly it's one of the major problem of player-centricity introduced by 3e and unfortunately not stamped on properly by 4e, which is still only about refereeing and arbitrating written rules. 5e went back the right way, the DM decides what is happening and for whatever reason he thinks are the right ones, and the players like that because the DM is just playing alongside them, as a partner, not as an adversary and not even as a referee.

I really don't see how this makes the RPG "imprecise". I feel like you are applying your simulationist preference rather than considering that there are other ways to RP.

I'm speaking about 5e here, which is deliberately fuzzy in its rules, and using natural language rather than a specific technical jargon. And I'm certainly not applying a simulationist perspective, I'm trying to focus on telling a story about what's happening in the game world, not in a rule-based simulation of it. As for roleplaying, seeing that it's defined as a roleplaying game, I'll take any possible way to RP as a bonus.

 

[BigZebra]

I had a count in 5e the other day, the combat rules take up 3% of the player handbook. On the other hand, in 4e, classes descriptions are ONLY about combat powers. There is nothing else in there. Segmenting the game like 4e did with such a heavy influence of combat shows off the design intent, especially considering the take on winning and the referee status of the DM, first and foremost. It does not mean that the game cannot be played any other way, but even looking at published adventures and the carefully crafted fights, or supplements like the delves which are purely about combat and winning it, it's obvious what the intent was.

3%? That is simply not true, I'm sorry. Now I don't see why it matters really. But many of the class description have many combat dealing features in 5e. Then there's all the combat dealing spells. If you include 4e powers as "combat rules" surely 5e combat dealing spells need to be includes as well.