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

[Hussar]

And I dislike 4e powers because they were "not-magic" magic. Everyone did the same thing with a different name.

Should fighters have more to do? Yes.
Cleaves, bullrushes, trips, whirlwinds etc etc, should all be things they can do without blowing all of their feats on them. However, if they make them daily, encounter, whatever powers, it will be a deal breaker for many people.

Not a huge fan of the Tome of Battle stuff either, as too much of it was giving fighters magic powers, but not calling it that. I like a strict break between what a fighter can do naturally and what a mage has to use magic for.

So yes, to more abilities to fighters. No, to magic-lite abilities for fighters

Here's another meme that really needs to get put down.

Look, while there are a couple of powers that are "magic lite", the VAST majority of them are straight up cleaves and bull rushes. You can make a completely non-magic fighter that is just as effective as the guy with Come and Get It using nothing but powers which are expressly tied to the in-game fiction.

I mean, at every single level of martial character's powers, there are at least one and probably several powers which are 100% non-magical. And that's just in the PHB and not even including any other further material. I've got my 4e PHB open right now and I'm looking at the fighter powers. The first "magic lite" power is probably Come and Get it, and it's a level 7 power. And, if you don't like it, there's four other level 7 powers that aren't magic lite.

To put it another way, of the first 33 powers available to a level 7 fighter, exactly ONE can't be explained purely with in game fiction.

Fighters really, REALLY aren't "magic lite" characters. Honest.

 

[FireLance]

Look, while there are a couple of powers that are "magic lite", the VAST majority of them are straight up cleaves and bull rushes. You can make a completely non-magic fighter that is just as effective as the guy with Come and Get It using nothing but powers which are expressly tied to the in-game fiction.

I think the issue is not so much with the actual effects as it is with the once per encounter or once per day limitation. Hence the main thrust of the thread: how to give martial characters access to tactical options and "encounter" and "daily" power level effects without using the encounter and daily power mechanic.

 

[jshaft37]

I think the issue is not so much with the actual effects as it is with the once per encounter or once per day limitation. Hence the main thrust of the thread: how to give martial characters access to tactical options and "encounter" and "daily" power level effects without using the encounter and daily power mechanic.

Essentials character do that to a certain extent.

 

[FireLance]

Essentials character do that to a certain extent.

Apart from utility powers, Essentials martial characters are limited to a single, simple effect that can (eventually) be used multiple times per encounter. I think it does make them more acceptable to more people (the effect can be considered an adrenaline surge or something similar), but in a way, it is still an encounter power mechanic.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Look, while there are a couple of powers that are "magic lite", the VAST majority of them are straight up cleaves and bull rushes. You can make a completely non-magic fighter that is just as effective as the guy with Come and Get It using nothing but powers which are expressly tied to the in-game fiction.

You and I know that. However, I at least understand where people are coming from. Any attempt to restrict the number of times you can use an ability on a Fighter seems like an attempt by some people to turn fighters into wizards.

If I took 3.5e exactly as written but added a sentence after Sunder, Trip, Disarm, Grapple and all of the other moves that says "This maneuver may be used only once per combat"

It's likely that a huge number of people would claim that fighters are now wizards. After all, they have a list of limited use maneuvers, each of which can be used only once.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You and I know that. However, I at least understand where people are coming from. Any attempt to restrict the number of times you can use an ability on a Fighter seems like an attempt by some people to turn fighters into wizards.

And, I think where lines get crossed is in action resolution via the fiction. That is, Wizards can do dailies, and it makes sense in the fiction for that to be normal (it's magic!). Fighters can't, but you can justify it from a dramatist perspective (perfect setup, etc.).

So, players will play a Wizard, and then play a Fighter, and oftentimes, I think the change in how the action resolution system interacts with the fiction is off-putting. They've become accustomed to a more simulation-based approach to interacting with the fiction, and now Fighters are acting like Wizards according to the action resolution system.

Now, you can certainly separate the two, and if you do, there may not be a problem for you. For others, it is a problem. For others, having a more dramatist take on things may be a problem. For others, just the fact that the same resolution system is used (powers for both) may make them feel very similar (as compared to combat maneuvers vs. spells resolving very differently).

But, for some people, separating all of these things is no problem, and it's easy and great. Fighters and Wizards use the same resolution system; how is this not just as great as 3.0 and the d20 system unification? Fighters use more dramatist powers; D&D has been trying to be a simulation for far too long! Fighters use narrative powers and Wizards use "magic" to use dailies; well, how else do you have a completely mundane guy compete with someone who tells physics where to shove it?

It just depends on what kind of connections your mind makes. It's the same basic statement of "it feels like a video game" to some people; it's not that it's invalid, it's just a connection their mind has made. It doesn't mean it's universally true, and they're objectively wrong if they say it is, but something(s) has(have) caused a lot of people to feel that way, just as many people had a negative reaction to the Fighter/Wizard shared power (A/E/D) resolution system.

Calling people out for "perpetuating a meme" is wrong in that it's dismissive. The "meme" may be subjective, but it's not invalid, and should be okay to voice from a subjective standpoint. No, it shouldn't be claimed that it's universally true, and people that do so are, again, objectively wrong.

At any rate, there's going to be no stopping the claims of "they feel the same" because, well, to the guy/gal who says it, they do. And that's not any more or less valid than the Fighter/Wizard divide not feeling the same to the next guy/gal. It's just the way it is.

Universal calls of a subjective feel need to stop on both sides, but voicing your subjective view on how something makes you feel? That should be okay, in my mind. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Calling people out for "perpetuating a meme" is wrong in that it's dismissive. The "meme" may be subjective, but it's not invalid, and should be okay to voice from a subjective standpoint. No, it shouldn't be claimed that it's universally true, and people that do so are, again, objectively wrong.

It may be dismissive, but, then again, we've SEEN it in this thread and many, many others that people are making broad sweeping statements about the system without actually taking the time to READ the system.

Fighters are like Wizards because of AEDU? I'd buy that, in a way, although, I find it rather trivially easy to justify. Heck, how do people justify the Trip Fighter in 3e doing the same attack over and over and over and over and over again, fight after fight, level after level?

People like to point to tripping as a prime example. "You can only trip with an encounter power? How can you limit the number of trip attempts in a combat? That's so much like a wizard." Only problem is, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping you from trying to trip something without using a power. Basic Melee attack, deals no damage, target is knocked prone. Done.

Considering how little effect prone actually has in 4e, do we REALLY need a specific mechanic for it?

Now, if you want to deal damage and knock something prone, then you have to use a power and that will be limited to a certain number of times per fight. Fair enough - we're not talking about just pushing someone over here, we're talking about that scene in an action movie where the character sweeps the guy's legs and then spikes him into the floor.

Do we really want to go back to spamming the same action over and over again?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It may be dismissive, but, then again, we've SEEN it in this thread and many, many others that people are making broad sweeping statements about the system without actually taking the time to READ the system.

Or apparently, often not even reading rebuttals to their mistaken points. It is quite easy to criticize 4E without making up stuff that isn't there, yet some people have clung to untruths about 4E since its launch. Prove them wrong with a long thread and multiple cites from the text and multiple testimony from actual play, they'll drop it. Next week or next month, back the same false assertions will creep in.

It's almost as if they need 4E to be worse than it is for some reason. Hmm.

 

[Hussar]

Or apparently, often not even reading rebuttals to their mistaken points. It is quite easy to criticize 4E without making up stuff that isn't there, yet some people have clung to untruths about 4E since its launch. Prove them wrong with a long thread and multiple cites from the text and multiple testimony from actual play, they'll drop it. Next week or next month, back the same false assertions will creep in.

It's almost as if they need 4E to be worse than it is for some reason. Hmm.

I have to admit, I'm getting rather tired having to have the exact same conversation, often with the same people, over and over and over again. Perhaps this is the source of my dismissiveness.

I'd like to go back to JC's point for a second:

So, players will play a Wizard, and then play a Fighter, and oftentimes, I think the change in how the action resolution system interacts with the fiction is off-putting. They've become accustomed to a more simulation-based approach to interacting with the fiction, and now Fighters are acting like Wizards according to the action resolution system.

See, the problem here is that we're not actually talking about simulation. 4e simulates high action drama rather well. In an action movie, or story, you don't see the characters performing the same trick over and over again throughout the story. They do different things all the time. Even though you might be able to do a super Jean Claude Van Damme high kick, he doesn't do it in every fight against every opponent. That would be boring.

I think it's more to do with the idea that people just don't want to interact with the game on that level. They're perfectly fine with both sides lining up and trading blows in a fairly static manner until one side falls down. But 4e won't let you do that. The trade off, of course, is that 4e is a lot more finicky in combat and it does take longer to resolve.

I guess, at the end of the day, it's all about priorities. If you just want to get to the end of the fight as soon as possible, then all the 4e bits just get in the way of that. OTOH, if you see combat as being a fun part of the game, equally as fun as any other part, then 4e probably speaks to that.

 

[Umbran]

I have to admit, I'm getting rather tired having to have the exact same conversation, often with the same people, over and over and over again.

Then don't have it.

You don't have to have the conversation. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Western civilization will not fall if you just leave it be.

It is hard, but important to learn to walk away. Otherwise, you wind up looking like: