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

[Mattachine]

The gelatinous cube isn't so much a "game mechanics" monster in the same sense that a rust monster or mimic is, as it is a "dungeon ecology" monster--it's there to explain how corpses are removed, dungeons are cleaned, and so forth, and its common use as a treasure-dissolver or PC-eater at the bottom of pit traps is secondary.


You didn't need to wait for errata to tell you that, but there shouldn't be any need for that in the first place. Again, the main issue here is the tension between increased codification and increased reliance on DM interpretation. 4e added tons of keywords for various things, and those keywords made things a lot more streamlined, concise, and easy to interpret, just like 3e adding lots of keywords made things more streamlined, concise, and easy to interpret than similar situations in AD&D.

Yet many things in the game were introduced which ignored keywords or at least didn't make use of them. How hard would it be to make keywords for physical forced movement vs. persuaded forced movement? How hard would it be to have a "persuasive" keyword for intimidation-/insult-type effects to govern how they operate, or a "mindless" keyword to govern how oozes, zombies, etc. operate? Again, people rave about how codified powers empower players and allow them to achieve what they want without DM fiat, then turn around and say that many changes are "obvious" and that DMs can do things how they want, and you simply can't have it both ways.



More than telling the DM that he can make rulings--which every DMG has done--it should tell him how to make rulings. Advice like how to decide on the ruling to make, polling players before making large changes, informing players in advance about changes, etc. would make things a lot better for new (or simply bad) DMs out there.

* Creating a monster to explain why all these 10'x10' dungeon corridors is clean is a game mechanics monster in my book.


In any case, I agree that a DM shouldn't have to make rulings on everything, but we make them when we have to. No rulebook has come out without the need to make rulings or houserules. Sometimes, errata never comes, or only comes in the form of "official rulings" in Dragon Magazine (back in the 1980's, for instance). The fact that a few powers left off an important keyword (such as Fear, which would be great for Come and Get It), doesn't indict the whole system.

I don't see a dichotomy between concise, specified rules and the DM making common sense rulings. Both should exist.


We both seem to agree that the new DMG, whatever form it takes, should have a specific section on making rulings, with guidelines about making them. Some editions have done this well, and some have not.

 

[P1NBACK]

So while it doesn't simulate our reality at all...

Eh? You've never seen someone made so mad with taunts that they attack the person taunting them?

That's mind control, my man. And, it happens in our reality all the time.

 

[Szatany]

I think a great way to change encounter powers in 4e is by using power points, like 4e psionics.

You could change the name to whatever you want (like vitality, fatigue, etc.). During an encounter, the character can "spend" effort to make otherwise at-will attacks even better.

Dump dailies, boost the amount of points, and perhaps add some ways to regain points during a fight--this is what I am doing for my 4e superhero game I am working on. Love it.

While I think this is a good idea, I'd tweak it.
Those points would be about awareness of warrior's surroundings and his ability to exploit momentary occasions that happen now and then. Martial characters begin each combat with a small amount of this resource and gain more as a battle progresses. They can also perform risky actions that evoke powerful effects but grant enemies this resource.

In fact, various martial classes would utilize this resource in different ways:
fighter - his "at-will" attacks generate resource, more powerful one cost it
barbarian - most of his special attacks doesn't cost the resource, but instead grants it to the opponent
ranger - gains resource while moving around (or away from) enemy, his animal companion can generate it for the ranger too
warlord - gains resource when allies flank the enemy
rogue - gains resource when enemy makes mistakes, spends it to evoke or empower critical hits

 

[Zustiur]

The PCs didn't really take damage from the battle so they didn't care if they had to face it over and over again in order to do the 15MAD. In fact, they started getting happy it was there because they were gaining levels faster than the purchased adventure I was running expected them to, so they were beating all the other encounters easier.

So, you're players were enjoying it? Isn't that kind of the point of playing?

I don't mean to be flippant here, nor tell you how to play; but your example struck me as DM oversight. If your players are having fun, you're on the right track. If they want a 15 minute work day, then that clearly IS a play-group thing.
Also, this example strikes me as being one where the DM should have taken a moment to look at the situation with fresh eyes, and consider it from the point of view of the BBEG:
"Someone keeps killing my door guards and running away? HUH, I'll show them. Put the same number of guards at the door, and then hide a dozen more in the bushes to ambush them when they attack."
If that fails, he can then send another group of guards out to attack the party during the night.

In other words, put some sense back into the situation. If the world is static, you're encouraging the players to use the 15 minute work day. If there's a CONSEQUENCE of the 15 minute work day behaviour, the players will alter their behaviour accordingly.
Random encounters are a consequence.
Time limits are a consequence.
Those two things are not the sum total of potential consequences you can use.
One of my favourites is "You took so long that another party came in and took all the loot". See how quickly they change their behaviour when they're denied XP or loot.

They end up ruining what I consider the most fun outcome if anything goes wrong, even dice rolls. One encounter along the way to the BBEG go poorly for the PCs? Now they are in a lose-lose situation. They've used too many resources to survive the BBEG, so they'll die if they continue...but if they go back and rest, then the time limit on the adventure will be up.

You want the players to keep moving, not acting in the 15 minute work day. But at the same time, you don't want to risk ever over-challenging them. This can happen in any edition. EVEN 4E.

4E didn't get rid of the 15 minute work day. It really didn't. The option is still there. The behaviour can still happen. It has only been obscured by the encounter mechanics.
Take my party: we're 14th level, so we've got 3 dailies and 4 utilities each. We also play with 2 APs per milestone/extended rest.
We COULD blow all our dailies and APs on the first battle, then take an extended rest. The effect would be exactly like the 15 minute work day.
4th edition has done absolutely nothing to REMOVE that. The only difference is the invention of encounter powers which put players into a different mindset.
The behaviour is still mechanically supported, if the players are of mind to work that way.

There are two reasons why my play group doesn't do this:
1) In our first 4E adventure, we got half way through, then left to rest. Someone else cleared the dungeon while we were resting
2) Our DM told us as players that he doesn't want us to behave that way.

3E doesn't invalidate either of those reasons.

And this is the basic point that seems to get ignored. 3e doesn't work for some of us. It really, honestly, truly doesn't. We have to jump through all sorts of hoops to make it work in the way we want it to. But, now, we have the choice - play 4e which fits both styles of games quite easily.

Understood. But do you understand that 4e honestly, truly doesn't work for others? Can you entertain the idea that there's an alternate system which would work for both of us? It might be a 'happy medium' or it might be an entirely different mechanic.

4E didn't 'fix' 3E. It just offered an alternative.

If you only have one encounter per day, then, by definition, you are having a 15 MAD. That's what a 15 MAD IS. Sure you could spend 7 hours poncing about doing other stuff, but, when the dice hit the table, the adventuring day is now 15 minutes long.

On the contrary.
The 15 minute work day, by definition, is two things:
1) The pattern:
Wake up
Spend 15 minutes preparing spells. (This is where the term comes from!)
Fight
Rest
2) The intent:
"We've blown all our spells, so we're just going to wait here all day then rest. Then we'll do it all over again tomorrow."
If you spend 7 hours poncing about doing other stuff, then resting is actually logical, because it's now NIGHT TIME.If you travel between cities, and only get attacked once along the way, you have every right to go nova on the bad guys. If the party finds that they've reached the end of the day with only one encounter, they can count themselves lucky. The next day might not go so smoothly. That's a very different thing from intending to only spend 15 minutes of activity during the day.

For what it's worth, the 15 minute work day was just as viable in 0E, 1E and 2E. It's not something that's specific to 3E.


I like my earlier point so much I'll say it again:
4E didn't 'fix' 3E. It just offered an alternative.

This thread has been turning into more and more of an edition war.
Can we please focus on suggesting fixes and alternatives, instead of arguing over things were more broken in 3E or more broken in 4E?


If you feel the 15 minute work day is a problem; suggest some mechanical ways of preventing it. Encounter powers do not prevent it. They only provide players with a different mindset. You can change player mindset in many other non-mechanical ways.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

* Creating a monster to explain why all these 10'x10' dungeon corridors is clean is a game mechanics monster in my book.

To each his own. I like to make a distinction between purely "screw you, players!" monsters like rust monsters, mimics, trappers, lurkers, brown mold, and the like and ecology monsters like delvers, gelatinous cubes, and such.

In any case, I agree that a DM shouldn't have to make rulings on everything, but we make them when we have to. No rulebook has come out without the need to make rulings or houserules. Sometimes, errata never comes, or only comes in the form of "official rulings" in Dragon Magazine (back in the 1980's, for instance). The fact that a few powers left off an important keyword (such as Fear, which would be great for Come and Get It), doesn't indict the whole system.

I don't see a dichotomy between concise, specified rules and the DM making common sense rulings. Both should exist.

The dichotomy there is one between necessity and choice. There will always be some situation somewhere that isn't covered, because a ruleset simply can't cover every possible eventuality, and that's perfectly fine. That's exactly where a ruling is desirable. However, cases where the designers explicitly say "Make this rule up, DM!" where the rule is not campaign-dependent (like basic combat mechanics) or cases where people respond to criticisms of the vagueness of specific rules with "Eh, the DM can fiat something" are not fine. That's designer laziness in the former case and contradictory design goals in the latter case. I've only been harping on the latter case here.

We both seem to agree that the new DMG, whatever form it takes, should have a specific section on making rulings, with guidelines about making them. Some editions have done this well, and some have not.

Definitely. Many of the DM horror stories I've seen on the internet could be solved with a page or two in the DMG explaining railroading (and why not to do it), good rulings (and how and when to make them), and similar.

Eh? You've never seen someone made so mad with taunts that they attack the person taunting them?

That's mind control, my man. And, it happens in our reality all the time.

The specific mechanic in question is one that says you can taunt someone who threatens you to such an extent that they'll be mad enough to only attack you with weapons, but not taunt someone to the extent that they'll only attack you with spells and only move towards you, and not taunt anyone out of weapon reach at all. It's that fine-grained control, rather than something general like "Pick a target, they must make a Will save or act offensively towards you to the exclusion of your allies to the best of their ability," that makes it seem like a wacky form of mind control rather than actual taunting or goading.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Lots of other games do this when you try to balance the muggles with the magicians. Buffy comes to mind immediately, although there's a boatload of others. It's the recognition that if you force the muggle character to only what they can do inside the game, you might as well call them sidekick's and be done with it. Because they're never, ever going to come anywhere near par with the casters.

Well, the problem is that it's not necessarily true whatsoever.

That is, in my RPG, being a magician is being something that is extremely versatile. You can attack, disable limbs, throw up illusions, speed people up, give people bonuses, etc., but there's basically a check on it all. Yes, you can turn somebody translucent, but it just lets them hide with no cover or concealment, but they still need to make a Hide check. Yes, they can deal damage, but they won't be dealing as much as a mundane warrior. Yes, they can attempt to let someone understand an entirely new language, but they still need to make a Comprehension check. Yes, they can give themselves a bonus on attack, but only up to their base attack. Yes, they can use a divination spell to locate someone/something, but it's limited by people's perceptions, and the less people know, the harder it is to learn.

By not just bypassing mechanics that apply to mundane characters, and by putting them behind dedicated mundane characters in their areas, you keep them largely in check. Sure, I can turn myself translucent, but it'd be better on the Thief. Sure, I can let myself learn a new language, but it'd be better on the Bard. Sure, I can give myself a bonus on attacks, but it'd be better on the Fighter.

You can definitely reign in magic to the point where mundane creatures aren't useless without having to apply a mechanic that does not manifest in-game (such as your description of marking) over and over. Now, you can definitely take that route, and it's not bad or invalid. And, a lot of people will think it's easier. But, it's not necessarily more satisfying. In fact, that seems to be where a lot of people dislike that approach of 4e, judging by the forum support for the Alexandrian's Dissociated Mechanics essay (as contentious as it is).

At any rate, just chiming in to say that no, you don't need those mechanics to balance magicians in the game. Just don't let magic bypass your skill system, and put caps on their power. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

But, JC - while yes, you could do all that, you're not playing D&D anymore. You've had to rewrite the entire magic system to achieve what you want. Or, you could play 4e and do it out of the box.

I'm not saying that you can't do what you've done JC. But the amount of work that you've clearly done here is such that I have to ask, why bother using D&D in the first place? If you've had to go through the thousands of spells, powers, feats, and class features to retweak every one of them, adding in a boat load of house rules like needing skill checks when using spells and the like, I have to ask, why bother?

Why rewrite an entire game when there are other systems sitting there just begging to be used that already do what you want?

 

[BryonD]

But, JC - while yes, you could do all that, you're not playing D&D anymore. You've had to rewrite the entire magic system to achieve what you want. Or, you could play 4e and do it out of the box.

I don't agree here, so please don't take the following as me actually embracing this point.

But I'm amused that you just established 4E as an equal alternative to "not playing D&D anymore."

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, JC - while yes, you could do all that, you're not playing D&D anymore. You've had to rewrite the entire magic system to achieve what you want.

I'm not someone who would claim that 4e isn't D&D, and that is exactly what they did.

Or, you could play 4e and do it out of the box.

Which rewrote the entire magic system to achieve what they wanted.

I'm not saying that you can't do what you've done JC. But the amount of work that you've clearly done here is such that I have to ask, why bother using D&D in the first place? If you've had to go through the thousands of spells, powers, feats, and class features to retweak every one of them, adding in a boat load of house rules like needing skill checks when using spells and the like, I have to ask, why bother?

I mean, I didn't. I don't have "spells" as such. Every spell is compiled on the fly, using different components. Each component has a way that it works (if you want to understand a language, roll a Comprehension check) that utilizes the existing mechanics of the game. I also don't have classes, so no class features to tweak. I trashed all feats, started at a base, and added feats I liked for my system. I'm not playing D&D, but from my experience with my game, you can certainly use methods I have and apply that to the new edition.

Why rewrite an entire game when there are other systems sitting there just begging to be used that already do what you want?

They don't. But, as far as D&D and 5e goes, they're going to rewrite the spell system. And class features. And feats. Just as 4e did, in fact. Why not apply these limitations (not bypassing existing mechanics) when making these new feats, spells, class features, etc.? As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, ok, that's funny and I admit it.

Then again, I thought this was a thread about D&D. 4e does rewrite the magic system, true. But, that's not quite the position I was taking. I thought that JC had rewritten 3e to do what he wanted.

He hasn't. He's created an entirely new system - classless, with no vancian magic, and no feats - I'm pretty willing to say that this isn't even in the same category as D&D.

4e, OTOH, while rewriting the magic system, is far, far closer to 3e than what JC is talking about. Taking Vancian magic out of D&D doesn't make it not-D&D, at least for me, but, changing pretty much every element of the game? Yeah, that makes it not-D&D.

But, yeah, I can see how you could read it that way.