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

[Zustiur]

I think the important question here is: Is this a practical reality for a significant portion of 3E players?

It is easy to get the idea of a niche build character optimized around a trick. And, as with so many other points, I completely concede that 3E has no barrier to prevent that. But lacking a safeguard against something is one thing and actively encouraging it is another altogether.
[snip] Telling me "thou shalt not use this power more than once per encounter" is a major flaw for a system to overcome.

Apparently I XPed you recently.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who never actually encountered these problems of 3E during actual play. Sadly I do encounter problems with 4E.

In fact, if I had to name any one edition as being the one that 'encourages' gamist play, it would be 4E.

But, I would point out, that your third example has nothing to do with active maneuvers used by players. It's an artifact of your critical hits table, nothing more. No one at the table TRIED to blind the character deliberately.

Equally, the monk character wasn't trying to FEED his arm to the dragon. So the 'feed arm to dragon' daily power you surmised earlier is equally invalid.

That presumes that you have only one encounter power though. There are numerous powers that have similar effects. Sure, you might not be able to push/immobilize/whatever him in exactly the same way the next round, but, you've got a bag full of other tricks that you could apply. It's an instant kick back into 'this is a board game' mindset for me. If my character can't do the appropriate [mundane physical] thing for some abstract gamey reason, I don't feel like I'm playing an RPG anymore.

To me, doing the same thing twice in a row is never awesome. It's boring.

But that's just the point. If my character has learned a combat trick for knocking his opponent prone, and it doesn't succeed the first time, why wouldn't he try again? It's a thing which really breaks the scene for me. "I need to trip my opponent, I know how to trip my opponent, but I've run out of trip powers". WTF? I'm not going to try an immobilize instead, I'm going to trip him. That's the appropriate task, so that's what I'd try.

I was talking about encounter powers, not something you can just use over and over. I'd personally prefer your method, however

We appear to have compatible game styles. If I ever find myself living in in Cal [unlikely!] I'll look you up

 

[Hussar]

Question: Do you think all the people playing PF and/or still playing 3X are bored? Or do you think maybe they don't have the problem you have identified?

I'm not disputing the legitimacy of this issue for you. But for the market as a whole, how do you reconcile your declaration of boring with the current face of the marketplace?

Honestly, BryonD, trying to turn this into yet another edition pissing contest is of ZERO interest to me. I quite simply don't care one whit how people who play a game that I've never really even looked at play. Not in the slightest. Don't care.

But, that doesn't change the fact that spamming the same action over and over and over again is boring.

Does it happen at your table? Don't care. Frankly. Why would I care what happens at your table. I only care what happens at mine. And, I don't want to play at tables where spamming the same action over and over and over again is mechanically the best option out there.

As far as how widespread the issue is, I'd have to guess that that's what market research is for. Again, I'm in no position to pretend to know what happens at most of the tables, so, I'm never going to base my argument on what's good for the "industry".

Now, if you don't mind, we're having an interesting discussion about mechanics. Please leave the edition warring at the door. Thanks.

 

[pemerton]

Zustiur, without thinking harder about maths and balance than I'm able to at the moment, I can't say much about your suggestions (except your Trip attack might be a bit strong - prone is better than push 1, I think, which is what a Bull Rush gives in 4e).

But I wanted to pick up on what's probably just a tangential point (sorry):

Being able to sleep almost whenever you want is not actually a problem caused by having Vancian casting. Being able to sleep whenever you want is a sign that:
* The dungeon (or whatever) is not dangerous
* The characters aren't under any time pressure

If you have infinite time, why wouldn't you be cautious?
On the other hand, take away either of those statements, and suddenly your spells do start to run out. That's really a module and DM specific thing. It's not strictly a fault of the system.

I agree that adventure design matters here, but I'm not comfortable with saying that it's the only, or even main, thing going on.

In Call of Cthulhu, it might be a reasonable assumption to make that there is always time pressure. But in D&D I don't think that's so. There is at least a tradition, in D&D, of exploration-oriented scenarios in which the players have the main levers of time in their hands, and the pressures on resting aren't that great (eg wilderness exploration in AD&D and B/X).

If the system breaks down in that sort of scenario which is reasonably mainstream within the traditions of the game, I think that's a system issue and not just a scenario issue.

 

[Hussar]

Equally, the monk character wasn't trying to FEED his arm to the dragon. So the 'feed arm to dragon' daily power you surmised earlier is equally invalid.

He slathered poison all over his hand for the express purpose of putting said hand INTO the dragon's mouth to poison the dragon. I'd say he was trying to feed his arm to the dragon.

Note, you're right, in 4e it would not be a daily power. It would be a page 42 ad hoc power. I used the word daily because if you look at page 42, it bases the damage ranges on whether or not a given action should be on par with an at-will, encounter or daily power. In this case, I'd use the Daily damage column and likely jump up several levels because the player is willing to do permanent damage to his character.

Totally awesome idea and, as a DM, I want to give every carrot I can to the player for trying it.

But that's just the point. If my character has learned a combat trick for knocking his opponent prone, and it doesn't succeed the first time, why wouldn't he try again? It's a thing which really breaks the scene for me. "I need to trip my opponent, I know how to trip my opponent, but I've run out of trip powers". WTF? I'm not going to try an immobilize instead, I'm going to trip him. That's the appropriate task, so that's what I'd try.

Ahh, now this is a somewhat separate issue. I totally agree that more powers need to be reliable. If I miss, I don't think that encounter powers should get burned, unless they have effects outside of hitting.

But, by the same token, if you run out of trip powers, for example, why are you still focusing on tripping him? Why isn't immobilize just as good? After all, isn't the point of the exercise to stop his movement? Why does it HAVE to be tripping?

 

[pemerton]

Equally, the monk character wasn't trying to FEED his arm to the dragon. So the 'feed arm to dragon' daily power you surmised earlier is equally invalid.

Although a daily power need not reflect what the PC him-/herself is trying to do. It can be treated as a metagame "token" or "Fate Point" played by the player to produce a desired outcome for the PC.

A more banal example would be the Brutal Strike fighter power in 4e. There is nothing at all wrong with playing your fighter on the assumption that every strike is intended (by the PC) to be as brutal as possible, but only when you (the player) choose to activate the Brutal Strike power is a hit going to deliver 3W+STR rather than 1W+STR.

This idead of encounter and daily powers (especially martial encounter and daily powers) as metagame resources for the player, rather than ingame resources for the character, is part of their appeal for some (perhaps many) 4e players.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I guess I don't see a big difference between "numerous powers that do similar things" and one ability that can be used multiple times with a penalty.

To me, having "numerous powers that do similar things" sounds both boring and a waste of a lot of book space. I would rather have a few abilities that are completely different and could be used multiple times (even at a penalty) than "numerous powers that do similar things".

 

[pemerton]

if you run out of trip powers, for example, why are you still focusing on tripping him? Why isn't immobilize just as good? After all, isn't the point of the exercise to stop his movement? Why does it HAVE to be tripping?

I would add to this - if you (the player) run out of trip powers, it doesn't mean that your PC is not trying to trip the enemy. It's just that you don't succeed! Instead, the enemy tries to counter-trip and you end up in a grapple (ie you, the player, deploy your immobilise power instead).

There are further questions to be asked (and [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] is the person to ask them) about whether 4e does enough to join the mechanics to this fictional colour (or is it all just epiphenomenal) but that's a somewhat separate matter, I think.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There is a certain amount of truth to the idea that lots of people can get all kinds of useful results out of a game when they aren't pushing it too hard in play. I find, for example, that most systems run better overall when you don't make every fight a life and death struggle. (There are exceptions, of course, both in systems and groups using them.) So in that sense, playing at "full throttle" is abnormal.

OTOH, I've also found that people who aren't pushing the system are often missing key experience when it comes to the design of the system--and yes, that includes me balancing encounters. There's a sense in which if you say that pushing full throttle isn't a concern, then your opinions on what makes for good balance in design tend towards the not very useful--since you don't care enough about balance to have thought about it much or tested it in play.

At its most extreme, this comes out in those who advocate purely from what is simulated in the game, often from their own peculiar view of what fantasy verisimilitude entails, and are quite happy fudging away large sets of results if they are otherwise happy with the simulated process. Whatever else may be the virtue of their approach, they have nothing to say to me about design--as if they aren't even speaking the same language when questions of game design are the subject.

I think I am about as big a fan of, "the spirit of the game it the main thing," as there can be, and still care about design at all. I just happen to think that if the spirit is conveyed only in flavor, not in mechanics, that it will ultimately be rather superficial or hollow. I recognize that not everyone sees things that way, but I'm not at all sure the recognition cuts the other way.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Eldritch Lord - that's entirely the problem. I DON'T want a situation where using the same maneuver three times in the same combat is ever a good idea. It's boring.

You are a rogue, scouting ahead in the dungeon. You run into four goblins in one room, who shout in alarm and try to run away to alert their tribe. You kill one with a sneak attack in the surprise round, then have a few options. You know you can't kill them all in time, and grappling one would let the others escape, but you could attempt to trip or immobilize each of them, which would slow them down enough for you to get ahead of them and prevent them from escaping until your party can mop them up.

Sadly, you trip one, but two of the goblins escape to alert their tribe to come slaughter you and your party, because tripping all three of them would be boring.

Should that rogue be prevented from trying the trip/immobilize maneuver multiple times because you believe it is "boring" to re-use a maneuver in the same combat? Not at all. If there is ever the circumstance that using a particular maneuver is a good idea, there will always be circumstances, however situational, where using that maneuver multiple times is a good idea and would be no more boring than a normal attack because that maneuver is the logical choice in that scenario. In such a circumstance, one should not be prevented from doing so because of the potential for spamming; spamming should be prevented in a different way, i.e. not introducing a feat/power/etc. that makes that maneuver better than a normal attack!

The 3e tripper is a worthwhile build because Improved Trip gives you a free attack after you use one to trip, meaning there is no reason not to attempt to trip with every attack because you still have a chance to attack normally if you succeed, and because a prone target makes further attacks easier so if you miss the first or second trip attempt you make up for it later. Trip spamming exists because it goes from being a terrible option (provoke AoO, take penalty, use up attack) to a good one (no AoO, gain bonus, get free attack) with no middle ground, which is exactly the opposite of what is being suggested here. If you don't make a maneuver better than a normal attack and inflict a gradually scaling penalty, that problem goes away.

 

[Zustiur]

Zustiur, without thinking harder about maths and balance than I'm able to at the moment, I can't say much about your suggestions (except your Trip attack might be a bit strong - prone is better than push 1, I think, which is what a Bull Rush gives in 4e).

Agreed, which is why my system allows for more than 1 square, although the total isn't yet decided. In other words, first draft (top of page 15 if you want to see the rest of what I wrote)

There is at least a tradition, in D&D, of exploration-oriented scenarios in which the players have the main levers of time in their hands, and the pressures on resting aren't that great (eg wilderness exploration in AD&D and B/X).

Yep, there sure is. But I don't see why resting is a problem in that situation. If the story allows them 100 days to explore an area, and it will take them roughly 3 days to explore. Why wouldn't they do so cautiously? If there isn't a logical story-based reason to press on, I don't really see the 15 minute work day as an issue. I see it more as 'the characters doing the sensible thing in the situation presented'.

He slathered poison all over his hand for the express purpose of putting said hand INTO the dragon's mouth to poison the dragon. I'd say he was trying to feed his arm to the dragon.

Hmm. I either misread it, or forgot that specific detail. I thought the intent was to attack the dragon with his poisoned arm as a weapon. Not to specifically put it in the dragon's mouth. Regardless, succeeding would still have been less awesome than having the dragon foolishly do the work for him

Ahh, now this is a somewhat separate issue. I totally agree that more powers need to be reliable. If I miss, I don't think that encounter powers should get burned, unless they have effects outside of hitting.

Ahh, but I did not mention MISSING.
Say there's an acid pit, and you're fighting some trolls. You're a martial character, so acid and fire attacks aren't an option. What do you do? Push/slide powers and Bull Rush obviously.

Now say our fighter is successful with his first push power attack, but that he only has one power with a Push. He's slain one troll, but there's 3 left. Logically, being a martial trick, it's something the fighter knows how to do, so he should be able to do it again. But the game rules prevent it, even though the story makes it appropriate. It's not the same troll, so it hasn't 'learned it's lesson' from the first use of the power.

He's left with bull rush, which he'll have to do repeatedly, at the cost of only ever moving 1 square at a time, and doing no damage. He can do that all day long, so why not the power based push?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I put up with it because 4E is the only game I have going right now, but I don't like it.

If all attack options were balanced against a MBA, there's no reason to limit them to a single use. It's the 'intentional overpoweredness' of encounters and dailies that force them to have a limit.

But, by the same token, if you run out of trip powers, for example, why are you still focusing on tripping him? Why isn't immobilize just as good? After all, isn't the point of the exercise to stop his movement? Why does it HAVE to be tripping?

Depends entirely upon the situation. First example that comes to mind - a wrestling match. The objective is to pin your opponent to the ground on his back. Trip first, then grapple, or grapple then trip is basically how it goes in reality. 4E's insistence that I only make the attempt once is what irks me.
As I've said several times, I want to be able to use the special attack which is appropriate to the situation. Not the one I happen to have in my available powers list.

With magic, I have no issue with vancian mechanics [powers] because it's magic, and it doesn't exist in the real world. When dealing with real world things [martial arts] I expect the game to reflect the real world to a believable degree. As soon as it stops being believable [can't make the same attack twice] I stop enjoying the game. Let me put that another way. If this were a boardgame, like Hero Quest or Warhammer Quest, rather than an RPG, I'd have no problem whatsoever with powers. As an RPG, I require the game to include a certain level of believability. Powers don't fulfill that requirement.

To put it in your own terms; I want to have 'awesome' all the time with no periods of boredom. Though in this case, the awesome is 'being excited and focused on the game'. Being forced to use a different power instead breaks my focus, and stops me having fun/awesomeness.

Although a daily power need not reflect what the PC him-/herself is trying to do. It can be treated as a metagame "token" or "Fate Point" played by the player to produce a desired outcome for the PC.

Yes, I recognize the concept, but I don't enjoy it. Again, it breaks me out of the moment. Am I playing the character, or am I playing the hand of fate?
I want to play my character and leave the dice to determine fate.

To me, having "numerous powers that do similar things" sounds both boring and a waste of a lot of book space. I would rather have a few abilities that are completely different and could be used multiple times (even at a penalty) than "numerous powers that do similar things".

Totally agree. Reading through powers and trying to choose between them has to be one of the most boring DND experiences I've ever encountered. Naturally, other people will feel differently about that.

Feats aren't much better. Last time I leveled up (to 14) I read through all the available feats and made a list of all the ones that didn't suck. Then I reviewed my list based on what suited the character etc. When I reached the end of that 2nd pass, I realized that there wasn't a single feat in the entire game that I actually WANTED. That's a pretty sad state of affairs. I ended up just picking Iron Will, and penciling in Lightning Reflexes and Great Fortitude for my next two picks, just because I couldn't be bothered trying to find anything that was interesting amongst all the dross.

I would add to this - if you (the player) run out of trip powers, it doesn't mean that your PC is not trying to trip the enemy. It's just that you don't succeed! Instead, the enemy tries to counter-trip and you end up in a grapple (ie you, the player, deploy your immobilise power instead).

If you apply that logic to special attacks, then by extension it should be applied to basic attacks as well. 'I've used this attack before, therefore my opponent has learned about it and will counter it.' At which point you end up with only being able to damage an opponent once. No thanks. I'd rather see the counter-trip etc happen in game, instead of having it forced 'off screen' by the rules.