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

[Justice and Rule]

Alright, so the rest of my day was rough and I didn't manage to get my previous post in before things happened in the thread. So I'm just going to use this post to create clarity around points given how they have been twisted in the argument.



First off, I didn't think the whole "Marking" thing would become a complete fustercluck, but here we are. I want to go back to my original point: that Marking is meant to create a real tactical consideration that is very hard to actually do in turn-based systems. The main argument against it is obviously about suspension of disbelief with possible artifacts of the game, though I find these split into two categories: overall realism and edge cases. The latter to me doesn't really matter that much: that oozes can be marked just isn't a big deal and these sorts of things can be found in any game. I don't find them to be deal breakers.

I find the realism argument to be a bit more pertinent, but also flawed: turn-based combat already has a bunch of problems that make asking for full simulationism impossible, and thus I find trying to get the general "feel" to be much more important. My example would be something my group has termed the "empty space" problem. I'm going to use some pictures because I think it's way easier to show rather than explain through text.

So here we have 8 characters in a small box. Now let's move one guy across to the open square.

Boom. No problem. Now let's start doing a few more moves.

So maybe you see where I'm going with this, maybe you don't. But let's say I continue the full cycle with all 8 guys. In the rules, there should be no problems. However, there's a very real problem with this: you have 8 people cycling through a 5 foot square in 6 seconds in a frankly impossible way. That action would be difficult (if not impossible) for a professional dance team, let alone a bunch of D&D mooks. But this is totally possible to do in the game because in a game, you either in a space or you are not; there's no "beaten path" where someone is currently moving through where they could potentially collide like football players.

Now, am I proposing we starting using impulse rules or some other fix? Hell no, because you're just not going to fix that problem in a turn-based system (without a Phoenix Command-level of rules and detail). You kind of have to deal with people being able to spontaneously move through areas like they were an elite SWAT team stacking and breaching a door. While you can (rather easily) create unrealistic artifacts in the system, it's outweighed because you can keep the general feel of combat correct with turn-based movement and a few additions.

I have a similar view of marking. It's trying to solve a complicated problem that D&D generally does not deal with but I think is interesting: the idea of threat and interference. It's really easy for GMs (even ones who are trying to be favorable to players) to ignore fighters in favor of hammering easier targets. You can just run past them and, outside a possible AoO, you can hammer that mage without problem.

Marking creates something closer to real life, where someone could actively threaten/distract/interfere/occupy someone in a way that makes it difficult to just immediately choose the easy target. The idea of a "defender" suddenly works in a way that it just didn't previously, and you create interesting situations that have verisimilitude with what we associate with combat: if a mage is in trouble, a Fighter can run in, hit a guy, and suddenly occupy that guy in a way that he just can't in other editions. It's only for 6 seconds (as @EzekielRaiden pointed out), so if you run away it's only a temporary thing. But if you stay and continue marking someone, it gives this idea of a Fighter really locking into combat with someone in a way that doesn't happen in other editions. And while people can complain about the idea of "distracting" an ooze, I think the second half of that equation (being able to respond to attacks) to absolutely be something characterful and realistic.



To move to a second point, I wanted to make clear something on mechanics and hidden complexity, because I feel that it got completely twisted and strawman'd in a way that my actual line of argumentation was lost. I want to say that I do think that 4E is the more complex of the two games; unequivocally, it has more moving parts, more modifiers, and it wants you engaging with that complexity to succeed.

The complexity of 5E, though, is more frustrating because it's more on the backend. While there might be fewer rules, having fewer rules doesn't mean that there are fewer rules interactions, and what 5E has done is largely individualize most things about the game: there are few universal systems governing the creation of classes, spells, monster effects, etc. Obviously there is some level of unified structure, but not in the way of 4E or even a Pathfinder 2. What happens is that there are a lot more interactions between things that are not really accounted for, and thus the GM has to deal with them.

This is what I mean by "unintended crunch". You have to learn a whole lot more individualized information because there's really no assurances that any two things will work on the same principles. This is big in spells, but perhaps most important in character-building, where there are big trap options (subclasses and arguably a class or two) as well as powerful combinations. If you're a GM, you have to be aware of how these combinations are going to work, and (as I did) work with players who really want to try something with a class that is not exactly great (I'm sure people can figure out which one that is). And it's alright to do that, but I find having to do that to be more of a failing of the game rather than representing a strength.

This is where creating more rules can paradoxically cut down on complexity. Giving more guidelines, creating systems that standardize certain effects or rules can be very helpful in creating that upfront complexity that reduces the backend complexity that generally happens "in the moment" and can slow down a game. For example, 4E's power system means that every player is going to know how all classes function: their individual roles and powers will be the different, but they'll understand how to play powers, the value of Encounter and Daily Powers, and how to build a character.

Let me be clear: I don't think it's badwrongfun to have the sort of backend complexity of 5E. I just disagree with people who talk about a "lack of complexity": rather, I find that it's more that 5E just doesn't actively shine a light on it.

As a related matter, I find that giving structure can be helpful to players and GM. You don't have to put out a bunch of hard rules for everything, but having clear guidelines for judging how to give things can be helpful. One of the first things I found was problematic for my players was them just not knowing what their skills could really do. I ended up copying the 4E skill usages, and that was useful for giving them an idea of what they could do with their skills instead of asking me all the time if they could do something. It's good that an open system can work for some, but I like not having to some set skill usages instead of having to litigate everything.



And I know I got accused of this, but I'd like to say I don't hate 5E. I enjoyed it for quite a while, but I've found it more tiring over the last few years more than anything. It's a fine game, but I find that it's got a lot of flaws that are glossed over (even by myself, as I know I argued with @EzekielRaiden and @Neonchameleon on other boards about it) when brought up. I'm not really a super 4E fan, either, as I have very limited experience with it (though I might be getting my first long-term game of it off the ground; I'll know in a few weeks). It still has a lot of classes I find to be very cool and interesting, even if they have some really notable flops in there.

 

[Staffan]

The complexity of 5E, though, is more frustrating because it's more on the backend. While there might be fewer rules, having fewer rules doesn't mean that there are fewer rules interactions, and what 5E has done is largely individualize most things about the game: there are few universal systems governing the creation of classes, spells, monster effects, etc. Obviously there is some level of unified structure, but not in the way of 4E or even a Pathfinder 2. What happens is that there are a lot more interactions between things that are not really accounted for, and thus the GM has to deal with them.

That's a very good point. Compare, for example, insect plague and spirit guardians. Insect plague deals damage when first created, when someone enters it, and at the end of each turn. Spirit guardians deals damage when someone enters it and at the start of each turn (but not when created). Why do these spells work differently? Who knows, but they do. In 4e, these spells would have relied on common rules for damaging zones and thus worked the same.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's a very good point. Compare, for example, insect plague and spirit guardians. Insect plague deals damage when first created, when someone enters it, and at the end of each turn. Spirit guardians deals damage when someone enters it and at the start of each turn (but not when created). Why do these spells work differently? Who knows, but they do. In 4e, these spells would have relied on common rules for damaging zones and thus worked the same.

Ugh! I hadn't spotted Insect Plague. That's a mess of a spell.

There are, using unwritten rules for this sort of stuff that normally apply in 5e and I think always apply in 4e in that it's either "At the start or when enters" for things that trigger immediately and you aren't meant to be able to avoid or "at the end of your turn" for cases where a retreat is appropriate. I'm pretty sure 4e has both for different effects; the 4e power rules are a markup language.

Insect Plague is simply badly written as it's "when enters or at the end of your turn". This means that:

• Someone who starts in the insects and walks out doesn't take damage but someone who walks in and walks out does
• The rules are ambiguous on whether someone who walks into the plague and ends their turn there takes damage twice over. (Is "or" implicitly "OR" or "XOR"?)
• It's a mess thematically; why are insects tearing down people immediately when they enter but fine with people starting there. It's one of these many edge cases that's annoying but doesn't fundamentally break things.

Spirit Guardians on the other hand is fine and works exactly the way I'd expect; the main difference I'd expect in 4e is that the entire effect could be written in about a quarter of the word count using phrases like "Enemies in burst" rather than "When you cast this spell, you can designate any number of creatures you can see to be unaffected by it."

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's a very good point. Compare, for example, insect plague and spirit guardians. Insect plague deals damage when first created, when someone enters it, and at the end of each turn. Spirit guardians deals damage when someone enters it and at the start of each turn (but not when created). Why do these spells work differently? Who knows, but they do. In 4e, these spells would have relied on common rules for damaging zones and thus worked the same.

Though I have to say, as someone who's experience is far more outside the D&D-sphere than probably most here, complaining that an edition of D&D has a lot of exception based design feels like complaining water is wet. While I agree there's more coherence to 4e than a lot of D&D versions, its still just scattered with distinctions that exist for no obvious reason other than that's how you design things in this sphere. This became extremely obvious when I took on the job of updating the ad-hoc support for Hero Lab for 4e when I was in a campaign of it

 

[Justice and Rule]

Though I have to say, as someone who's experience is far more outside the D&D-sphere than probably most here, complaining that an edition of D&D has a lot of exception based design feels like complaining water is wet. While I agree there's more coherence to 4e than a lot of D&D versions, its still just scattered with distinctions that exist for no obvious reason other than that's how you design things in this sphere. This became extremely obvious when I took on the job of updating the ad-hoc support for Hero Lab for 4e when I was in a campaign of it

I think my point of argument with this would be that to have exceptions, you have to have a standard.

More seriously, some level of standardization would help. PF2 is good for some of this, with a standardized way of getting rid of many effects like Frightened, Sickened, Confused, etc. Keywords also could help: Incapacitation is a great example of a standardized exception, and having the Fortune tag means you know how that ability will interact with other Fortune effects.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think my point of argument with this would be that to have exceptions, you have to have a standard.

More seriously, some level of standardization would help. PF2 is good for some of this, with a standardized way of getting rid of many effects like Frightened, Sickened, Confused, etc. Keywords also could help: Incapacitation is a great example of a standardized exception, and having the Fortune tag means you know how that ability will interact with other Fortune effects.

All true. I'm just noting from outside this can often seem like arguing whether scarlet or crimson is more red.

 

[Undrave]

4e's Skill Tree character builds favored tactical decision making. They also required elaborate prep on the DM's part to challenge the players, and let them take advantage of their character builds.

I disagree, it's really easy to just throw something together as long as you have an eye for what makes for a good action scene. Admittedly, it's a skill on it's own, but when you get used to it you just need to come up with the big concept for your fight scene and you can improvise the details at the table.

Like my ‘Rat King’ encounter I had my PC go through that one time. I had the concept “Fight in a flour mill against a mad Kobold who controls rats” and just slapped the map and wrote down the stat of the main antagonist of the fight and added some terrain powers as we got there that day.

The fight was against a kobold who seemed to have become possessed by some kind of rat hive mind and declare himself the Rat King. He had telekinetic ability and would use them from the rafters of the mill to throw flour sacks and crates of grain at the PC (or just take pot shot with his sling). Meanwhile, giant rats were moving around the cramped quarter of the mill to block exit paths. The sack would create temporary cloud of flour that blocked views, and every time a crate would break, I would roll to see if it contained a swarm of rat that would immediately attack anyone it landed on. Swarms could be a really big problem in 4e.

The success of the fight hinged on the party rogue, a Kobold themselves, climbing to the rafters and getting the Rat King down from there. Once he was knocked out, the remaining rats scurried away in fear.

As long as you can come up with a cool concept for a fight, putting it together at the table is really not that hard.

4e pretty much makes sure that you are always doing something more than just hit point damage*. There is almost always something additional that happens, even if that's a slight push for better position, or a shift that sets up a flank - something to connect the rules with some kind of progress or change in the fiction.

And there's always effects that trigger when someone is bloodied, PCs or monster alike, so you can get at least 1 extra 'milestone' in the fight aside from 0 HP.

I think removing the Bloodied condition from 5e cut a lot of potentially simple mechanics that now need to be wordy and clunky.

 

[Teemu]

I’d say that it’s typically easier and faster to create an engaging fight in 4e than in 5e, mainly due to monster roles and more interesting monster abilities. However, I will also say that there’s kind of a reduced expectation of a tactically interesting fight in 5e. Like, looking at encounters in 5e adventures, a lot of them are very simple and in very simple environments, so the game as a whole expects you to provide fewer complex fights. That’s been my experience.

 

[Mannahnin]

The 4e statblocks might be slightly longer - but jotting down the stats takes almost no time. I mean the maths literally fits on a business card and even if you aren't homebrewing you can just take your XP budget and go shopping out of the MM.
View attachment 147493
All you need to make 4e combats sing is two monster types and a relevant piece of terrain to engage with and they will, in my experience, be a match for the very best published setpieces in any other edition. Like I say it's the difference between green screen and on location.

Yup. 4th ed was the first time I felt like DMing could be easy and fun. In significant part because of the ease and speed of creating tactically-interesting and engaging encounters.

 

[Oofta]

I’d say that it’s typically easier and faster to create an engaging fight in 4e than in 5e, mainly due to monster roles and more interesting monster abilities. However, I will also say that there’s kind of a reduced expectation of a tactically interesting fight in 5e. Like, looking at encounters in 5e adventures, a lot of them are very simple and in very simple environments, so the game as a whole expects you to provide fewer complex fights. That’s been my experience.

I would say that 5E leaves making the fight an interesting challenge more in the hands of the DM. In theory you could use weird tactics, etc. in 4E but on a pretty regular basis if I tried to do anything "off brand" even a bit in 4E people would challenge how they did that. So if the monsters burst up out of hiding people would question the specific power they were using when it was really just fluff to make the encounter more visually interesting. For whatever reason I don't see that in 5E.

As with all things, "interesting" is in the eye of the beholder. I like the more freeform and speed of combats in 5E, I can see why people could prefer 4E.