D&D 4E 4E combat and powers: How to keep the baby and not the bathwater?

[Eldritch_Lord]

Rationalizing fighter marking in game is easy, because of the way it works. The fighters gets in someone's face, they are marked. You aren't required to do it that way, and can treat it as pure metagame if you want, but it is easy and obvious. This gets a little trickier with some of the other defenders, but it isn't rocket science to come up with a rationalization that will work most or even all of the time. Whether that rationalization is one that other campaigns will use is another question, but then it really shouldn't matter what other campaigns are doing.

That's exactly my point, that you shouldn't treat marking as a purely metagame mechanic, because it creates more problems than it solves.

However, how could a creature ever be literally aware that it's chances of hitting anyone other than the fighter have been reduced? As CJ says, all that happened in game is the fighter yelled at the creature. That's it.

I think you're actually adding inconsistencies where none exist by insisting that game mechanics be visible to the creatures/characters within the game. It's not a floating red -2 appears above someone's head when they get debuffed.

The creature knows it's marked, which means it knows it's going to have a hard time hitting something besides the fighter. If it knows this because "the fighter is harrying your movements, preventing you from striking his allies without exposing yourself," that's fine; if it knows this because "the fighter hefts his axe and glares at you, and you don't think you should turn your back on him," that's fine; if it knows this because "...because," there's a problem.

I'm not insisting that creatures see game mechanics, I'm insisting that the argument "Just treat it as a metagame thing, you don't have to explain it" is a bad one. There should be some in-game rationale, however tenuous, for anything that happens in game, and anything that a creature can tell about another creature should be a result of in-game actions/knowledge.

For instance, if Joe the Fighter readies an action to strike Bob the Rogue when Bob comes through a door because Joe's trying to protect Sam the Wizard behind him, there are several possible logical ways to handle it:

--Joe is trying to look nonchalant and not give away his plans, in game; in game, Bob has no special information about Joe's actions, and when Bob decides to go through the door he gets hit.

--Joe is obviously preparing himself to hit Bob, in game; in game, Bob can see that Joe's doing something dangerous-looking but doesn't know exactly what, so Bob decides not to go through the door.

--Joe is obviously preparing himself to hit Bob, in game; out of game, Bob's player is told that Joe has a readied action to hit Bob, so Bob decides not to go through the door.

Which of those you use depends on whether Joe wants to dissuade Bob from coming in or try to surprise him, and whether you describe effects in IC or OOC terms. What is not a logical way to handle it is this:

--Joe is trying to look nonchalant and not give away his plans, in game; out of game, Bob's player is told that Joe has a readied action to hit Bob despite that, so Bob decides not to go through the door for no good in-game reason.

That's the issue with treating marking as a metagame mechanic. Cause and effect don't follow in-game, and players and monsters have to make decisions based on OOC information.

I'm still not seeing the problem.

My caster villains always unload everything they've got. That's part of the point of encounter design (if they're not going to unload it, don't give it to them).

Now there are issues about how one colours that: is the enemy spellcaster lacking in spells because he's weak, stupid or already spent them buffing his army? That can be interesting and important in the context of the fiction, but I don't see any deep reason why the mechanics have to change. Of course, in 3E or Rolemaster the mechanical representation of the NPC would have to change, because of the way those systems relate mechanical representation to fiction - but I don't see why this is a necessary desideratum of an RPG as such.

So it's okay for the PCs to bust into the villain's throne room to find him buffed to the gills with all his remaining spell slots full of combat spells and have him use every last slot because he knows it's the climactic fight and he doesn't have to worry about anything besides the PCs? It's one thing for the villain to scry the PCs, determine them to be a threat, and make some preparations which may indeed include unloading tons of combat spells, but having the villain do that only because the DM knows he's the main villain of the plot and he wants to make it a challenging fight whether the PCs surprise him or not is another. Again, it's all a matter of acting on IC versus OOC knowledge.

And as for players who play their PCs as if they can't die because they have fate points, or hit points, or whatever, left - isn't that the point of plot protection mechanics? This actually relates to the Falling Damage thread - but if your players are spending their PCs' hit points by jumping over cliffs instead of walking down the mountain trails, it seems to me that the problem in your game isn't the hit point mechanics - it's that you're not setting up very compelling situations for your players to spend their hit points in!

Once again, "I'm going to walk up and smack the king because I'm a badass and think I can take his guards" is different from "I'm going to walk up and smack the king because I somehow know that Fate is going to automatically make 5 attacks of my choice miss me for contrived reasons before I have to worry about being hit" is another.



If you'll recall, the statement that prompted this tangent was the following comment by Hussar:

To me, some mechanics are purely meta-game in nature. The 4e fighter's marking powers are a good example of this. What happens in game when a fighter marks a target? Nothing whatsoever. Nothing in that game world changes. However, at a metagame level, the fighter is using some of his agency to influence the outcome of the situation.

My point about marking, and the examples I used to illustrate it, was that you can't have a "purely metagame" mechanic that affects absolutely nothing in the game world that then explicitly informs the target of the ability what happened to it the way marking does. Purely metagame abilities should stay purely metagame--no giving or using OOC knowledge in game--and any abilities that are not metagame abilities should have some discernable cause in game.

That's all I'm arguing. OOC plot control abilities are OOC plot control abilities, and IC intimidation abilities are IC intimidation abilities, and never the twain should meet.

 

[keterys]

I think it's obvious that D&Dnext won't have CaGI, but I have to make my obligatory post protesting the description of the power as a mistake.

The folks using CaGI love it. It's a blast to have. So is Warrior's Urging and Warden's Lure and Thundering Vortex.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. Especially not in the PHB1, on the fighter class instead of a caster class. Your fighter friend could just have a close burst 2 that required a reach weapon and slid enemies 2 squares. Or a shift your speed and attack each target you pass. Or a close burst 1, shift 3, and close burst 1 those you didn't hit with the first burst. Martial can do a _lot_ of things without breaking people's meters, but that one drew an uncomfortable line in the sand, too early.

And I'm a firm believer that martial should have a ton of fun options.

It's just one in a big list of things WotC did that burned bridges that didn't need to be.

 

[billd91]

There's a danger here in being a trifle too literal.

For one thing, the "creature" has no mind because it's a fictional construct. However, saying "the creature" here is a lot less wordy and means the same thing as, "The player controlling the target of the power". Because, let's be honest here, the "creature" cannot ever be aware of anything.

Is this really where you and Pemerton want this to be going? Because this is pretty much telling me that 4e isn't really a role-playing game. It's players moving tokens against each other.

 

[pemerton]

Is this really where you and Pemerton want this to be going? Because this is pretty much telling me that 4e isn't really a role-playing game. It's players moving tokens against each other.

I could turn that around, though, and say that your response suggests to me that there's a lot of RPGs that you're not familiar with.

Marking is a species of debuff. It penalises attacks against targets other than the one who marked you. There are multiple mechanical ways, in an RPG, for deploying a debuff. It can happen ingame (eg the wizard casts Ray of Enfeeblement on an enemy, causing a -2 to hit). It can happen via the metagame (eg the player of the wizard plays a Fate point, giving an enemy a -2 to hit). Which is marking? Either - it depends on context, class, table norms, etc.

At my table we play paladin marking as an ingame effect - the paladin has called down the sanction of his god upon his enemies. And the enemies know they're debuffed (and that they will take radiant damage if they don't attack the paladin).

At my table we treat the fighter's mark sometimes as ingame, sometimes as metagame. Sometimes, when playing my creatures, I have regard to it and focus my attacks on the fighter. Other times I ignore it or forget about it, and have the NPC/monster attack someone else, therefore (when the player of the fighter points it out!) suffering a -2 to hit.

How do I decide who a monster/NPC attacks? All sorts of things factor in - marks, available targets, who is established by prior story as a particular enemy of that monster/NPC, what would be more exciting, etc. I also follow this advice from Paul Czege:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

The fighter's mark, and how to respond to it, is just one part of these decisions - of which I'm making something like 20 or more per combat.

If you're trying to tell me that this isn't roleplaying, but "players moving tokens against each other", then go to town! But I think that any reference to the many many actual play threads I've posted on these boards, describing episodes from my 4e game and how I and my players used the mechanics to bring them about, will refute that claim.

That's exactly my point, that you shouldn't treat marking as a purely metagame mechanic, because it creates more problems than it solves.

I still don't see a problem.

I'm insisting that the argument "Just treat it as a metagame thing, you don't have to explain it" is a bad one. There should be some in-game rationale, however tenuous, for anything that happens in game, and anything that a creature can tell about another creature should be a result of in-game actions/knowledge.

<snip>

That's the issue with treating marking as a metagame mechanic. Cause and effect don't follow in-game, and players and monsters have to make decisions based on OOC information.

<snip>

OOC plot control abilities are OOC plot control abilities, and IC intimidation abilities are IC intimidation abilities, and never the twain should meet.

I understand that you are insisting that things must be thus and so. But you are not providing a reason which strike me as salient outside one approach to play (namely, one which (i) strongly emphasises process simulation of the fiction over the results in the fiction, and (ii) strongly disapproves of any overt metagame agenda being brought to bear upon play. Whereas I don't especially value (i) - I can enjoy RPGs that make a point of it (like RM or RQ), but have no special commitment to them. And I don't value (ii) at all.

The creature knows it's marked, which means it knows it's going to have a hard time hitting something besides the fighter.

<snip>

My point about marking, and the examples I used to illustrate it, was that you can't have a "purely metagame" mechanic that affects absolutely nothing in the game world that then explicitly informs the target of the ability what happened to it the way marking does. Purely metagame abilities should stay purely metagame--no giving or using OOC knowledge in game--and any abilities that are not metagame abilities should have some discernable cause in game.

You are making all sorts of assumptions here about RPGing which not all of us share.

For example, I don't want or expect my players not to use OOC knowledge in game. I want them to use that knowledge in game - for example, to make choices because everyone at the table knows it will be exciting, even if the PCs don't (or would prefer to live peaceful rather than exciting lives).

When it comes to GMing, most of my decision-making is metagame-driven. My whole goal as GM is to set up enaging situations in the fiction which the players will enjoy engaging, and which will produce a fiction that is aesthetically satisfying for them and for me.

So, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said above, it doesn't especially matter to me whether it is the monster, or just me as GM, who knows that attacks against targets other than the fighter are penalised. The point is that, knowing they are so penalised, I as GM will (at least from time to time) make decisions that take that into account. Which produces a result that the fighter is attacked perhaps more than otherwise he would be. Which produces a fiction in which the heroic fighter stands at the centre of the martial action. Which seems, to me at least, the right sort of fiction for a game of heroic fantasy to produce.

So it's okay for the PCs to bust into the villain's throne room to find him buffed to the gills with all his remaining spell slots full of combat spells and have him use every last slot because he knows it's the climactic fight and he doesn't have to worry about anything besides the PCs?

I already answered this in my previous post, I think - I will configure the NPC/monster at the right level to provide the sort of challenge that fits with the fiction, the pace, the thematic impact I'm going for, etc. How that is then realised in mechanical terms depends on the game being played. In 4e, for example, your question doesn't even really make sense because villains don't have any such mechanical options as "buffs" or "slots". In RM or AD&D, as I stated above, I would work out the desired effect first, and then build an NPC around that - including deciding whether its a low level NPC with full slots, a high level NPC who's used most of his/her spell points/slots doing something else today, or whatever.

The fact that this is harder work in RM or AD&D (or 3E, from what I understand of it) is one reason that I prefer to GM 4e.

It's one thing for the villain to scry the PCs, determine them to be a threat, and make some preparations which may indeed include unloading tons of combat spells, but having the villain do that only because the DM knows he's the main villain of the plot and he wants to make it a challenging fight whether the PCs surprise him or not is another.

Are you saying that, in designing scenarios and encounters, and (or?) in adjudicating them, a GM should never have regard to whether they're interesting, boring, exciting, dramatic, thematically challenging, or any other comparable metagame situation?

"I'm going to walk up and smack the king because I'm a badass and think I can take his guards" is different from "I'm going to walk up and smack the king because I somehow know that Fate is going to automatically make 5 attacks of my choice miss me for contrived reasons before I have to worry about being hit" is another.

If the players in my game didn't have anything better to do with their PCs, and their fate points, then walk up to random kings and smack them *just because*, then I would be seriously revisiting my approach to scenario design, framing interesting scenes, etc.

But to date, at least, the issue you describe hasn't come up for me.

 

[Zustiur]

Out of combat, loss of many of the more "interesting" effects and/or making them much harder to access made exploration and other non-combat things less interesting, and there were plenty of "noncombat" spells that were usable in combat and couldn't be duplicated by martial types yet were quite fun and balanced. So I agree with you on this 70% or so.

Actually, it looks like you agree with me 100%, I just didn't mention the out of combat flaw because I was sticking to the topic of combat as much as possible.

The existence of ability score reducers as well as the existence of negative levels was a good one, actually, in my opinion;

Many would disagree with you, and I personally am undecided on the topic. I'd like to see some alternatives to the 3e ability and level drain concepts. However, I must point out that I was also talking about stat boosting effects. The 'Bull's Strength' type spells being a key example. Anything that causes you to recalculate your entire character sheet mid battle is a problem.

Rants already made--I don't think it deserves expansion but rather replacement. Just noting my disagreement.

And such good rants they were too. I was trying to keep to concise statements, but given the option I'd just paste your rant straight into that particular point.

Nitpick: minions and elites already basically existed in 3e as well.

I know what you're talking about, but one of the key elements of minions is that they have a reasonable chance of hitting. 3E common array + lower level monsters don't do very well in the 'to hit' area.
The best bit about elites was the 'license' to just double something's hitpoints because it was a boss creature. As you correctly point out, Elite array and full HP more or less does that. The problem with the array modification is that it resulted in lots of work for the DM.

This isn't something better so much as it is a matter of taste.

I prefer the taste of attack vs defense, though now that you call me out on it, I can't really give a reason why. It just feels more elegant or consistent, probably because there are fewer save types (thinking of 2E in particular here). In my opinion; 'Attacks vs Defense' is to 'Saves vs DC' what 'Attack Bonus' is to 'THAC0'

I'd argue that this is actually a benefit, though again only for "combat" spells. Conceptually, it is better to have fewer, more standardized durations than to have more, more irregular durations,

Agreed. My point was more around the fact that 'until next turn' and 'save ends' overlap a great deal. If 55% of 'save ends' effects only last 1 turn anyway... why not just make them 1 turn? I'd have preferred d4 turns or something like that. Maybe even a flat '3 turns'.

15 minute work day: If daily powers are recoverable, most incentive for the 15-minute work day goes away, since everything else is already on a per-encounter basis. Implement a rule that the first short rest you take between encounters recovers one daily power, and add that you can spend an action point during a short rest to recover a second daily power. That changes "daily" powers to "ration over several encounters" powers, and not only disincentivizes the 15-minute work day (since now you can actually use more daily powers the further you go) but also partially addresses the martial dailies issue.

Interesting solution. My preference is still to drop encounter powers entirely, but that doesn't actually invalidate your idea. I'm not sure how exactly you'd fluff that idea though. Maybe I'm just too stuck in my Vancian ways.

Repetitive power lineups: This one, I feel, is mostly due to the same-y-ness of powers in general and the fact that characters get too few of them.

An alternate solution that I've been toying with is to just give the players all the powers from their class, and let them only use 1 (of a given power level) per battle. Let them choose what's appropriate at the time. This solution wouldn't help with stopping two fighters from looking the same though.

Class homogenization: It all comes down to the power schedule.

The schedule, and powers themselves.
'Attack vs Defense, deal X damage and Y effect' is highly repetitive, regardless of whether you obtain them at the same rate as other classes.

Effect and bonus tracking: Simple: Ditch the BS "+X for one round" effects.

That would be a good start. I'm not sure it goes far enough.

Healing fluff: See my explanation above. If you stick with a single interpretation of HP, this problem tends to solve itself.

The thing with this is that it used to be consistent and later books broke the consistency.
HP has always been a combination of health/fatigue/morale/luck. Magical cleric healing has also been a combination of health/fatigue/morale/luck. Introducing other forms of healing started to cause types of healing that couldn't be explained as a combination of all 4 of those things.
It also went part way towards explaining the requirement for more healing at higher levels. I didn't ever see anyone argue in favour of this point, but if a high level character has been wounded, I don't see it as unreasonable that the god providing the healing would have to put more effort in to provide that character with restored luck. A character that has lived through so many battles has obviously relied on a lot of luck already. Replenishing it means tilting the world more in favour of that character.

I'm not sure if that will make sense to anyone besides me.

Non-power powers: Write a coherent improvisation framework rather than telling the DM to wing it.

Yes, and cover things that are going to come up in all games so that they don't need improvisation.

I've played a lot of Rolemaster, which uses spell points on a daily recovery cycle, and the 15 min day is as big an issue as in D&D (in some ways bigger, becaues with clever spell choice a PC can be built to use all his/her spell points in a single round).

I thought it might be. I'm not a fan of spell points for DND.

For example, I've got nothing against several encounters, wandering monsters, giving XP for mainly treasure acquisition and quests completed, tracking operational resources (like food and water), and keeping the party poor. I've done it and had great fun. Set up your adventures properly in that environment, and you won't often have 15 MAD--and when you do, you won't mind. Players that try it in that environment will use those resources inefficiently, and thus find it counter-productive. That's all great if you want to play that way. It's lousy as heck if you don't. Sometimes I want that playstyle. Other times I don't.

Yes, that's my preferred solution too. I like Vancian spell casting. My groups never encountered the 15 MAD. As noted earlier, I've actually seen more of this behaviour in 4E than I did in earlier editions.

<a series of well written points to Eldritch_Lord>

Extremely well argued sir. I'd XP you if I could.
It appears that EL and myself both want DND combat to be process driven. I truly wonder what 5E will end up doing?

 

[Mattachine]

I also thought Pemerton's most recent post, above, was excellent--I too am out of xp.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That's exactly my point, that you shouldn't treat marking as a purely metagame mechanic, because it creates more problems than it solves.

Well, sure, if you happen to agree that all the things you say are problems are actually these horrible things that must be avoided at all costs. Since I don't happen to agree with that, your response comes across as begging the question to me. You are arguing logically to a conclusion, but from a set of premises that are not shared.

My position is not that something like marking must be metagame or not metagame all the time, but is most useful if it can morph between the two, depending upon the preferences of the people at the table. Thus, something that you can readily rationalize (if so inclined) but are not forced to do so (if so inclined), is highly useful. But then I'm assuming a wider variety of playstyles being catered to.

 

[pemerton]

Extremely well argued sir. I'd XP you if I could.

Thanks.

It appears that EL and myself both want DND combat to be process driven. I truly wonder what 5E will end up doing?

My feeling is that, compared to 4e, it will be process-driven, but compared to Rolemaster or Runequest it will make compromises on this issue. Which is to say, I would expect something a bit like Basic D&D or AD&D.

I would expect hit points, in particular, to still be a morale/health/meat/luck combo, giving new generations of players the opportunity to argue about what is really going on with falling damage, and how lava should be adjudicated!

 

[LostSoul]

That's the issue with treating marking as a metagame mechanic. Cause and effect don't follow in-game, and players and monsters have to make decisions based on OOC information.

Considering the abstract nature of D&D combat, isn't this always the case?

 

[Janaxstrus]

Considering the abstract nature of D&D combat, isn't this always the case?

In some ways, but for me, personally, I always attempt to keep OOC and IC stuff separate. My DMs try to keep the players IC when discussing tactics AND cut them off if they are going beyond a reasonable "free action" to discuss them.
And of course...if we do it in common, there's always a chance the baddies understand and take advantage.