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

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, that's another issue I have. If someone complains about realism in an RPG, i don't believe "magical elf game" is a reasonable defense. There are levels of realism, and i think departure from real world (or at least Hollywood) should be called out, and otherwise real world is assumed.

My point is that Big Damned Heroes who don't find climbing ropes and ladders a meaningful challenge is a paradigm, and its one that D&D IMHO is aimed at. There's nothing wrong with, and a D&D rules set needs to accommodate, this sort of fantastical world/story conception. 4e, IME was the first version of D&D that actually understood this. Every edition previous to that was filled with "well, try to keep the PCs in check as long as you can, and when they finally get to a level where they 'bust loose', well that's the endgame." Frankly that was what got me out of D&D. I mean, it was quite frustrating, 2e sort of sold you on doing something different, but it didn't really, and 3.x has NO ANSWER for "the PCs have gone gonzo" at all. In 4e its EXPECTED, and the setting just goes gonzo right along with it! Works great! 5e, well, its better than 3e, or 2e, definitely, but there's still that feeling that the DM's job is to put the PCs in the box and keep them there. 5e handles 'out of the box' better, but it still doesn't really EMBRACE it. So, no, I don't want my realism mixed with my fantasy. If a GM's approach to things is just to tell us what's realistic, seems like a failure of imagination, not a GMing technique.

 

[Deekin]

On the other hand in 5E I can have exactly the same stat block and that ogre the PC ran away from at level 1? Well, now he's back but the PCs are level 10. If he's alone it's a trivial encounter, if he's brought along a dozen buddies it could be a tough fight.

Ah. I see now.

You can actually do the same in 4e, though.

You can have the same Level 6 ogre show up in 4e at level 1 and level 10, just the same as you do in 5e.

With pretty much the exact same results of combat being a non-threatening slog that takes forever to resolve without really draining any significant resources.

I say this, as last night my group of 6 9th level pcs went up against a dozen ogres and it was a very slow cakeslog. The casters locked down ogres relative easily, while the rest of the party slowly chopped through the giant piles of HP.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The cases where the PCs are going to encounter the exact same ogre are slim. It can happen I suppose ... but encountering the exact same ogre that was an "Ogre Savage" with 111 HP is now going to be a "Ogre Thug" with better defenses and attack bonus but 1 HP? Those are not the same creature to me. Y'all are splitting hairs here and creating a straw man ogre.

On the other hand in 5E I can have exactly the same stat block and that ogre the PC ran away from at level 1? Well, now he's back but the PCs are level 10. If he's alone it's a trivial encounter, if he's brought along a dozen buddies it could be a tough fight.

Honestly I'd say the bigger difference isn't 'what the stat block represents' (which is about as vague as hit points anyways), it's that a 5 level difference in 4e is a major power differential, about the same as a 10 level difference in 5e. Mostly because of bounded accuracy.

You can use the same ogre stat blocks 5 levels later because the numbers aren't hugely different yet, not because of the ludonarrative nature of the statblocks themselves.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why would it be pointless? Did the PC get bigger?

Fictionally, yeah. I mean, does Jackie Chan get slammed by mooks? No! If he runs into someone that can give him some trouble, they're real bad guys, maybe not the BOSS bad guy, but real bad guys. Mooks? They try their one move, it fails invariably, and then they get their clock cleaned. Once in a great while there's a mook who manages to get in some sort of a blow, it has little effect, but it makes Jackie look even studlier. Maybe in 4e terms he takes a few points of damage from these 'minions' now and then.

So, yeah, the low level Ogre simply cannot throw the 15th level fighter, not even a little bit. He's grown FICTIONALLY, and the game has dealt with that by making the Ogre a minion and it doesn't even NEED whatever 'slam power' or whatever it had before. It does its 'slap to the face' single-digit damage, and gets dusted.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Are we really concerned that we got the appropriate-level ladder for this particular scenario? The only reason we put a ladder with a DC value assigned is because we expect player characters to show up. Not to keep out the peasantry who probably wouldn't show up in a level 30 dungeon or keep anyway.

So what kind of ladders does paragon-city use? Or doors? Or locks? Are they glowing magicky alloys with interdimensional qualities because the folks are all of a certain level? Does the sign at the gate say you must be between these levels to enter?

Or are we just fooling ourselves in this ridiculously-polarizing and overly-subjective argument over fantastic ladders of the realm? I mean, you can do it either way. Whatever works for you. I know what works for me.

I don't think there's one answer to what 'Paragon City' looks like, except that it is challenging to Paragon PCs. It is quite likely that a lot of perfectly mundane doors and such exist, but the residents are going to understand that they are scant obstacles to entry for the average inhabitant, and if a PC barges a wood door at level 15, it just doesn't stand up. OTOH there could, and probably would be, some Enchanted Dwarven Steel doors that are level 15 and have hard level 15 DCs to open (and equally challenging locks).

Honestly, 4e doesn't do TOO MUCH to try to nail all this down in terms of exactly what is an appropriate fiction for each level. There are suggestions, hints, examples, etc. but it is really MOSTLY up to the GM and players as how they envisage it. I think the main exception here being Athletics checks for things like jumping, which were described in more concrete terms (IE a check result of X means you cleared up to Y squares). There are a few other similar examples, and IMHO they illustrate that 4e's designers weren't all on the same page! Some of them were working on 'a better 3.5' and some were working on 'revolutionary story game D&D', so the result can be inconsistent at times.

 

[Garthanos]

Honestly I'd say the bigger difference isn't 'what the stat block represents' (which is about as vague as hit points anyways), it's that a 5 level difference in 4e is a major power differential, about the same as a 10 level difference in 5e. Mostly because of bounded accuracy.

Level disparity happens in different places compare a level 1 to level 6 PC in 5e the player characters have what 3 to 5 times the hit points or more? that just doesn't happen in 4e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My point is that Big Damned Heroes who don't find climbing ropes and ladders a meaningful challenge is a paradigm, and its one that D&D IMHO is aimed at. There's nothing wrong with, and a D&D rules set needs to accommodate, this sort of fantastical world/story conception. 4e, IME was the first version of D&D that actually understood this. Every edition previous to that was filled with "well, try to keep the PCs in check as long as you can, and when they finally get to a level where they 'bust loose', well that's the endgame." Frankly that was what got me out of D&D. I mean, it was quite frustrating, 2e sort of sold you on doing something different, but it didn't really, and 3.x has NO ANSWER for "the PCs have gone gonzo" at all. In 4e its EXPECTED, and the setting just goes gonzo right along with it! Works great! 5e, well, its better than 3e, or 2e, definitely, but there's still that feeling that the DM's job is to put the PCs in the box and keep them there. 5e handles 'out of the box' better, but it still doesn't really EMBRACE it. So, no, I don't want my realism mixed with my fantasy. If a GM's approach to things is just to tell us what's realistic, seems like a failure of imagination, not a GMing technique.

To each their own. I want the world to make sense except in those instances we've agreed it doesn't.

 

[Garthanos]

4e just tells you to not bother with putting 700hp of lard on the table where your attacks almost can't miss and instead offers you an alternative by the time the monsters get too lardy so you don't take what sounds in abstract like a fun idea for a fight and ultimately bore the players rigid with it.

That just makes me giggle for some reason... let the Lard battle begin.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I don't think there's one answer to what 'Paragon City' looks like, except that it is challenging to Paragon PCs. It is quite likely that a lot of perfectly mundane doors and such exist, but the residents are going to understand that they are scant obstacles to entry for the average inhabitant, and if a PC barges a wood door at level 15, it just doesn't stand up. OTOH there could, and probably would be, some Enchanted Dwarven Steel doors that are level 15 and have hard level 15 DCs to open (and equally challenging locks).

Honestly, 4e doesn't do TOO MUCH to try to nail all this down in terms of exactly what is an appropriate fiction for each level. There are suggestions, hints, examples, etc. but it is really MOSTLY up to the GM and players as how they envisage it. I think the main exception here being Athletics checks for things like jumping, which were described in more concrete terms (IE a check result of X means you cleared up to Y squares). There are a few other similar examples, and IMHO they illustrate that 4e's designers weren't all on the same page! Some of them were working on 'a better 3.5' and some were working on 'revolutionary story game D&D', so the result can be inconsistent at times.

Yeah, it's a bit of a strength actually.

It's almost trivial to alter what Level X means for skill checks and skill challenges depending on the campaign world.

For example, in some campaigns Level 25 athletics checks will have you skiping on clouds and diving 1,000 feet from a portal onto the cosmic cube. In other campaigns, it might be less mythic.

There can be a little disconnect in what you can do "on the grid" vs. in skill challenges as there are a few codified discrete skill uses during combat that are perhaps a little less mythical than they should be at higher levels but I think you can just squint a little --- perhaps you are constrained a little doing those things while also in a serious fight with other mythical beings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fictionally, yeah. I mean, does Jackie Chan get slammed by mooks? No! If he runs into someone that can give him some trouble, they're real bad guys, maybe not the BOSS bad guy, but real bad guys. Mooks? They try their one move, it fails invariably, and then they get their clock cleaned. Once in a great while there's a mook who manages to get in some sort of a blow, it has little effect, but it makes Jackie look even studlier. Maybe in 4e terms he takes a few points of damage from these 'minions' now and then.

So, yeah, the low level Ogre simply cannot throw the 15th level fighter, not even a little bit. He's grown FICTIONALLY, and the game has dealt with that by making the Ogre a minion and it doesn't even NEED whatever 'slam power' or whatever it had before. It does its 'slap to the face' single-digit damage, and gets dusted.

The ogre is still a much larger creature than Jackie, and therefore still capable of body slamming him. That fact doesnt change when Jackie gets more experienced. He's just less likely to pull it off.

Again, I do understand the paradigm 4e operates from. I just dont care for it.