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

[Hussar]

My preference is to move away from the idea of 'powers' completely, but ingrain some of their uses in other ways.

So push backs, knocking prone, doing extra [W] damage, adding conditions can all be there, but they aren't a function of power.

Instead, give fighters a range of options and manuevers to perform (as mentioned early in the thread).

THEN a lot of these modifers/extras come in depending upon other choices. Some egs.

Weapon Chosen: hit with a certain type of weapon and this can also happen.

The actual roll: Certain effects take place on a crit. I would also like to see "raises" (like Savage Worlds) where you are rewarded for hitting with a higher number.

Magic Items could also be more interesting if they can add some of these effects.

HOW one gains access to these may be open to debate. Does everyone wielding a hammer get 'Knock Back' or just Fighters, or just Fighters that have taken Hammer Expertise, or only on a crit etc. (I don't have that answer right now, BUT I would rather see the many 'power effects' dispersed into other areas of the game).

The problem with this sort of thing, is that you're dumping a whole boatload of rules processing onto the game. It's not like in 4e where you have fairly discrete rules for your character most of the time. Now you have fifteen different rules for what you can do, and that's going to add a considerable amount of handling time to combat. 3e showed that rather well.

/snip

Obviously it depends on the situation, but for any complaint that is primarily subjective (pain, nausea, etc.) I would absolutely expect different diagnoses from different doctors (especially if they are different specialties). If you try the same case in three different courts you'll get three different rulings. Objectivity is something of an illusion, regardless of what domain you're in. That's especially true in a fantasy roleplaying game.

Again, if you're getting three completely different responses, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong here. And why would you go to different specialists for the same problem? But, in any case, if the first guy tells you you have a slipped disk, the second guy says you have appendicitis, and the third guy is talking about your spleen, you REALLY need to find a real doctor.

Really? I don't expect a typical response for even the most basic action. If I'm playing zombie horror, I expect that I can shoot and nail a zombie in the head reliably. If I'm playing CoC, I expect that I'll rarely if ever inflict harm on anything, even if I'm making an attack with the same bonus against a walking corpse. If I try to convince a guard to let me into a prison, his response depends very much on whether the game I'm playing is high adventure or hard realism. It all depends on style, on what kind of story you're telling.

Now you're moving the goalposts though. As you said, I would expect different results from entirely different genres and games. I would not expect D&D to work the same as Vampire or GURPS. That's a given.

However, if two groups are playing D&D, and they are doing fairly common D&D actions, such as trying to hit something with a lumpy metal thing, then I would expect the responses to be pretty darn close.

Even your example of talking to the guard, should get fairly reasonably close responses from the DM - you make your bluff/diplomacy check and go from there. I wouldn't expect, however, to suddenly have to roll a D100 and compare to my combined CHA and Diplomacy scores.

How is this different? If the goal is to win, the wizard should be saying "I cast a spell", "I cast a spell", etc

A wizard spamming magic missiles at a monster with 50 hps, is not different (except in flavor and the fact that the wizard eventually can't anymore) from the fighter saying "I attack with my great sword"

The trick though is that the wizard will NEVER spam magic missiles. He's got a bajillion different tricks in his bag, most of which are significantly BETTER than magic missile. As he goes up levels, his tricks all get more powerful. The fighter's tricks actually get LESS powerful as he goes up levels - tripping is great at 1st level, far less useful at 10th level and virtually impossible to pull off at 20th because the monster's are virtually untrippable due to size and other bonuses.

Unless, of course, the fighter laser beam focuses on trip to the exclusion of virtually anything else.

 

[Bluenose]

Maybe "having already used trick #3 once today" is a perfectly valid circumstance for you, but for me it's just self-defining, so I don't understand how dailies can support SoD better than at-wills.

The point isn't the arbitrary limit on the number of times trick X can be used, but that they aren't something that you can repeat often. 4e "solves" the problem of how often you can use them by fitting them into the ED(U) part of the power scheme, giving the player the narrative ability to declare when Particular Opening X comes up. There are other ways, as I'm about to explain.

You left open the question of when those fighter maneuvers would be usable. Every one you pick can be used whenever? Once a day or encounter? That's the most critical question IMO.

Dragon Age RPG lets you use the weapon/magic/other special manoeuvres when particular dice rolls come up (two of the same score when you roll 3d6, to be precise) to improve the effect or reduce the cost (or other things, sometimes). In D&D, the way I'd do it would be to give every Fighter (Martial) At-will two improved forms. If you roll 4 higher than the target number, get the one that's equivalent to an encounter power in it's effect. If you crit, get the one that's equivalent to a daily power. No need for narrative.

 

[Li Shenron]

Extremely hard.

Harder than spells? Clearly if someone expects a perfect game with perfect math and perfect balance, it's never going to happen.

But if you think that "I attack" is always the better option, then why not just nerfing such "I attack" option? Make it much more difficult to boost your damage output for instance, so that killing a monster takes on average many more than 2 successful strikes.

Personally I think the "I attack" option is vastly more popular not because it's so much more convenient, but because the vast majority of players don't have the brains or the guts try something different (or the curiosity to even read the combat chapther wholly if they're playing a fighter!).

 

[Hussar]

Harder than spells? Clearly if someone expects a perfect game with perfect math and perfect balance, it's never going to happen.

But if you think that "I attack" is always the better option, then why not just nerfing such "I attack" option? Make it much more difficult to boost your damage output for instance, so that killing a monster takes on average many more than 2 successful strikes.

Personally I think the "I attack" option is vastly more popular not because it's so much more convenient, but because the vast majority of players don't have the brains or the guts try something different (or the curiosity to even read the combat chapther wholly if they're playing a fighter!).

Now this I have to disagree with. By and large, "I attack" is the best option.

Any of the maneuvers in 3e, if you don't have the feat to mitigate the penalties, are never, ever better than I attack, because you get whacked with a honking great penalty to try. Why would anyone even consider picking up a second weapon if they haven't paid for two weapon fighting? Try to trip without the feat? Yeah right, you fail, you fall down, you succeed, you burned your attack to deal no damage. Depending on how the initiative order is, you basically just traded in your attack for an AOO and the bad guy loses a move action.

Disarm? Monsters outside of humanoids don't use weapons. That leaves Sunder out as well. Grapple? Good luck with that - virtually everything you fight is bigger/stronger/has more legs than you do.

Sure, if I laser beam focus on one or two "tricks" and then do nothing but that trick over and over and over again - Trip Fighter comes to mind - then I can do it. But, then, I've basically just shifted "I attack" to "I trip" and then do the same thing, round after round, combat after combat.

No thanks. I likes me a bit more versatility than that.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]

Everyone playing a different game is the main problem. We should be playing the same core game with our own little tweaks. Not doing so is one of the many drives of edition warring.

There should be an advanced combat system in the core of the game. DMs are free to add, remove, and change it but it needs to be there in some sort of consistent fashion for the health of the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

Now this I have to disagree with. By and large, "I attack" is the best option.

Any of the maneuvers in 3e, if you don't have the feat to mitigate the penalties, are never, ever better than I attack, because you get whacked with a honking great penalty to try.

I definitely meant also to take the appropriate feats for those!

 

[Naszir]

For all of those not liking the AEDU aspect of 4e, are we forgetting that 2e and 3e had a trimmed down version of this with their "you can use this ability 1/day per level" and "you gain a bonus feat or special ability at this level".

Of course 4e expanded this but by only one additional type. The encounter power.

There are pros and cons to this style of play. Personally I liked it but agree with a number of others here that at times it felt too gamist and with everyone having so many powers that there was often analysis paralysis.

It will be interesting to see if DDN can come up with a core system that is simple yet promotes options and descriptions other than "I attack with my sword" or "I cast Magic Missile".

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, let's take a look at some of the kinds of things that 4E gives as possible offensive melee abilities 'at-will' (made generic). These are all things that occur one or more times on the various melee class lists. I'll use the most-well known or a generic name for the ability, and the damage listed assumes that attack hit.

basic attack: 1[W] + MOD damage

charge: Move your speed then 1[W] + MOD
bull rush: Move your speed then Push 1
grab: Immobilize
double mod: 1[W] + MOD damage + MOD damage
cleave: 1[W] + MOD damage and MOD damage to an adjacent target
reaping: 1[W] + MOD damage and MOD damage on a miss
shield bash: 1[W] + MOD damage and Push 1
deft: Move 2 squares then 1[W] + MOD damage
piercing: Attack NAD then 1[W] + MOD damage
careful: Attack +2 then 1[W] + MOD damage
nimble: Shift 1 then 1[W] + MOD damage
pack tactics: Ally Shift 1 then 1[W] + MOD damage
lure: Shift 1 and Enemy Slide 1 then 1[W] + MOD damage
dual: 1[W] damage then 1[W]damage
recup: 1[W] + MOD damage and gain MOD temp HP
guiding: 1[W] + MOD damage and enemy takes -2 to defense
knockdown: MOD damage then knock prone

These are pretty much your typical 'at-will' abilities within 4E, and can be modified in various ways... for instance by giving the bonus to another character, or by getting a second bonus if you accept an additional penalty like granting combat advantage.

Basically... at-wills will give you 1[W] plus 2 MODS worth of additional damage, weapon damage plus shifting/sliding yourself/allies/enemies 1 square, small bonuses to attack rolls (via straight bonus or attacking non-AC defenses), and small ally buffs or enemy debuffs.

These could all easily be made into an open list that ANY melee character could use... but presumably they were assigned to individual classes to just make those classes different from each other. Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing is up to the individual player.

 

[Halivar]

To caveat what I said earlier: I want AEDU, but it is neither necessary nor advisable for it to be core, because I also understand they want to appeal to 3.x gamers who hate it to death.

But I want it to be an option out the gate, and I would like it to be equally supported in terms of quality and testing.

 

[steeldragons]

Fighter: blah blah blah fighter/warrior fluff and common examples of fighter "characters" yada yada.

Combat Rules:
The Most "Basic/Classic" Combat game: Roll to hit. Roll Damage. Add bonuses. Natural 20 auto hits and does automatic max damage (with bonuses) times two.

Anyone may attempt to Trip, Grapple or Disarm.

Everything else is just a matter of what your group chooses to utilize.

Combat Options 1: In addition to the Classic game, add the use of "Styles": Sword & Shield, Two-weapon/Dual-wielding, Weapon Specialist (includes Archery).

Combat Options 2: Include a list of 3e "Feat" style things.

Combat Options 3: Include and/or 4e "power" style things.

OR, to follow my proposed "chart system" above. The game gets more complicated the more levels of Maneuvers you incorporate.


Fighter.................Combat Move Level
Level...................1.......2......3
1........................3
2........................4
3........................4.......1
4........................5.......2
5........................5.......3......1

Combat Moves
Level 1
-"Archer" (receive +1 to hit and damage with any type of bow, +1 per 3 levels to max of +4)
-"Dueling Blade" (receive +1 to hit and automatically disarms on a natural 20. Attacks that strike on a roll more than 3 higher than needed also receive a saving throw or disarm the enemy.)
-"Man-at-arms" (receive +1 to hit with any melee weapon, +1 per 3 levels to a max. of +4)
-"Moving Strike" (allows the fighter to attack as normal and move up to their normal movement rate within the same round [this would be in addition to any movement allowed per round in the normal rules])
-"Parry" (In lieu of an attack, the fighter is able to utilize their weapon to receive +1 to AC per 3 levels to max of +4.)
-"Power Attack" (receive +1 to damage with any melee weapon, +1 per 3 levels to a max of +4)
-"Sword & Board" (receive additional +1 to AC for use of weapon and shield in in tandem, once per round may make an attack with their shield, d4 + Str. and Magic bonuses applicable, OR may use the shield to "push" a foe back/aside 5 feet -successful save negates.)
-"Tripping Strike" (the fighter is able to attack in such a manner as to cause the enemy, on a failed save, to trip and fall in addition to normal weapon damage, loosing their next attack while they regain their balance/footing)
-"Two-Weapon Fighter" (receive 2 attacks per round when wielding two single-handed weapons at once. Damage by weapon type.)
-"Weapon Specialist" (receive additional +1 to hit and damage with a single chosen weapon [or weapon type?]. +1 per 3 levels to a max of +4)

Level 2 Combat MOves...
10 more things to choose...I dunno what they might be.