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

Neonchameleon said:

I know I did because they'd make things too easy and because you wanted to look at ones much lower level than you were.

Click to expand...

YUP! I mean, a lot of consumables are pretty worthless after a while, but there are some that they didn't quite figure out exactly how crazy good they were. The 'AoE ammunition' was one of those. You could fire ammo that was 10 levels beneath you, the cost was stupidly close to zero, and yeah, the effects were marginal, but you're still firing an arrow at someone, its no worse than any other arrow! Plus there's a bit o' splash damage, what is not to like?

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

Agree on the preperation, but having DMed a campaign up to LEvel 30, analysis paralaysis was still a bit of an issue during tactical play - with 4 daily attack powers, 4 encounters attack powers and a bunch of utilities, some of these abiltiies being able to used as minor or free actionp plus some magic item abilities, there were definitely players thinking deeply about their options.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I found some of this when getting to higher levels too (not to mention just losing track of a number of them after a while, at least the more specialized ones).

I mean, you can argue the paralysis is just a case of players poorly suited to the system, but I'm not sure exceeding the ability for people to remember everything they do, even with a summary sheet, was a virtue. Noteably they did not do that to the GM.

AbdulAlhazred said:

I'm not sure what makes people feel it is all that revolutionary. I mean, 4e has action types, PF2e has action COSTS, its not all that much different.

Click to expand...

I tend to somewhat disagree, in part because there's no default value for using lower action cost powers in 4e; maybe you have a useful action that can fill up the space, maybe you don't. Almost everyone has something to do with a single Action cost in PF2e, so its a genuine trade-off. Its not like you could just launch more at-wills because you didn't use your full-action Daily.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Yeah, its weird how the 'culture' of 4e play seemed to eschew things like consumables and rituals to a degree that I never understood. You could actually ALMOST break the game by going against that, some of those things are pretty crazy powerful (there were some magic arrows in AV2 IIRC, or maybe MME, that were crazy good).

Click to expand...

Honestly, I think simply not doing that sort of thing is more common in general than people realize. Outside of healing supplimentals, I never saw a great deal of usage of consumeables in 3e, 4e or PF2e; when playing the latter two I tended to forget I even had them.

Alright, gonna try to make this the last time and just clarify a few things.

Neonchameleon said:

They are - although 4e bonuses normally start at +2. The thing is that 4e is not a perfect system and one of its flaws is that there are too many stacking modifiers by paragon tier. PF2e encourages a proliferation of +1s.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but you are limited by how many you can actually use. So you can have one Circumstance bonus (Something you are doing about your situation, like raising a shield), one Item bonus, and one Status bonus (Spells and other buffs). The same applies to penalties, though there are "untyped" penalties which have no limit as to how many can be applied. These are largely your range and multiple attack penalties (so someone doesn't try getting out a person being in cover because the range penalty is bigger ).

So obviously you want to gain pluses, but you can't doomstack them by having multiple blesses and such.

Neonchameleon said:

I'm literally suggesting using the three action economy the way it was intended to be used and killing someone with an axe as one action and trying to demoralise someone as a second.

You mean Intimidating Strike? And not the same thing at all. I have no problem with Intimidating Strike existing. A two action combo trick that you use in combination with a standard attack action.

What I am saying is that anyone should be able to demoralize people non-verbally if they can communicate why they should be demoralised and spend the normal action.

That's a matter of communication. If a bard glares at people a lot of people are going to shrug. If a wizard threatens people non-verbally with fire or a fighter makes a mess of someone's friend they should be able to demoralize them.

There is room for an "Intimidating glare" feat; the problem is in the hyper-rigidity of the PF2e skills that require intimidation to be an auditory effect (and give a -4 penalty for cross-language intimidation)

Fixing this badly put together mess Demoralize should require some form of action or communication showing you have the ability. It should not require the flapping of gums. But Pathfinder 2e is an obnoxiously over-detailed system that details its skills as special cases.

This change would free up the Intimidating Glare feat to be just by glaring and not using any other form of communication.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was mixing up with what you were saying in regards to your order of actions, which is why I went to Intimidating Blow.

I feel like the restriction is fine, though we've had this discussion elsewhere and there's really nothing that says you can't allow it with a small circumstance penalty. As it stands, it's worth noting that with the tight math that the Frightened condition is particularly strong and I get why they might want to keep that on a leash.

Actually, I think this is somewhat covered.



I'd probably rule your attempts falling under that, having minimal auditory quality but still there.

Neonchameleon said:

Not much any more. I dropped in quite a bit to the board and didn't comment much to see if there was anything I found worthwhile about the system. And the three action economy was about it.

Click to expand...

I mean, can't comment on it then. To me it's made combat flow so much more easily by comparison.

Neonchameleon said:

Someone did a version of the 4e brawler fighter in Pathfinder 2? Nice. (And having looked at some of the abilities that really looks like someone had fun playing the brawler fighter and decided to convert it). The biggest difference other than system I'd say is that the 4e brawler is very much about dragging their foes around as well as just grabbing and grappling them.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Wrestler is kind of about grapple damage and inflicting status effects. But it's easily one of my favorite archetypes, because creating wrestlers is a gimmick in my group.

Neonchameleon said:

So am I. My problem with PF 2e isn't that it's crunchy. I've used GURPS Vehicles in cold blood in the past. My problem with PF2e is that it doesn't seem to give me anything.

Click to expand...

Ah, you "I need to have one army stronger than the other" crazyperson. But I suppose "adaptable" was a bad choice of words. I suppose my taste might be broader than yours, for better or worse. For you, I don't think it really fills what you want given that you're not big on 5E and already have 4E.

Neonchameleon said:

Would that be the traits that are just fluff or the ones that do something.

Click to expand...

The weapon traits that you can find next to the attacks.

Neonchameleon said:

Honestly the points you've pointed out this post that I've liked have all been slightly watered down 4e. And no it won't replace 4e but I can see there's a bit more there than I thought even if it is borrowed from 4e.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for 4E, but to me it runs closer to what I want from D&D. 4E has always been a curiosity for being such a drastic and interesting shift, but my one time playing it was just kind of rough. Admittedly it was the first adventure when it first came out, and as I understand it there were monster math problems at the start, right? I swear no one could hit anyone in that slap-fight of an encounter.

Neonchameleon said:

Good to see them taking more inspiration from 4e Having looked at the dragons I think I like Draconic Momentum - but I'm not sure whether it's that meaningful given the action economy and the way you're likely to have already taken two actions to use Draconic Frenzy.

Click to expand...

I mean, it's big. The Breath Weapon does not count for the Multiple Attack Penalty, which means you can light it off and it's way more likely at least cause damage equal to two of your strikes, if not more. And if someone is left within reach, you can whap them at no penalty.

Draconic Fury is good, but also somewhat limited: If you are using two actions to get three attacks, you'll want to make them better than just two regular attacks. So lead with Horns (your weakest attack) and use the Agile Claws to try and get two more. However, if they're spread you'll have fewer options since your Claws are your shortest range attack. If you have a decent enough bonus on who you're fighting, you can attempt to crit-fish and get your Breath weapon back, which is why if you are a spellcaster or not is meaningful, as it can steal one of your best options to get your breath weapon back. You better be good at magic.

On the other end, Tail is obviously useful for a long range strike depending on where you are at while Jaws are the damage-dealer if you have someone in range, and with a crit can easily be more damaging than three regular attacks, though obviously focused on a single target. Depending on what you want or can do, each is going to have their uses... except for Horns, which you're only going to want to use with Draconic Fury unless you feel like styling on someone.

Neonchameleon said:

For the record here's the Young Black Dragon from Monster Vault
View attachment 147519
Yes, the tail sweep is different for the different colours. So is the instinctive action (which IME really sells that this is a king of monsters) and the acid blood equivalent. (The main awkward symbol is the sword in the circle by bite - that indicates it's a melee basic attack so you can use it on a charge or opportunity attack; you get an unlimited number of opportunity actions but only one immediate action per round).

Click to expand...

Yeah, any time you get a free attack it'll be the bite. I do know a little bit.

But I think the big thing here is that the numbers being played with are very different. Pathfinder 2E combat is generally 3-5 turns, give or take. The hitpoints on that Young Dragon are nearly equal to the HP on the Adult Dragon for PF2, which means you probably need a bit more going on if you don't want things to get dull.

I will say the Ancient Dragons start to get into crazier territory (again, outside of maybe the Black Dragon) as the players start to get crazier as well. The Blue creates thunderclouds which can zap you with lightning as well as being able to fire its breath weapon from the illusory double it can create (which is hilarious since it has burrowing). The Green creates a miasma that hurts and conceals when it uses its breath, and both the White and Red have a ton of tricks similar to what you show off here.

And Black gets Darkness. Though Befouling Water can really mess up a party if they are relying on potions... or you want to pick on an Alchemist.

The non-classic dragons like the Elementals and Imperial dragons are a bit better, which makes sense given that they are from later books. Their best forms are very much their Ancient ones, especially the Magma Dragon's Molton Loogie Prison.

AbdulAlhazred said:

I'm not sure what makes people feel it is all that revolutionary. I mean, 4e has action types, PF2e has action COSTS, its not all that much different. I think the PF2e approach might sometimes give you slightly more complicated choices. So, like in 4e if you have a minor action effect, there's no question, you can do it or not, but normally it won't be a choice between that and making some bigger splashier main attack, whereas in PF2e that might be an option (IE make a 3 action attack or a 2 action attack and something else that takes one action). Is that a GOOD thing? I mean, it eliminates the concept of action types (at least for in-turn actions, PF2e still has free actions and off-turn actions) but replaces it with "action cost" instead.

I'll just close by saying that in HoML I did away with the minor action. It was always too tempting to design in extra attacks and such. If something is really trivial its a free action anyway, and if it isn't, then its a standard! Likewise with bonuses, HoML has ONE situational adjustment, advantage/disadvantage, and that is it. There are fixed bonuses from 4 sources (level, proficiency, permanent, and ability), and they NEVER STACK. You just take the best one you have, and they don't change, unless the character itself changes. Things run WAY quicker this way! People don't worry about little stuff, they go for the tactical 'breakers', the things that give advantage! My game design motto is to not sweat the little stuff, if something isn't "oh WOW!" then its just taking up space and should go away .

Click to expand...

I mean, it's not exactly revolutionary because as I understand it, the action system was in Pathfinder Unchained.

But what's amazing is that it really cleans up so much confusion about what you can do, as well as avoiding that whole "Searching for a Bonus Action" idea that comes up. When everything is an action, a player just can more clearly see what they can and can't do, and thus it's balanced less on "Do I have the right kind of actions" and more "Do I have enough actions". It might not sound big, but in practice it just feels very smooth.

And that modification of modifiers sounds quite nice.

AbdulAlhazred said:

I'm not sure what makes people feel it is all that revolutionary.

Click to expand...

One big difference is that you're not spending your bonus/minor action, you're usually looking for a way to spend your third action, which has much the same list of options as your first option.

So you're not looking to add a useful bonus action to your build, you're looking for another main action to add to your repertoire.

jmartkdr2 said:

One big difference is that you're not spending your bonus/minor action, you're usually looking for a way to spend your third action, which has much the same list of options as your first option.

So you're not looking to add a useful bonus action to your build, you're looking for another main action to add to your repertoire.

Click to expand...

And most people have at least one option there that's at least modestly useful (people will argue that, but often its in the "a +1 AC isn't good enough" kind of arguments, which with PF2e is, well, a take. But in the end, we're talking a game where under some circumstances throwing three Cantrips is actually more useful than tossing a full 2 action spell, and where using your third action to move away from an opponent is both practical and often useful. Some of this stuff is just not going to be useful from outside the game, especially for people familiar with PF1e or D&D3 or D&D4 where there are important differences in play).

Thomas Shey said:

I tend to somewhat disagree, in part because there's no default value for using lower action cost powers in 4e; maybe you have a useful action that can fill up the space, maybe you don't. Almost everyone has something to do with a single Action cost in PF2e, so its a genuine trade-off. Its not like you could just launch more at-wills because you didn't use your full-action Daily.

Click to expand...

Every character in 4e has a selection of (at least) 2 at-will attack powers which do a decent baseline job of dishing it out. Even if, somehow, you could not use those, you are always able to use 'Basic Attack', which still grants you all the various sorts of additions and whatnot which come from feats. In fact nobody EVER has to use it, unless they are charging or doing an OA, basically, but there's 0 times when you don't have a usable option. I mean, we can probably invent some corner-case scenario that will come up once per campaign when all the options suck badly, but my guess is PF2e can generate cases like that too. In short, the 'default value' for powers in 4e is usually darn good! Its Twin Strike, or Tide of Iron, or Commander's Strike, or whatever. I know of NO class that has entirely shabby at-will options.

jmartkdr2 said:

One big difference is that you're not spending your bonus/minor action, you're usually looking for a way to spend your third action, which has much the same list of options as your first option.

So you're not looking to add a useful bonus action to your build, you're looking for another main action to add to your repertoire.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but you will want specific sorts of things which don't care much about -5s and -10s... CLEARLY the design problem they ran into was the 3e Fighter multi-attack problem where the only non-stupid thing to do is stand and act like a buzz saw. It appears they addressed it basically by making the penalties SO HUGE that you might as well not bother, and then adding in multi-action 'powers' that effectively double up or triple up. I would look at it more like this: It is like you have some 'minor powers' that you can use, and then you can do something else that is either a highly disadvantaged attack, or else whatever. 4e just has these 'minor powers' be gated in as unlimited use vs the more limited use E/D powers, and then let you have explicitly minor action powers, which USUALLY function as outlets for class features and basically are like "free actions, but we only want you to do one on your turn", which is another way of looking at it.

I mean, obviously it is slightly mechanically different. Wearing my game designer hat, I'm far from blown away. I could make something like this work, but there's always the danger that players will find some scenarios under which attack rolls aren't that significant and suddenly multiply their firepower. Something analogous happens in 4e when players figure out how to create builds that can multi-attack, either via a power that grants that explicitly, or else some clever build options (which generally are highly conditional, etc. but can still work). So, I don't see it as MORE robust in any great sense. My own approach of just getting rid of 'minor action' as an action type seems equally good, overall.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Every character in 4e has a selection of (at least) 2 at-will attack powers which do a decent baseline job of dishing it out. Even if, somehow, you could not use those, you are always able to use 'Basic Attack', which still grants you all the various sorts of additions and whatnot which come from feats. In fact nobody EVER has to use it, unless they are charging or doing an OA, basically, but there's 0 times when you don't have a usable option. I mean, we can probably invent some corner-case scenario that will come up once per campaign when all the options suck badly, but my guess is PF2e can generate cases like that too. In short, the 'default value' for powers in 4e is usually darn good! Its Twin Strike, or Tide of Iron, or Commander's Strike, or whatever. I know of NO class that has entirely shabby at-will options.

Click to expand...

You're missing my point. If you don't do a 2 or 3 action cost action in PF2e you can do three one cost Actions. And normal attacks and cantrips are one cost actions. Unless I've forgotten, At Wills are still Standard actions, no? So you are only trading off different actions to get a Full Action or the like; that means its not really a trade off, you just use the more useful one (subject to wanting to save an Encounter or Daily of course), where here you have to decide a two or three action cost action is actually worth more than using several smaller ones. At most its compareable to a Full action in contrast to doing a Standard and a Move, but I don't recall that many Move attacks.